Alastair's words will be in green; "Josh"'s in blue:
You note that Luther believed in the Real Presence, but Calvin believed in it as well (though not in a presence that was physically enclosed within the elements): "Therefore, if the Lord truly represents the participation in his body throught the breaking of bread, there ought not to be doubt that he truly presents and shows his body. And the godly ought by all means to keep this rule: whenever they see symbols appointed by the Lord, to think and be persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is surely present there. For whys hould the Lord put in your hand the symbol of his body, except to assure you of a true participation in it? But if it is true that a visible sign is given us to seal the gift of a thing invisible, when we have received the symbol of the body, let us no surely trust that the body itself is also gives to us" (Institutes, 4.17.10; p.1371, McNeill/Battles trans.).
Would you agree that the biggest difference concerning the Eucharist between your church, the Lutherans, and the [classical] Reformed is not over the Real Presence, but rather the means or mode of that presence (i.e., the relation between the signum and the res)?
Yes. Calvin adheres to a "mystical presence." Luther and Catholics accept substantial presence (which is a more accurate term for our view than "real presence"). I think Calvin's view (with all due respect) is confused, and not able to be defended on solid philosophical (or for that matter, theological and exegetical) grounds. It seems incoherent and, frankly, strange, to me. He wants the presence of Christ to be real, yet he has to separate the consecrated elements by making them symbols. I don't see how this mose of "presence" is distinguishable from God's omnipresence. Of course, God is everywhere, and He is always everywhere. So of what additional use is a symbolic (or semi-symbolic) "reality" that is not substantial?
The whole miracle of the Eucharist is that it is an extension of the Incarnation: Jesus actually became a man: a physical person, and walked among us. Transubstantiation means that Jesus is actually present just as He was when He walked the earth. But the rub is that it always requires faith to believe this, because the accidents remain the same, and it seems nonsensical to a naturalistic mind that what looks like bread and wine really aren't. I think that causes disbelief in it: I would call it an excessive rationalism, and I say that Calvin (and Zwingli) succumbed in part to that. They can't accept the miracle that all the Fathers accepted.
Of course the comeback is that it is not a "rational" thing, but a mystery, but I reply that even mysteries don't have to be (indeed, should not be) contrary to reason; they can be reasonable as far as reason goes, and then require faith for those aspects which transcend (but do not contradict) reason.
This is the Catholic view: always reason and faith; not faith and reason some of the time, or reason and faith some of the time, or faith and unreason, or faith as inalterably opposed to reason, etc. We will not yield the mind or reason. The Bible doesn't require such a thing. So why does anyone go that route? I've never understood it.
I know this is yet another deep subject, and I am not trying to simplify Calvin's view. We can pursue the discussion further, time-permitting, if you like.
I find many of your comments highly abstract and a bit difficult to follow (and you may take that as a compliment — it means I can learn a lot from you), but I will reply as best I know how:
>First, Calvin's doctrine of the Supper did develop over the course of his lifetime. He later regretted some of his compromises with the Zwinglian view.
That's fascinating. Could you briefly summarize and direct me to passages in the Institutes or the Commentaries or paste something to elaborate on this? The trouble with dealing with these great minds (people like Augustine and Calvin) is that they do develop their views, precisely because they are thinkers. And that is easy to overlook.
>Second, Calvin's doctrine stressed the work of the Holy Spirit. In this respect I feel that his approach can be seen as somewhat akin to the Eastern Orthodox view with its emphasis upon the epiklesis as the moment of transformation. Reading Schmemann, for instance, on the Real Presence in the Supper I see essentially the same doctrine that I as a Calvinist hold to. I would like to hear more on the RC view of the role of the Spirit in the Supper.
Nothing particular to say on that at the moment. Sounds like a heavy (therefore, good) topic. I have often noted, though, similarities between the Orthodox and the more presuppositional Reformed, in how they view the relation of faith and reason.
>Alongside this concern I would like to know more of the eschatological aspect of the RC celebration of the Eucharist. I feel that this element can easily be downplayed and where it is present (e.g. the transubstantiated elements as firstfruits of the new creation) it can be problematic.
