The Correlation of the Eucharist with Christ: Vermigli's <i>Oxford Treatise and Disputation on the Eucharist</i> (1549)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Why does correlation work perfectly between the Eucharist and Christ, whereas neither the notion of transubstantiation nor Chalcedonian Christology appears in Scripture? Although Vermigli keeps repeating that Scripture provides no basis for transubstantiation based on the distinction between substance and accidents, he relies on the Chalcedonian Formula. At least in the Treatise and in the Disputation Vermigli does not question to what extent these distinctions are “according to the Scriptures.” Is it because Chalcedonian Christology is older than transubstantiation defined by the fourth Lateran Council in 1215? This should not be viewed as the proper explanation for Vermigli's position against transubstantiation. Rather, the human nature of Christ is not just an accident. Human nature does not need to be understood that way in order to secure the real presence of God in Jesus Christ. Likewise, the “nature and substance” of bread does not need to “go away” or be “cast away” in order to make room for the substance of Christ and thus ensure the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Otherwise, transubstantiation could be viewed as only a continuation—or a revival—of docetism: to contend that through transubstantiation “it seems to be bread, but is not” amounts to saying that Christ's flesh and body was not true flesh, but only an appearance. The analysis of this controversy regarding the presence of Christ in the Eucharist can be best understood as a chapter of what can be called “indirect Christology.”
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".