The second hour continued the study of theExtra Calvinisticum, pointing to the likely source of the " totus " vs. " totum " difference: the Sentences of Pierre Lombard, Book III, Distinction XXII, which combines elements found in the " Extra Calvinisticum " and ubiquism: "That Christ is whole everywhere, but not whole: since he is man or God whole, but not whole."(Quod Christus ubique totus est, sed non totum: ut totus est homo vel Deus, sed non totum). Pierre Lombard's source is, once again, John Damascene. Chapter 51 of The Orthodox Faith distinguishes ὅλος and ὅλον (in Latin, totus and totum), as well as ἄλλος and ἄλλο (in Latin, alius and aliud). Without these notions, writes Jean de Damas, we cannot understand Christ's ubiquity, omnipotence or suffering. We then moved on to Luther's study of kenosis and occultation. The Lutheran exegesis of Philippians 2:5-11 was presented, the meaning of the " forma servi " in Philippians 2:7 was analyzed, and the notion of "occultation" emerged: the "form of the servant" assumed in the Incarnation is not humanity (human nature) but a temporary servile condition. Exinanition(kenosis) is an "occultation" of the divine majesty communicated to Christ for the time of his temporal mission - a thesis vigorously rejected by Theodore de Bèze and the Calvinists, for whom, since the "form of the servant" designates humanity, the "form of God", divinity, Christ cannot deposit "the form of the servant". To clarify the nature and extent of the dispute between Lutherans and Reformed, we examined Martin Chemnitz's theory of the four kinds of preaching in Christology. The four genres were defined and analyzed: idiomatic, apothelesmatic, majestic and taperotic. Particular attention was paid to the genus tapeinoticon, supposed to mark the communication of humility, ταπείνωσις, hence suffering, to the divine nature. It was shown that the tapeinotic genre was rejected by the Formula of Concord as "horrible and blasphemous", and by Chemnitz himself, who relies for this on chapters 48 and 51 of John of Damascus. We then described the Lutheran conception of theology as theologia crucis, taking up the opposition between "theology of the Cross" and "theology of Glory", and the Lutheran rejection of scholastic theology based on Romans 1:20. We based this on thesis 19 of the Heidelberg controversy (1518):
No one can rightly be called a theologian who considers that the invisible things of God can be grasped from those that have been created.
We concluded the two hours with a reflection on divine kenosis and the chiasmus of properties, and a defense of the taperinotic genre. In this connection, we evoked Master Eckhart and his theory of God's interior abasement, outlining a third way between the theology of Glory and the theology of the Cross: the theology of "detachment".