I feel this is, again, over my head, but it makes a great deal of sense to me to tie in the Eucharist to the Resurrection, because it was precisely that, along with the Incarnation, which "prefigures" the Eucharist and makes it possible. As Jesus had a Glorified, Resurrection body which could do extraordinary things, so He supernaturally enters into the consecrated elements and is truly, substantially there — just in a different form: just as His post-Resurrection body had elements of physical and spiritual (or simply multi-dimensionality, if we follow a more "modern physics" model). I could see exploring this in light of 1 Corinthians 15, in great depth indeed.
>Third, Calvin stressed the instrumental efficacy of the elements, whilst many Reformed only held to occasionalism or even intermittent occasionalism. I feel that his doctrine was a bit higher, at in its developed form, than you suggest.
So this would be akin to our ex opere operato? I guess these differences in your group account for the relative stress on sacramentalism. You have on the continuum people like James White, whose extreme anti-sacramentalism would mean that even Luther and St. Augustine could not have been regenerate Christians (as I think I demonstrated from White's own words), and people like yourself, whose views are very close to ours on baptism and the Eucharist. So learning more about Calvin's actual "mature" views on this would be very interesting to me. I love discovering stuff like this. I knew that he accepted Catholic baptism as valid, which pretty much puts to rest the matter of whether Catholics are Christians or not. But tell that to your anti-Catholic brethren!
>Fourth, I feel that most of these debates hinge around certain presuppositions that are held concerning the 'body of Christ'. I feel that we need to establish a careful balance between the historical, ecclesial and sacramental body of Christ. I am not sure that this has been maintained in RC circles (it certainly hasn't in most Protestant circles), but I would be happy to be proved wrong. I sense that the sacramental body has tended to eclipse the ecclesial body.
This is heavy stuff; you would have to elaborate more fully. Would Col 1:24 and similar verses tie into this?
>I also feel that many of these debates fail to take seriously enough the fact that there is something that we simply don't understand about the resurrection body of Christ.
Oh, sure. Hard to deny that . . .
>I feel that, in general, RCs have been in danger of downplaying the significance of the resurrection in the shaping of different areas of theology (not least ecclesiology). The resurrection of Christ is the future invading the present in Christ. It is the source of the powers of the age to come and the Holy Spirit that raised Christ from the dead is always the eschatological Spirit (John Zizioulas' book Being As Communion is great on this).
I have no problem with that. I'm not sure we minimize it . . .
>When we celebrate the Supper we are tasting of the future that has become present in Christ.
Also the past (Calvary) that has been made supernaturally present to us. I say it transcends time, and that would include whjat is "future" to us.
>This occurs as we are raised up to be with Christ by the eschatological Spirit. We truly partake of Him and have communion with Him both in His divine and human nature. He is not merely our Host; He is also our food. However, the eschatological stress is crucially important, IMHO.
Fascinating line of thought . . . I hope you hang around!
>I fear that many have trepassed on the mystery by trying to fit the resurrection body of Christ into doctrinal boxes that it simply transcends.
I would like to hear more. Much of this needs more explanation (for me, anyway). It may be that you are talking in typically Reformed ways of expression that are more familiar to that group, but a bit strange and different for outsiders.
Thanks for the great post!
Thanks for your comments. Here is a long response, which I trust will serve to clarify some points.
With regard to the development of Calvin’s Eucharistic thought I am thinking particularly of the movement from the compromise document of the Consensus Tigurinus to the later Defense of the Sane and Orthodox Doctrine of the Sacraments. Calvin expressed regret to Bucer concerning the compromise of the first document: “Let us therefore bear with a sigh that which cannot be corrected.” As Thomas Davis points out in The Clearest Promises of God: The Development of Calvin’s Eucharistic Teaching, in the later document Calvin “emphasizes that it is Christ himself the Christian enjoys, in his flesh and blood, and not simply a communion that results because of his receiving Christ’s benefits”. Calvin’s emphasis upon the instrumental power of the elements is seemingly absent in the early Calvin (e.g. 1536 edition of the Institutes). Thomas Davis writes again:
“What we see, then, in Calvin’s last eucharistic writings is the completion of a journey. At the beginning of his career, as he wrote on the Eucharist in his 1536 Institutes, Calvin flatly and unequivocally denied substantial partaking of Christ in the Eucharist. He claimed that the Eucharist could not, in fact, be thought of as an instrument of grace. Moreover, he delineated no clear eucharistic gift. As has been shown, over a period of twenty-three years, Calvin’s eucharistic theology matured. It developed in such a way that Calvin claimed as essential those very elements he had originally denied as part of his eucharistic doctrine.”
