| Revision as of 17:16, 25 March 2013 editJpacobb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,715 edits reduce lead section to overview← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:20, 25 March 2013 edit undoJpacobb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,715 edits started patristic sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{refimprove|date=April 2010}} | {{refimprove|date=April 2010}} | ||
| {{italic title}} | {{italic title}}{{Main|Person of Christ}} | ||
| '''''Communicatio idiomatum''''' ({{lang-la|communication of properties}}) is a Christological<ref group="n">The adjective ''christological'' can be used in two different ways. Here it is used in the narrow sense as defined in this sentence. It can also be used for the much wider range of doctrines which were traditionally labelled the "Person and Work of Jesus Christ" ({{cite book|last=McGrath |first=Alister E|title=Christian Theology|publisher=Blackwell |page=345}})</ref> concept about the interaction of deity and humanity in the person of ]. It maintains that in view of the unity of Christ's person, his human and divine attributes and experiences might properly be referred his human and divine natures respectively.<ref name="kelly1">Kelly, J.N.D. ''Early Christian Doctrines'' A & C Black (1965) p.143</ref> The germ of the idea is first found in ] (c.100 AD) (]) but the development of an adequate, agreed technical vocabulary only took place in the fifth century with the ] in 431 and ] twenty years later and the approval of the doctrine of the ] of the two distinct ] of Christ.<!--the to Christian orthodoxy has maintained that the divine and the human are fully unified in Jesus Christ (according to the ] in 431)<ref>{{citation|last=Christie|first=Francis|date=April 1912|title=Luther and Others|journal=The Harvard Theological Review|publisher=]|volume=5|issue=2|pages=240–250|issn=0017-8160|jstor=1507428|doi=10.1017/S001781600001347X}}</ref> but that the two natures also remain distinct (according to the ] in AD 451). Christians agree that the two natures, distinct yet unified, participate in some sort of exchange. However, there remains disagreement in the exact dynamic of this incarnational union. Those leaning toward an Antiochene Christology stress the distinction of natures and therefore a more tightly regulated communication of properties; those of the Alexandrian Christology persuasion underscore the unity of Jesus Christ and therefore a more complete communication of properties.<ref>{{citation|last=Need|first=Stephen|date=April 1995|title=Language, Metaphor, and Chalcedon: A Case of Theological Double Vision|journal=The Harvard Theological Review|publisher=]|volume=88|issue=2|pages=237–255|issn=0017-8160|jstor=1509887|doi=10.1017/S0017816000030327}}</ref>--> | '''''Communicatio idiomatum''''' ({{lang-la|communication of properties}}) is a Christological<ref group="n">The adjective ''christological'' can be used in two different ways. Here it is used in the narrow sense as defined in this sentence. It can also be used for the much wider range of doctrines which were traditionally labelled the "Person and Work of Jesus Christ" ({{cite book|last=McGrath |first=Alister E|title=Christian Theology|publisher=Blackwell |page=345}})</ref> concept about the interaction of deity and humanity in the person of ]. It maintains that in view of the unity of Christ's person, his human and divine attributes and experiences might properly be referred his human and divine natures respectively.<ref name="kelly1">Kelly, J.N.D. ''Early Christian Doctrines'' A & C Black (1965) p.143</ref> The germ of the idea is first found in ] (c.100 AD) (]) but the development of an adequate, agreed technical vocabulary only took place in the fifth century with the ] in 431 and ] twenty years later and the approval of the doctrine of the ] of the two distinct ] of Christ.<!--the to Christian orthodoxy has maintained that the divine and the human are fully unified in Jesus Christ (according to the ] in 431)<ref>{{citation|last=Christie|first=Francis|date=April 1912|title=Luther and Others|journal=The Harvard Theological Review|publisher=]|volume=5|issue=2|pages=240–250|issn=0017-8160|jstor=1507428|doi=10.1017/S001781600001347X}}</ref> but that the two natures also remain distinct (according to the ] in AD 451). Christians agree that the two natures, distinct yet unified, participate in some sort of exchange. However, there remains disagreement in the exact dynamic of this incarnational union. Those leaning toward an Antiochene Christology stress the distinction of natures and therefore a more tightly regulated communication of properties; those of the Alexandrian Christology persuasion underscore the unity of Jesus Christ and therefore a more complete communication of properties.<ref>{{citation|last=Need|first=Stephen|date=April 1995|title=Language, Metaphor, and Chalcedon: A Case of Theological Double Vision|journal=The Harvard Theological Review|publisher=]|volume=88|issue=2|pages=237–255|issn=0017-8160|jstor=1509887|doi=10.1017/S0017816000030327}}</ref>--> | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| The philosopher ] has argued that the communicatio idiomatum applies not just to Christ, but should be generalised to cover all human action: 'This ''communicatio'' of divine and human ''idiomatum'' is a fundamental law and the master-key of all our knowledge and of the whole visible economy'.