{"title":"A Lutheran Interpretation of <i>Communicatio Idiomatum</i>: A Response to Richard Cross","authors":"Else Marie Wiberg Pedersen","doi":"10.1177/10638512231205225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This response to Richard Cross offers a different interpretation of Luther's employment of the communicatio idiomatum. Whereas Cross wants to place Luther's understanding of the communicatio idiomatum within a strictly philosophical framework of abstractions in order to make it fit a scholastic understanding, Luther firmly objects to such a m odus operandi. Luther clearly differentiates between philosophy and theology, finding the former insufficient when dealing with Christology and soteriology. Counter to the scholastics but in continuity with Bernard of Clairvaux, Luther's Christology is incarnational and bound to humanity. To Luther it is fundamental that God can and will be known only as a human being (homo), yet Christ's real presence is presented three-dimensionally. Luther's complex understanding of Christ as really human and the Word incarnate is reflected in his intense work with semantics and the art of translation. Hence Christ is precisely human, not male; ministry is reconfigured as a human function ( ministerium verbi), not a substitute for divine sacredness that is assigned to the Catholic vicarious Christi.","PeriodicalId":493571,"journal":{"name":"Pro ecclesia","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pro ecclesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512231205225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This response to Richard Cross offers a different interpretation of Luther's employment of the communicatio idiomatum. Whereas Cross wants to place Luther's understanding of the communicatio idiomatum within a strictly philosophical framework of abstractions in order to make it fit a scholastic understanding, Luther firmly objects to such a m odus operandi. Luther clearly differentiates between philosophy and theology, finding the former insufficient when dealing with Christology and soteriology. Counter to the scholastics but in continuity with Bernard of Clairvaux, Luther's Christology is incarnational and bound to humanity. To Luther it is fundamental that God can and will be known only as a human being (homo), yet Christ's real presence is presented three-dimensionally. Luther's complex understanding of Christ as really human and the Word incarnate is reflected in his intense work with semantics and the art of translation. Hence Christ is precisely human, not male; ministry is reconfigured as a human function ( ministerium verbi), not a substitute for divine sacredness that is assigned to the Catholic vicarious Christi.
对理查德·克罗斯的回应提供了对路德使用惯用沟通的不同解释。尽管克罗斯想把路德对惯用沟通的理解置于抽象的严格哲学框架中,以使其符合学术的理解,路德坚决反对这种“操作方式”。路德明确区分哲学和神学,发现前者在处理基督论和救赎论时是不够的。与经院学者相反,但与克莱沃的伯纳德(Bernard of Clairvaux)保持一致,路德的基督论是道成肉身的,与人类息息相关。对路德来说,最基本的是上帝只能以人(homo)的身份被认识,然而基督的真实存在是三维的。路德对基督作为真正的人类和道成肉身的复杂理解反映在他对语义学和翻译艺术的紧张工作中。因此,基督恰恰是人,而不是男性;事奉被重新配置为人类的功能(ministerium verbi),而不是被分配给天主教基督的神圣性的替代品。