For a study of Calvin’s Eucharistic theology I have appreciated John Williamson Nevin’s The Mystical Presence and the records of the subsequent debate with Charles Hodge in such books as Given For You by Keith Mathison. Both of these books chronicle the demise of the high Reformed doctrine of the Supper, particularly in the Puritan era and the following period. For many the relationship between the sign and the reality became merely a subjective one created by the mind and faith of the participant.
The issue of the Spirit and the Supper is crucial in my estimation. It is interesting to notice that the elements have never become the objects of adoration, contemplation and worship in the Eastern Church as they have in the West.
Eastern Orthodox theologians differ with Roman Catholics regarding the place of the transformation of the elements within the liturgy. Orthodox theologians argue that this takes place at the epiklesis (the invocation of the Spirit) rather than at the words of institution. Schmemann maintains that this is not merely replacing one ‘causality’ with another:—
“It is to reveal the eschatological character of the sacrament. The Holy Spirit comes on the “last and great day” of Pentecost. He manifests the world to come. He inaugurates the Kingdom. He always takes us beyond. To be in the Spirit means to be in heaven, for the Kingdom of God is “joy and peace in the Holy Spirit.” And thus in the Eucharist it is He who seals and confirms our ascension into heaven, who transforms the Church into the body of Christ and—therefore—manifests the elements of our offering as communion in the Holy Spirit. This is the consecration.”
The transformation of the bread and wine cannot be explained in the categories of this world (time, essence, causality, etc.). The transformation of the bread and wine is revealed to faith by the Holy Spirit. However, the transformation is not something that takes place in “this world” but it occurs as the Church is made to participate in the “world to come” by the invocation of the Spirit. The manifestation of the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ must be understood in terms of the action of the Eucharist. He is ‘made known through the breaking of bread’.
Schmemann argues in his book The Eucharist that the elements as the true Body and Blood of Christ are only revealed to faith by the Holy Spirit. He also stresses that the purpose of the Eucharist is the manifestation of the Church itself as the body of Christ. The Roman Catholic doctrine is frequently accused for downplaying this purpose of the Eucharist in my reading (of Reformed, Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox particularly). Perhaps this charge is a trifle unfair, I don’t know. Schmemann complains that trying to explain the cause of the change of the elements is unnecessary and harmful. It places the Supper within the categories of “this world” and loses the sense of a ‘temporal’ gift (for want of a better word).
In the Supper we taste of the powers of the age to come. The presence of Christ is probably best understood, not primarily in terms of ‘local’ presence, but in terms of ‘temporal’ presence. The essence of the Church lies in the future, finding its true existence in Christ Himself. Our relationship with the future is both ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’. By ‘horizontal’ I mean that we are still expecting a final consummation in the future. By ‘vertical’ I mean that we already taste of that realized consummation as we have union with the One in whom that future has already been realized. This union is effected by the work of the Holy Spirit.
Thinking of the Supper in terms of ‘local’ presence can mute the strong eschatological themes of the Supper. We truly eat of the Body and Blood of our Lord. However, we need to be careful of understanding this eating in terms belonging to this present age, as the liturgy of the Eucharist is a movement from this age to the age to come.
