Thread by @cath_cov

"Thomas is committed to the idea that the risen Christ is naturally in heaven and in heaven only" (p.113).

Which might leads us to point to the Thomist heart of the Black Rubric:

"and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here".

An interesting summary of the views of Thomas on the ablutions. A small amount of remaining wine in the chalice mixed with the water of the ablutions, because it ceases to be the sacramental sign of wine, is not the blood of Christ (p.125).

I am adding this (p.134) to the file 'Article 29 and Thomas are not that far apart'.

Quoting Ratzinger on where Calvin is right contra Luther (p.160):

Luther's "intention is obviously exactly the same as Thomas's presence 'per modum substantiae' - namely, to affirm a real presence that is not crudely local, but that is nonetheless intimately related to the elements of bread and wine themselves" (p.165).

Immediately following the chapter on Luther comes the chapter on Calvin:

"...in John Calvin we see something more strictly analogous to the position of Thomas Aquinas himself" (p.187).

Crucially, while Luther "effectively collapsed sign and signified" (p.174), Calvin follows Thomas in "an attempt to affirm both sign and reality when different parties in the Church were emphasizing one to the neglect of the other" (p.188).

The "Chalcedonian balance" in Calvin's eucharistic theology, after Thomas (p.198). This is also key to Hooker's eucharistic theology in LEP V.67.

"Both Thomas and Calvin, in their own philosophical and historical contexts, sought to uphold the sacramental nature of Christ's eucharistic presence by holding tightly to both symbol and reality in their theologies of the Eucharist" (p.203).

"The evident agreement between Thomas and Calvin on the instrumentality of the sacraments is not unrelated to their agreement on the ascension. It is precisely because Christ is no longer of this world that his presence, if it is to be granted at all, must be granted 1/2

through things that are still of it" (p.211).

Quoting Ratzinger praising Calvin's emphasis on the Ascension for understanding the Eucharistic presence (p.214):

"...the adjectives 'substantial' and 'spiritual' meant very similar things for Thomas and Calvin respectively...Both terms were meant to assert an objective, though non-physical, reality" (p.227).

On the Manducatio Infidelium: "Subjectively speaking ... Thomas affirms Calvin's conclusion: the sinner 'uses what he takes as simple food'" (p.236).

Quoting George Hunsinger's 'Eucharist and Ecumenism', "early Reformed theologians ... made effective use" of the 'transelementation' seen in Patristic and Orthodox theologies. Among those Reformed theologians Hunsinger identifies is Cranmer (p.242).

"Forcing Protestants to accept a theology that is not traditional for them when the faith of the Church manifestly does not require it (as demonstrated by the lack of transubstantiation in the patristic Church and in Eastern Christianity) would be vain and foolhardy" (p.242).

"Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin all genuinely believed and sought to teach Christ's real presence in the Eucharist and came much closer to one another than it may first appear" (p.243).

Finis.

An excellent book. The portrayal of Calvin as closer to Thomas than Luther is particularly interesting. There are some weaknesses (more of which on the blog over the next few weeks) but it offers a generous, ecumenical catholic vision of Eucharistic theology.