<ref>{{citation|last1=Hamann|first1=Johann|editor1-last=Haynes|editor1-first=Kenneth|title=Writings on Philosophy and Language|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=VjlOPgAACAAJ|accessdate=2012-12-06|year=2007|publisher=]|location=Leiden|isbn=978-0-511-34139-7|page=99}}</ref> | The philosopher ] has argued that the communicatio idiomatum applies not just to Christ, but should be generalised to cover all human action: 'This ''communicatio'' of divine and human ''idiomatum'' is a fundamental law and the master-key of all our knowledge and of the whole visible economy'.<ref>{{citation|last1=Hamann|first1=Johann|editor1-last=Haynes|editor1-first=Kenneth|title=Writings on Philosophy and Language|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=VjlOPgAACAAJ|accessdate=2012-12-06|year=2007|publisher=]|location=Leiden|isbn=978-0-511-34139-7|page=99}}</ref> | ||
| ==Developments in the Patristic period== | ==Developments in the Patristic period== | ||
| ] emphasised both the oneness of Christ and the reality of his two-fold mode of existence: "There is one physician, composed of flesh and spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, authentic life from death, from Mary and from God, first passible then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord.<ref>Kelly, J.N.D. ''Early Christian Doctrines'' A & C Black (1965) p.143, quoting ''Eph 7,2''</ref> but he uses phrases like 'the blood of God', 'the suffering of my God' and 'God ... was conceived by Mary';<ref name="kelly1"/> ](c.200 AD) stated that the Savior was composed of two 'substances' and the human substance was in every respect genuine. He was the first theologian to tackle the question of the relationship between them; each preserved its particular qualities but christians observe "a twofold condition, not confused but conjoined, Jesus, in one Person at once God and man"<ref name="kellyt">Kelly, J.N.D. ''Early Christian Doctrines'' A & C Black (1965) pp.151,2, quoting ''Adv. Prax. 27'' & ''c. Marc. 2.27''</ref> On the whole he referred what the one person experienced to the appropriate substance but at times uses phrases such as "God was truly crucified, truly died" thus anticipating the ''communicatio idiomatum''.<ref name="kellyt"/> | |||
| ==Lutheran-Reformed debate== | ==Lutheran-Reformed debate== | ||
| {{main|Scholastic Lutheran Christology}} | {{main|Scholastic Lutheran Christology}} | ||
| ] and ] Christians are divided on the ''communicatio idiomatum''. In Reformed doctrine, the divine nature and the human nature are united strictly in the ]. According to his humanity, Jesus Christ remains in heaven as the bodily high priest, even while in his divine nature he is omnipresent. This coincides with the Calvinistic view of the Lord's Supper (real presence), the belief that Christ is truly present at the meal, though not substantially and particularly joined to the elements. Lutherans, on the other hand, describe a union in which the divine and the human natures share their predicates more fully.] of the 17th century called the Reformed doctrine that Christ's divine nature is outside or beyond his human nature the '']''. They spoke of the''genus maiestaticum'', the view that Jesus Christ's human nature becomes "majestic," suffused with the qualities of the divine nature. Therefore, in the eucharist the human, bodily presence of Jesus Christ is "in, within, under" the elements. | ] and ] Christians are divided on the ''communicatio idiomatum''. In Reformed doctrine, the divine nature and the human nature are united strictly in the ]. According to his humanity, Jesus Christ remains in heaven as the bodily high priest, even while in his divine nature he is omnipresent. This coincides with the Calvinistic view of the Lord's Supper (real presence), the belief that Christ is truly present at the meal, though not substantially and particularly joined to the elements. Lutherans, on the other hand, describe a union in which the divine and the human natures share their predicates more fully.] of the 17th century called the Reformed doctrine that Christ's divine nature is outside or beyond his human nature the '']''. They spoke of the''genus maiestaticum'', the view that Jesus Christ's human nature becomes "majestic," suffused with the qualities of the divine nature. Therefore, in the eucharist the human, bodily presence of Jesus Christ is "in, within, under" the elements. | ||
Revision as of 17:20, 25 March 2013
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Communicatio idiomatum" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Communicatio idiomatum (Template:Lang-la) is a Christological concept about the interaction of deity and humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. It maintains that in view of the unity of Christ's person, his human and divine attributes and experiences might properly be referred his human and divine natures respectively. The germ of the idea is first found in Ignatius of Antioch (c.100 AD) (see below) but the development of an adequate, agreed technical vocabulary only took place in the fifth century with the First Council of Ephesus in 431 and The Council of Chalcedon twenty years later and the approval of the doctrine of the hypostatic union of the two distinct natures of Christ.
