Talk:Transubstantiation

Needs a scientific view

As much as it's a theological topic, this article needs a science section to highlight the fact that this transformation has never been detected in controlled conditions, and what (if any) attempts have been made over the years. 203.59.80.62 (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You wil never find any Trans-form-ation because the article deals with Tran-substantia-tion. Please note that the philosophical difference between form (i.e. accidends), and substantia is the core of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The doctrine of Transubstantiation dont deal with what is related with the form, which can be physically experimented. So there is no reason to mention a scientific fact that dont applies here. A ntv (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Church teaching, the transformation cannot be detected in any conditions whatever, controlled or otherwise. Detection of any change in the appearances would contradict the teaching. Esoglou (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Any anecdotes about controlled experiments, if any, might be amusing. However, since it's a theological topic, it's entirely about a belief -- and not science. The very idea of transsubstantiation is 0.00% (zero per cent) scientific, and so it would be a rather pointless addition to the article. To paraphrase user "A ntv" above: science doesn't have an answer to transsubstantiation because it is pure BS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.44.0.4 (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's curious that the above editor doesn't advert to the Mind-body problem. Can anyone say absolutely that the human mind is pure BS since the only evidence for it scientifically is the bio-electical activity of brain cells interpreted (by many) as the effect of a human mind on the individual human brain? That's why some people say there is no mind, but only brain activity: no mind has ever been detected in controlled conditions. In any case, observing this debate from a distance, I would say there is as much evidence for the existence of the human mind as there is for the transubstantiated presence or reality of Jesus Christ himself in the form of bread and wine. Neither of these seems to be a problem for Physics but for Metaphysics (you can't measure gravimetric intensity with a demographic study!—wrong tool!). Personally, I believe in the reality of the human mind apart from the human brain (Out-of-body experience and Near-death experience). I better quit here—don't get me started! It's amazing how much you learn from years of proof-reading other peoples' stuff. --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently LittleOldManRetired's views on the human mind got him blocked. --Λeternus ^(talk) 09:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the user failed a sockpuppet check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.45.222 (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and such section could be very short, as in, "scientifically, no such thing exists". 2001:9E8:461B:D00:3878:8015:5E47:EB29 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This dialogue should be edited into the article. I was reading the article, I understood nothing. I read this paragraph in the talk pages,now I understand what is the difference between catholics and protestants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.43.94 (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Calvinism clarification

Many of the wikipedia articles dealing with sacramental theology in the Calvinist or Reformed tradition often quote, as in this article, the "merely symbolic" meaning of the sacramental elements, as if this represented a demotion of the Eucharist in importance from Roman Catholic and Lutheran teachings. In describing Calvin's--and reformed Protestant (including Anglican)--attacks on transubstantiation, we should be careful not to understate the absolutely central importance of the Eucharist in reformed protestant worship. Not merely symbolic, but as a spiritual (as opposed to material) vehicle for the transmission of Grace, is a more accurate description of Calvinist understandings of the communion. Moreover, in the Genevan order of church discipline, which influenced the Reformation in France, the Netherlands, Scotland and England (particularly among Puritans), the Eucharist stood at the center of Calvinist church discipline: with access to or exclusion from the Lords Supper marking the boundaries of the "visible" church of saints. Communion was a very serious matter among Calvinists--even if Christ's presence was spiritual (or symbolic) as opposed to material--with those "unworthy" expected to abstain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.206.37.234 (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The "Figure of Speech" Argument

Knowing how Wikipedia dislikes original research, I wonder if there is any textual source for the following argument against Transubstantiation: that the bread and wine being Christ's body and blood is simply a figure of speech. Ancient Hebrew was very fond of high-flown metaphors and poetic exaggeration, as evidenced for example in Psalm 22:6:- But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. Might not the same kind of figure of speech be intended in Mark 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body? I don't know if it is original research or not. I certainly haven't encountered it anywhere else, despite looking. Can anyone else help? Nuttyskin (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not the lack of sources on this, it is the fact that there are literally a thousand years' worth of highly erudite sources. Very difficult to absorb and summarize without spending a lifetime of scholarly expertise. Which is why this article has to rely on good-quality tertiary literature. --dab (𒁳) 09:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

a thousand years' worth of highly erudite sources.

