Controv. XI: Was majestic ubiquity given to Christ's flesh by the union, the exaltation, or the institution words?
Controv. XI. On the ubiquity of Christ's flesh.
II. Was majestic omnipresence — or ubiquity — specially communicated to Christ's flesh or body, whether by the union with the Word (λόγος) in the Virgin's womb, or by the exaltation to God's right hand, or at least by the truth of the institution words, so that that flesh is omnipresent, but by a personal act, as they put it?
On that account it would be no wonder if he were bodily present in the Holy Eucharist, once his omnipotence had taken away the body's locality, and with it its tangibility and visibility in the first act.
Then Christ's ascension would not have been a true local going up, but rather a vanishing of the body; and the heaven he entered would not be a created, finite, bodily place above the visible heavens, but some uncreated, boundless, bodiless heaven — God himself, or God's own majesty, and incomprehensible glory and power.
The Ubiquitarians say yes. The Reformed say no.
Latin
II. An speciatim Carni vel Corpori Christi, seu vi Unionis cum λόγῳ in Utero Virginis, seu vi Exaltationis ad Dextram Dei, aut saltem vi veritatis Verborum Institutionis, communicata sit Omnipraesentia Majestatica, seu Ubiquitas, secundum quam ea Caro sit Omnipraesens, sed actu personali, ut loquuntur: Unde nihil mirum sit, corporaliter eum praesentem esse in S. Eucharistia, sublata per ejus Omnipotentiam Corporis localitate, hinc tactilitate, visibilitate in actu primo? Ut adeo nec Ascensio Christi fuerit vera aut localis, sed potius disparitio Corporis; Nec Caelum in quod Christus ascendit, sit locus creatus, finitus, corporeus, supra visibiles Caelos; verum Coelum quoddam increatum, immensum, incorporeum, Deus ipse, vel ipsa Dei Majestas, & incomprehensibilis Gloria, ac Potentia? Affirmant Ubiquit. Negant Reformati.