As I pointed out in my previous comments, this is closely related to the Eastern Orthodox charge that Roman Catholics have not paid sufficient attention to the Spirit’s constituting of the Church as the Body of Christ. To most outsiders Roman Catholic ecclesiology seems to take the Incarnation more than the Resurrection and Pentecost as its starting point. As I mentioned earlier, John Zizioulas criticizes RCs, and I believe rightly, on this area in his fantastic book Being As Communion. Christology has not, he claims, been significantly conditioned by pnuematology (and consequently by eschatology) in the West. He sees this deficiency manifest in the failure to recognize the equal ultimacy of the local and universal Church in RC ecclesiology. If you have not already done so, I would highly recommend that you read Zizioulas. He is always immensely stimulating, even when one would disagree with him.
Calvin, in his doctrine of the Supper treated the elements as instruments by which we truly partake of the theanthropic Christ. He argued that this occurs as we are raised into heaven by the Spirit. I think that Calvin is generally right on this. However, I would have liked to see him stress the eschatological nature of this movement. We are being raised ‘vertically’ to the heavenly city (cf. Hebrews 12:22) that we are still awaiting ‘horizontally’ (Hebrews 13:14). In Christ — the One who is the same yesterday, today and forever — expectation merges with remembrance and the future invades the present.
Once this approach to the Supper has been understood, the argument over ‘local’ presence will be seen to be unhelpful. Spatial categories tend to divert our attention from what is really happening.
On the issue of the Reformed attitude towards the language of ex opere operato I would suggest that you read the following article, which gives a helpful treatment of the subject.
The chief concern that I would have regarding the language of ex opere operato is not that it presents the elements as ‘instruments’ — I am agreed that the elements are instruments and not merely occasions of the grace that they signify. Admittedly my position is less common within Reformed circles than the lower forms of the doctrine that have developed. Nevertheless, my views on this certainly have a long history and were shared by such as Calvin and Nevin.
There is an inseparable connection between the symbol and the reality. This bond is no mere nominal, external bond. In the proper practice of the sacrament the reality is actually conveyed. If this is all that ex opere operato is taken to mean then I will readily say ‘Amen!’ to it. Reformed theologians have often reacted to a form of transubstantiation (which I am increasingly convinced is a caricature) which imprisons the reality in the symbol. The symbol is done away with rather than consummated by the presence of the reality. Opposed to this position I would stress that the symbol participates in the reality. [At this point I should express my dislike for the terminology of ‘symbol’ and ‘reality’ — reality itself is symbolic]. The reality remains a free and open mystery whilst being partially imparted through the sign. It can never be contained within the sign. To contain the reality within the sign is to bind the mystery.
Biblically the sign is not a substitute for the reality, but the ‘self-supplementing presence’ of the reality (as Catherine Pickstock terms it). Christ’s physical presence did not render His signs in the gospels superfluous. They were a means of manifesting and conveying the reality of His Person to people.
As regards the issue of the sacramental (the bread of the Eucharist), historical (the crucified, resurrected and ascended body of our Lord) and ecclesial (the Church) Body of Christ I think that it is imperative that we do not separate these. It is essential that we recognize that the Eucharist is fundamentally an action not the elements. For this reason it is probably unhelpful to operate in terms of sign / thing signified. This language tends to frame the Eucharist less as an action than as a static symbol. The Eucharist is a ritual whereby the Church fulfills itself as the Body of Christ. Christ Himself is present in our midst as our Host (historical Body). Christ Himself is present in us as His Church (ecclesial body). Christ Himself is present in the elements as our food (sacramental body).
The fact that the Eucharist is an action performed by the Church is crucially important. Were the Eucharist not performed by the ecclesial Body of Christ it would become an extrinsic miracle. I fear that many Roman Catholics have failed to stress the action of the Eucharist as essential to what it really is. Many forms of the doctrine of the transubstantiation seem to make the liturgy itself ‘accidental’ to the ‘essence’ of the sacrament. Little concentration is given to the Eucharist as a meal. The reality interrupts the liturgy, rather than fulfilling it. I would prefer to think of the reality as being made manifest through the liturgy, rather than breaking in from outside the liturgy. The symbol / reality dichotomy is 90% of our problem at this point.