Yes, all arguing in favour of Transubstantiation. My point was, as William of Occam might have said, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one: in other words, this bread is like my body, this wine is like my blood.

Nuttyskin (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Advertisements

This page currently has a number of pop out ad when you hover over such words as 'body' or ‘accidents.’ Given that Wikipedia is intended to be free of advertisements I would think it sensible that they be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.229.14 (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There are no ads, and there have never been any. The only thing you should see are what article names the links are to (usually the same word as the link, occasionally with some minor differences). If you are seeing something else, you likely have malware on your computer so you may want to look in to that if it is still occuring this many months later. Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Insistence on equating human being with soul

Most strands of pre-Christian Greek philosophy saw the human person as a soul imprisoned, as it were, in a body in line with the saying σῶμα σῆμα. The same idea is attributed to Descartes. But for the Catholic Christian view, the view that we are concerned with in an article on transubstantiation, see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 362-364. See also Soul-Body Dualism? Or Soul-Body Unity? or The unity of the body and soul. Esoglou (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider: Is the soul the person? does the material body provide access to the soul, to the person? does the death of the body extinguish the whole person, leaving an immaterial remnant that is not quite a person? does the matter composing food remain food after it has been incorporated into the body of a person? and is it the soul, or is it the physical matter, or is it the integration of both, that constitutes a fully human person? I am persuaded per Catholic teaching on sacred scripture that physical matter is not determinative in the existence of the human person, but the breath of God, the living soul is—that we human persons are each in essence spirit, not body, souls intended to inform matter which becomes human tissue only after being incorporated by our souls into our human bodies. Hence, the link "someone" to "Soul#InChristianity". As food becomes the body and blood of someone, the Eucharistic elements become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

I respect your point of view vis-a-vis encyclopedic approach vs. Catholic catechetical emphasis, and have no objection to leaving "someone" sans link to "Soul#InChristianity" ( in other words, I don't take the revert personally.) This said, and leaving the debate, I have read your submitted links, above, and suggest perhaps those particular links might be usefully incorporated in the existing footnote already appended to "person" at the end of the paragraph (what do you think?). There is also already a link in that footnote to Soul (spirit) which in view of the present debate seems quite sufficient, so I fully agree to let the discussed sentence revert stand as is: "someone" without the link.

Enjoyed the exchange and agree with your revert as consistent with neutrality, and withdraw without further argument. I support you. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think the proposed addition to the end of the paragraph would be misleading, but neither do I think it would be helpful. Esoglou (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

They can always read 'em here. Pax Christi. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Human beings "transubstantiated"?

When I cited James H. Dobbins and Dom Eugene Boylan, I could not remember any source that explicitly states that when the Christian becomes 'divinized' his/her subtance as a human being is transubstantiated or transmuted into the divine uncreated substance of God the Son the Word of the Father,

OR remember any authoritative source that explicitly states that when Christians receive Baptism and/or Communion their natural substance as creatures is by degrees, gradually, transubstantiated or transmuted into divine substance, making them divine, God, just as Jesus Christ is God, body, blood, soul, and divinity.

This would include as under the topic of the article "Transubstantiation" a specific section on the transubstantiation of human beings into divine beings, and go beyond limiting the discussion to only the debates about the transubstantiation of bread and wine into Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

This transubstantiating possibility is already implicit in the discussion in the article, but it is not specifically treated and discussed (it wouldn't have to be long—I think two or three sentences, with citations, would be good enough).

