Chalcedon and the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter slu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

slu

Guest
A Protestant friend of mine asked the following question:

Given the following four negatives from the Coucil of Chalcedon (451) as they apply to the two natures of Christ.

The 2 natures of Christ are:
  1. Without Confusion
  2. Without Change (mixture)
  3. Without Division
  4. Without Seperation
Doesn’t transubstantiation violate #2 and #4?

I believe that the answer lies in the “Communication of Idioms” and I had read that the Council of Chalcedon had answered the question of Christ’s two natures without contradicting the idea of the “Communication of Idioms”.

Does anyone have knowledge of this subject or are there any resources out there that can help me out?
 
I don’t see the problem. Transubstantiation has nothing to do with the two natures of Christ. Transubstantiation simply says that the bread and wine literally, actually become Jesus Christ. This statement has nothing to do with how Christ’s divine and human natures are incorporated into his Person.
 
If we believe that the Eucharist is the Body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ then his question revolves around whether his human nature along with the divine can be present in more than one place at one time. Does this help clarify the question?
 
OK. What do we know of the limitations of Christ’s risen human nature? What can we say with certainty that it is incapable of?
 
I gave a similar reply at first. What about at the last supper?

The thing that he seems to be keying in on and what I want to understand is if Chalcedon and “communication of idioms” contradict each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top