From an outsider’s perspective, the three-fold nature of the Body of Christ appears to have been obscured by RC teaching. In passages like 1 Corinthians 11 they are beautifully jumbled up together. One moment Paul is talking about the bread of the sacrament as the Body of Christ, the next it is the historical Body of Christ that he speaks of; he then proceeds to speak of the Church as the Body of Christ. It is the relationship between these aspects of the one Body of Christ that make the Eucharist what it is, that make the Church what it is and, dare I say, fulfill what Christ Himself truly is — not just an individual but a corporate Personality.
In the light of this, any individualistic celebration of the Eucharist should be out of the question. This is one of the reasons why I believe such things as private masses to be distortions of the true nature of the sacrament. I might also add that even when most churches celebrate the Eucharist it is merely a collection of individuals that do so and not the Church as Church.
As for Colossians 1:24 and other such verses: yes, I would understand them within the conceptual matrix of the three-fold nature of the Body of Christ. Paul’s sufferings can never be seen as an addition to the sufferings of Christ Himself, suggesting that Christ’s sufferings were somehow deficient. Paul’s sufferings can never be opposed to Christ’s own sufferings because Paul is participating in the sufferings of Christ, not competing with them. Paul no longer lives but Christ lives in Him. Paul now will spend and be spent for the sake of the Church. His vocation is the fulfillment of the vocation of Christ Himself who is at work in Paul.
That was an extraordinary post, almost breathtaking in its depth and insight. Are you a theologian or something? Man! This is a very mystical view of the Eucharist that I have not yet had the pleasure to explore all that much. I am almost certain, however, that some of the more mystically-minded Catholics have dealt with this from basically the same standpoint.
I thought of Matthias Scheeben as a likely candidate right away, and went and looked up what he wrote about the Eucharist in his book, The Mysteries of Christianity (tr. by Cyril Vollert, S.J., St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1952; from 1887 edition, pp. 485-486, 488):
"The Eucharistic presence of Christ is in itself a reflection and extension of His incarnation, as the Fathers so often observe. The changing of the bread into the body of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit is a renewal of the wonderful act by which, in the power of the same Holy Spirit, He originally formed His body in the womb of the Virgin and took it to His person . . .
"But this presence is multiplied only that the body of Christ may grow and spread throughout the members which He attaches to Himself and fuses with Himself. For this reason alone the true body of Christ is reproduced at the Consecration, that He may unite Himself with individual men in Communion and become one body with them, so that the Logos may, as it were, become man anew in each man, by taking the human nature of each into union with His own . . .
"So completely do we bcome one with Christ that we can say with deep truth that we belong to the person of Christ, and in a sense are Christ Himself. "Christ is the Church," says St. Hilary, 'bearing it wholly within Himself by the sacrament of His body' . . .
"This participation in the divine nature is at the same time a replenishing of man with the Holy Spirit and a fellowship with Him. Since the Holy Spirit dwells in the body of Christ in a quite singular way by a very real union, He must also pour Himself out upon those who have been joined to Christ in one body. That we are filled with the Holy Spirit, that the Eucharist becomes a fellowship with the Holy Spirit for those who partake of it, and that we are all joined to one another in the fellowship of the one Holy Spirit, we find indicated in the ancient liturgies as the aim and effect of the Eucharist."
This is just a drop in the bucket of the riches in this 834-page book.
That was utterly fascinating information about John Calvin. I had never heard that. If you know of any Internet articles on this, please let me know. I'd like to do excerpts from them on this blog.
God bless, and thank you very much for this.
"Josh" later offered related material to ponder:
. . . Keith Mathison's Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper [Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002]. You might find interesting the following definition that Mathison offers to describe Calvin's view (this is from p.279):
"According to Calvin, Christ's body is present in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, but the mode of his presence is not specifically connected with the substance of the elements…Christ is present by virtue of the supernatural working of the Holy Spirit, not by the transformation or combination of the material substances". Calvin's view is that, whilst the historical body of Christ is located locally in heaven, the mystical work of the Holy Spirit makes Christ truly present in the Supper (present as the whole God-Man):
"Even though it seems unbelievable that Christ's flesh, separated from us by such great distance, penetrates to us, so that it becomes our food, let us remember that the secret power of the Holy Spirit towers above all our senses,and how foolish it is to measure this immeasurableness by our measure. What then, our mind does not comprehend, let faith conceive: that the Spirit truly unites things separated things separated in space" (*Institutes*, 4.17.10). Thus, we see two aspects that of Calvin's eucharistic theology that Al mentioned: the work of the Holy Spirit and eschatology (the latter being related to the former).