In the sixteenth century, the Reformed and Lutheran churches disagreed on this question.
The philosopher J.G. Hamann has argued that the communicatio idiomatum applies not just to Christ, but should be generalised to cover all human action: 'This communicatio of divine and human idiomatum is a fundamental law and the master-key of all our knowledge and of the whole visible economy'.
Developments in the Patristic period
Ignatius of Antioch emphasised both the oneness of Christ and the reality of his two-fold mode of existence: "There is one physician, composed of flesh and spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, authentic life from death, from Mary and from God, first passible then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord. but he uses phrases like 'the blood of God', 'the suffering of my God' and 'God ... was conceived by Mary'; Tertullian(c.200 AD) stated that the Savior was composed of two 'substances' and the human substance was in every respect genuine. He was the first theologian to tackle the question of the relationship between them; each preserved its particular qualities but christians observe "a twofold condition, not confused but conjoined, Jesus, in one Person at once God and man" On the whole he referred what the one person experienced to the appropriate substance but at times uses phrases such as "God was truly crucified, truly died" thus anticipating the communicatio idiomatum.
Lutheran-Reformed debate
Main article: Scholastic Lutheran ChristologyReformed and Lutheran Christians are divided on the communicatio idiomatum. In Reformed doctrine, the divine nature and the human nature are united strictly in the person of Christ. According to his humanity, Jesus Christ remains in heaven as the bodily high priest, even while in his divine nature he is omnipresent. This coincides with the Calvinistic view of the Lord's Supper (real presence), the belief that Christ is truly present at the meal, though not substantially and particularly joined to the elements. Lutherans, on the other hand, describe a union in which the divine and the human natures share their predicates more fully.Lutheran scholastics of the 17th century called the Reformed doctrine that Christ's divine nature is outside or beyond his human nature the extra calvinisticum. They spoke of thegenus maiestaticum, the view that Jesus Christ's human nature becomes "majestic," suffused with the qualities of the divine nature. Therefore, in the eucharist the human, bodily presence of Jesus Christ is "in, within, under" the elements.
Notes
- The adjective christological can be used in two different ways. Here it is used in the narrow sense as defined in this sentence. It can also be used for the much wider range of doctrines which were traditionally labelled the "Person and Work of Jesus Christ" (McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology. Blackwell. p. 345.)
See also
Footnotes
- ^ Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines A & C Black (1965) p.143
- Carson, Ronald (September 1975), "The Motifs of Kenosis and Imitatio in the Work of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, with an Excursus on the Communicatio Idiomatum", Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 43 (3), Oxford University Press: 542–553, ISSN 0002-7189, JSTOR 1461851
- Hamann, Johann (2007), Haynes, Kenneth (ed.), Writings on Philosophy and Language, Leiden: Cambridge University Press, p. 99, ISBN 978-0-511-34139-7, retrieved 2012-12-06
- Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines A & C Black (1965) p.143, quoting Eph 7,2
- ^ Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines A & C Black (1965) pp.151,2, quoting Adv. Prax. 27 & c. Marc. 2.27