It is well known that Calvin opposed the ubiquity of Christ's body, because he thought that even in the resurrection Christ's human nature had normal human limits. While I admit that we don't know what precisely a resurrection body is like, I'm trying to imagine how a human would deal with the prayers of a billion people.
This is probably a peculiarly Reformed point of view.
Because eternity is timeless and risen humanity is glorified - you’re thinking linearly and ignoring Theosis.
Also with regards to the human nature of Christ, Calvin was in error - we partake of both natures, clearly, for St. Peter calls us partakers of the Divine Nature, but since God is omnipotent, Christ our Lord is able to make His body locally present in unlimited quantities, and the Holy Spirit can descend on the bread and wine and convert it into the Body and Blood of our Lord during the Divine Liturgy. “What is impossible for man is possible with God.” It should be noted that this is meet and appropriate, because John 6 makes it plain our salvation depends upon eating the Body and Blood of Christ, and like the rich young ruler in Luke, who prompted our Lord to say “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eyes of a needle than for a rich man to be saved” to which the Apostles astutely answered “Who then can be saved?” which demonstrates a surprising grasp of economics, since they recognized that poverty is always relative, and thus the words of our Lord would effectively preclude their salvation as well as that of most others, our Lord answered “what is impossible for man is possible with God.”
Thus, the Pelagianism Calvin so ardently opposed to would actually favor a denial of the Real Presence of the Eucharist, since the miracle of the Eucharist which is ordinarily required for our salvation is something only God can do, thus making us dependent upon God for our salvation and precluding us from saving ourselves (indeed, the only situations where one would not have to partake of the Eucharist for salvation also depend on God - that being, special grace from Christ Pantocrator, such as that He granted to St. Dismas, the Good Thief, martyrdom, or the baptism of blood, which is an opportunity available to very few, and still fewer trust the Holy Spirit within them to be able to claim a crown of martyrdom when one is offered, as was demonstrated during the Diocletian persecutions, and finally the Baptism of Desire, where a catechumen perishes before receiving Baptism or likewise the similar situation where in churches which do not immediately communicate those who have been received, one dies between reception and partaking of the Eucharist. All of these require providential conditions - one cannot arrange to be a martyr for example (St. Anthony actually tried to get martyred during the height of the Diocletian persecution, resulting to literally obstructing Roman soldiers in the hopes they would arrest him as a Christian, but merely got shoved out of the way, and in response to this failure he pursued a different form of martyrdom in the desert, inadvertently following in the footsteps of the mysterious St. Paul the Hermit resulting in the formation of monasticism as documented by St. Athanasius in The Life of Anthony.
Thus, what Martin Luther etched in the table at the Marburg Colloquy in response to Zwingli applies to Calvin as well: HOC EST CORPUS MEUM. Although Calvin came closer to a correct theology by (at least insofar as I recall) acknowledging a spiritual presence, which is still inadequate, particularly given that the Divinity of God and His humanity are consubstantial and cannot be divided, as Calvin, if memory served, reluctantly acknowledged in admitting the correctness of the term Theotokos, and the Patristic doctrine of the Eucharist (both that of the Chalcedonians, and of the miaphysite Oriental Orthodox, whose Christological Orthodoxy is attested to by the Hymn of St. Severus,
Ho Monogenes* (which could not have been composed by a Monophysite or a Nestorian, and likewise by the
confiteor ante communionem of the Coptic Orthodox Divine Liturgy) also does not confuse them or make Christ a hybrid.
The problem with Reformed theology in general and Calvin in particular is the application of human constraints combined with an ignorant incredulity - for example, Calvin supposed, incorrectly, indeed if I recall actually claimed that the relics of the Cross present in Europe were sufficient to account for the mass of a galleon, but a French scientist proved Calvin completely wrong on this point in the 19th century by measuring all relics then accounted for and determining the total mass accounted for a third of the Cross. If we include the intact wing of the Cross the Ethiopian Orthodox Church claims to possess, we have maybe half of it, at best, not counting the relics which were destroyed.
And of course Calvin does bear some responsibility for the severe destruction of priceless cultural artifacts by reintroducing Iconoclasm to Europe together with Zwingli.
* The provenance of this anaphora as the work of Mor Severus of Antioch is demonstrated by the fact that it is used as the introit of the Syriac Orthodox divine liturgy, much more prominently than its position in the Eastern Orthodox (and Armenian Orthodox) liturgy, where it is still prominent, as the usual conclusion to the typical psalm of the Second Antiphon; excluding the possibility that Emperor Justinian wrote it, as some of my fellow Eastern Orthodox claim, given the extreme persecution of the Syriac Orthodox committed in his name; rather, the probable explanation is that proposed by several, that Justinian added Ho Monogenes to the Orthodox liturgy during the period when he was actively pursuing reconciliation with the Oriental Orthodox, indeed being married to a Syriac Orthodox Empress, St. Theodora, and also the attribution by some to St. Athanasius seems
very unlikely, since the issues addressed by the hymn had only begun to appear at the very end of the life of St. Athanasius, is likely the result of the Armenians, who during a period of schism with the other Oriental Orthodox went through a phase of denying the validity of the theopaschite theology of St. Severus of Antioch while, like all Oriental Orthodox, strongly venerating St. Athanasius, perhaps even moreso than the Eastern Orthodox; indeed the only surviving anaphora of the 13 or so once used by the Armenians is the Anaphora of St. Athanasius, unrelated to the Ethiopian anaphora of the same name, which is in fact an abridged version of the Hagiopolitan Anaphora of St. James)..