Calvin emphasizes the separation in space because He takes the Ascension seriously. All Christians confess, of course, that Christ has ascended bodily into heaven; but, on Calvin's view, the idea that Jesus was bodily present locally in the substance of the eucharistic elements (i.e.,enclosed in them as in transubstantiation), transgressed a clear article of faith proclaimed in the faith: that Christ's body is locally present in heaven alone. So Calvin's reasons for rejecting a local mode of presence as held by Rome and Luther was because of his theology of the Ascension (more on this later); but because of his stress on the Spirit and his eschatological focus of the Church ascendant into heaven for worship, he could still hold real presence:
"In His sacred supper he bids me to take, eat, and drink his body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine [remember: when Calvin means symbol, he doesn't mean what zwingli means]. I do no doubt that he himself truly presents them, and that I receive them" (Institutes, 4.17.32) and "I conclude, that Christ's body is really (italics in original) given to us in the Supper, to be wholesome food for our souls" (Commentaries, 20:379; quoted in Mathison, p.26).
Now for JC's theology of the sacramental union (the union between the signum and res). Calvin's theology here was based upon the Definition of Chalcedon (another evidence of his catholicity!), which defined Christ as full God and full Man, united in one Person without separation, admixture, or confusion. We may distinguish between the two natures of Our Lord, but we must never separate or confuse them.Calvin applies this to the sacramental union of the signum and the res (recalling Augustine's definition; and, according to Mathison [largely quoting Ronald Wallace's Calvin's Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament, which has been viewed as a magisterial work on Calvin's sacramentology by many], Calvin finds analogy to the sacramental union only in the Incarnation!) to the sacraments.
Ronald Wallace summarizes Calvin's doctrine of the sacramental union thusly[found in Mathison, p.22]:
"First, 'the union formed between the divine and human activity in the event of God's activity in the sacrament is so close as, practically speaking, to become one of identity' [Wallace, p.162]. As Calvin expresses it, 'The name of the thing, therefore, is transferred here to the sign-not as if it were strictly applicable, but figuratively on the ground of that connection which I have mentioned' [Calvin on I Cor. 10:4, in wallace, 147]. Second, thus sacramental union is 'so transcendant and freely personal that the thing signified must be regarded as distinct from the sign' [ibid.]. If the sign actually becomes the thing it signifies, it neccessarily ceases to be a sacrament. Third, 'there is no natural analogy for this union' [Wallace, 167]…The only possibly analogy for the sacramental union is the mystery of the Incarnation. Fourth, observes Wallace, 'There is no doubt that Calvin sees an analogy which at least serves to regulate his thinking on this mystery of sacramental union, in the mystery of the union between God and man in Jesus Christ' [Wallace, p.82]…(para) As Paul Rorem notes, calvin's sacramental theology was 'Chalcedonian balancing act' [Rorem, The Consensus Tigurinus 91549): Did Calvin Compromise, in Calvin Sacrae Scripturae Professor, ed.William H. Neuser, p.73]. Just as the divine and human natures of Christ must be distinguished without being separated, so too the sign and reality signified must be distinguished without beig separated…(para) It is important to note Calvin's view of the relationship between the signs and the things signified because for calvin the bread and wine of the Supper are signs representing something present, not signs representing something absent" (Mathison, pp.23-24).
Thus, when the Chalcedonian formula was applied to the Lutheran doctrine, Calvin found deficiencies because the Lutheran doctrine of ubiquity allowed Christ's body to be locally present in millions of churches throughout the world at the same time. While one could reply that the Resurrected Christ had a transformed body that could allow for such action [as you alluded to in one of your last responses], the fact remains that it is a human body (albeit a glorified one). As such, Christ's historical body can only be in one place at a time; and it is a article of faith amongst Christians that our Lord 'ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty'. The Lutheran (and thus RC) doctrine contradicts this fundamental Christological principle: it confuses the sign and the thing signified. Mathison again:
"Calvin believed that such a doctrine [the Lutheran doctrine of ubiquity] necessarily confused the properties of the divine and human natures of Christ, contrary to Chalcedonian orthodoxy. According to Calvin, it is a defining characteristic of flesh to 'subsist in one definite place, with its own size and form' (Institutes, 4.17.24). Ubiquitous flesh would, by definition, cease to be true flesh."(Mathison, p.28)
If Calvin viewed the Lutherans as nearing the mixture of natures, he saw Rome as doing the same thing. For Rome, as you state, believes in transubstantiation wherein the substance of the eucharistic elements are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. This too results in a confusion of the signum and res based upon the Chalcedonian principle, for (correct me if I'm wrong, please; I don't want to be setting up paper men!) acc. to Rome the visible sign becomes the thing signified. On my reading, Rome does this because she believes that this is the only way to preserve Real Presence; but, Calvin's theology of the Spirit makes this an unnecessary move. Mathison (quoting Calvin) again:
"Christ's physical body, according to Calvin, is locally present in heaven and will remain there until he returns again. he explains, 'Not Aristotle, but the Holy Spirit teaches that the body christ from the time of his resurrection was finite, and is contained in heaven until the Last Day' [Institutes, 4.17.26]. Christ's physical body is in heaven and does not have to descend to earth in order for us to truly partake of it. This is true, according to calvin, first of all because 'the minds of believers (this being an heavenly act) are raised by faith above the world' [*Second Defense of the Pious and Orhtodox faith Concerning the Sacraments*, 280]. Second, the Holy Spirit, 'removing the obstacle which distance of space might occasion, conjoins us with his [Christ's] members' (Ibid). The Holy Spirir is 'sufficient to break through all impediments and surmount any distance of place' [*The Best method of Obtaining Concord*, 577]" (Mathison, p.28). The Spirit makes Christ present at the Table though He is in heaven; I believe that this primarily happens by the Church ascending into heaven for her worship. Worship is a mystical meeting of heaven and earth; it is truly eschatological. I believe that Rome's Aristotelianly-influenced doctrine of the Eucharist, along with the rationalists (including many Presbyterians!!!) in some respects, neglects this focus and so gets off track.
Which leads me to the fact that the Anabaptists and Baptists (and really Zwinglians as well) violate the sacramental union in another direction: they rationalistically rip apart the signum and the res, and rent asunder what God has joined together. While I would say thta Rome messes up their sacramentology by confusing the signum and the res, the 'sacramentarians' err by leaving us with a naked and nominalistic (and inefficacious)sign (SINO, sacrament in name only? :) ). Given the reciprocal nature between sacramentology and christology, it should be no surprise that much of Anabaptist movement ending up in the shipwreck of Socianism (a point made by John Williamson Nevin, a 19th century Reformed theologian whose debate with the famous Charles Hodge is simply fascinating hsitorically; Mathison discusses it on pp.136-86 of Given for You; the preface to Nevin's work, the Mystical Presence, may be found online.
When we apply Chalcedon to the Sacraments (as should be natural for all of us who accept the ministerial and definitive authority of the ecumenical councils), I belive that we can draw several conclusions this is by no means exhaustive, and I'd love to hear your input and/or critique here):
First, the sacramental union must be seen as a real union, not a nominalistic construct (as many Presbyterians are wont to do); while we may distinguish between the signum and the res, we must never separate them. Practically, this means that we can never separate regeneration, remission of sins, and union with christ from Baptism, or the Body and Blood of Jesus from His Supper. This results in a real and objective offer of the substance of the sacraments (which is Jesus Himself) to every receiver; the real, efficaciousness of the sacraments, owing to the promised work of the Spirit (who also effected the hypostatic union of Christ) and; allows us to distinguish between how the substance of the reality is received by the eternally elect and over and against the covenantally elect but ultimately reprobate.
Second, we must with equal tenacity and faith confess our Lord's bodily and local presence in heaven and His presence in the sacraments. It takes faith to see this, to be sure; it is a profound mystery, and as Al said, we can't wrap all of this around in our finite heads (we have to rememeber the Creature/Creator distinction here as well). We must throw away some of our little Cartesian, Aristotelian, Van Tilian, or whatever boxes at some point at confess the mystery: Jesus is in heaven but the Spirit makes Him present in the Supper.
Now, you may object that saying that Jesus only being (acc. to His historic body) locally present in heaven is itself rationalistic; that transubstantiation is a mystery that confounds (but doesn't go against) our reason. Jesus can be locally present both in heaven and in the elements. But I would reply that our interpretation must be gaurded by the regula fidei, the rule of faith, which is summed up in the Ecumenical Creeds (which is incidentally a part of the classical Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura, which I believe neccessitates a kind of catholic conciliarism; but that's for another discussion entirely!). And, as Calvin said, the rule of faith says that Christ's glorified body is in heaven at the Father's right hand until the consummation; and the attempts to say how He could be locally in two places simulataneously violate the Definition of Chalcedon. (This is where our debates must go, I believe: back to Scripture, and the interpretation thereof being regulated by the rule that we have in the Creeds.)
Eschatology, pneumatology, and Christology must inform our doctrine of the sacraments; I would agree with Al that Rome seems to neglect the eschatological and pneumatological framework that we must hand our hats on when discussing the sacraments. I would point to Hebrews 6:4-5 as an example of this eschatological nature, of the Church being taken into the age to come in the sacraments:
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come…" In this vein, I should note that union with Christ is a central motif in calvin's thought, and it is in union with christ (which takes place through the word and the sacrament), the Last Adam, the True Israel, the One in whom all thigns exist and will be consummated, that believers share in the age to come, by the Spirit. This is where our new life in the New Creation that God is making is derived from: from this eschatological reality, from the age to comem invading and transforming our present (and I believe that this allows us to believe in the victory of Christ on earth before His seocnd coming). Liturgy, sacraments, and worship must be placed in the context of the Triune God moving to re-unify heaven and middle earth; and we certainly have that in the Eucharist, where we ascend in a sacrifice of praise to the heavenlies.
I would agree with Al that given this eschatological focus, the RC and Lutheran emphasis on local presence seems to be taking us in the wrong direction; we should keep in mind that we are united to Christ in heaven, and that our worship takes place there. To be sure, our theology must be Incarnational; but it must be regulated by the Resurrection and Asecnsion as well.
To conclude, Mathison (one more time!):
"Wallace provides a helpful summary of the various aspects of calvin's thought. He reminds us, first of all, that Calvin agrees with the Lutherans and Roman Catholics 'that the flesh of Christ is given in the sacrament' [Wallace, 111]. This is repeatedly mentioned throughout Calvin's worlks. In fact, calvin asserts, 'the whole of Christ is given in the sacrament' [Wallace, 111, 200;cf.Institutes, 3.11.9]. This is necessary, according to Calvin, because the flesh of Christ is the channel of life that belongs inherently to the divine nature [cf. Calvin, commentary on John 6:51]. Wallace points out four basic points that must be kept in mind as we consider the mode of partaking of Christ's blood and blood:
'i)*The body of Christ *, in which he wrought our redemption and part from which we cannot be saved, in beign communcated to us in the sacrament [italics] remains, throughout the particpation, in heaven, beyond this world, and retains all its human properties…
ii) Communion with the body and blood of Christ is effected through the descent of the Holy Spirit, by whom our souls are lifted up into heaven, there to partake of the life tranfused into us from the Christ…
iii)Partaking of the flesh of Christ in the supper is thus a heavenly action, in which the flesh is eaten in a spiritual manner…
iv)The presence of the body of Christ in the Supper, though it may be called a*real presence* and a descent of Christ by the Spirit, is nevertheless also a "*celestial mode of presence*" and leads to no localisation of the body of Christ on earth, no inclusion of it in the elements, no attachment of it to the elements…[Wallace, 203-10] (Mathison, pp.28-29)".