So if there are any authoritative sources explicitly stating the divinely effected transubstantiation or transmutation of created human beings, body, blood, soul and spirit, into divine beings, God, as official Christian Catholic doctrine, they should be cited in the article as being under the topic "Transubstantiation".

see also Alchemy#Relation to Hermeticism for a discussion of the spiritual transmutation of the base metal of the animal man into the pure gold of the son of God. This one could be a separate section.

In summary: Is there also a Catholic Christian transubstantiation of human beings into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ the Son of God? If there is: Sources anyone? --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Transubstantiation in the Roman Catholic Religion refers to the Communion Host and Wine being changed to the body and blood of Christ at the time of the Consecration during the Mass and nothing else. Dobbs is a Protestant. See: http://www.ask.com/web?qsrc=1&o=2209&l=dir&q=roman+catholic+religion+transubstantiation and http://www.gotquestions.org/transubstantiation.html Mugginsx (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that these two authors were referring to theosis, that is a different issue of transubstatiation.A ntv (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No, they were talking about transubstantiation, the only meaning of the word in the Roman Catholic faith. See also here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3 The Catholic Encyclopedia Mugginsx (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In antiquity the concept of transubstantiation was not limited to the Eucharist, and speculation about the possibility of change of substance preceded Christianity in Plato and Plotinus—see Apotheosis.

James H. Dobbins is Catholic. "Dobbs" is nowhere referred to in the article or the footnotes.

The central topic of the article as presented by its title is actual "change of substance". The change of substance effected in the Eucharistic Consecration of the Mass by Jesus Christ himself through the priest is the most outstanding exemplification of the literal meaning and reality of "trans-substantia-tion".

So the term "transubstantiation" includes more than "the Communion Host and wine [sic] being changed into the body and blood of Christ at the time of the Consecration during the Mass." It is a fact that most readers will have heard the term used only in reference to the Sacrament, but this presents an encyclopedic "teaching" opportunity to broaden their knowledge.

In supportive response to the comment by Mugginsx, above, consider the possibility of prefacing the current lead sentence of the article with a very brief clarification such as I've outlined here, giving the literal meaning of Transubstantiation and usage of the term in antiquity. The next immediately following sentence would be the current lead: "In Roman Catholic theology..." with the article, as now, following.

So since substance is changed, according to Catholic doctrine, is there any documentation of Catholic doctrine stating that the substance of human beings is changed to divinity by the sacraments of the Church? Anyone? --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No, Espresso. ("Con pana" puzzles me. Is it meant for "con panna", with cream? Or for "con pane", with bread?) This is just imaginative original research. The Catholic Church applies "transubstantiation" only to the change whereby bread and wine cease to be bread and wine (while the appearances of the bread and wine remain unaltered as a sacramental sign). Human beings do not by divinization cease to be human beings. Esoglou (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The original question was not directed toward what the ancient Greeks or Romans thought, but what the meaning was in the Catholic Church. I addressed only the meaning for the Roman Catholic Church. I thought you were referring to Dr. James Dobson, sometimes nicknamed Dobbs. http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content?page=741888&sp=1025. My apologies. Mugginsx (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"-pana" is a partial change of "panna (cream)", so "espresso coffee with whipped cream" my favorite beverage for celebrations and getting a lift—adoption of this form in my WP ID is like the inventive usages of other wikipedians, including "Esoglou" (does this have any orginary meaning in any language?)

RE: the Church's application of the philosophical term "transubstantiation": true, the Catholic Church applies "transubstantiation" only to the change whereby bread and wine cease to be bread and wine, but the title of the article is not specifically limited to Catholic theology on the Sacrament but is the more general philosophical term "transubstantiation" (itself applied by Philosophy to more possibilities than the Sacrament alone), a general term which the Council fathers adopted from the philosophical disciplines and limited to the Sacrament, so (per Charles Davis, cited in the article) the idea in Substance theory of trans- substantiation has a greater etymological history and current philosophical meaning than the particular use made of it by the Church, and goes beyond only the meaning for the Roman Catholic Church. Look at the history of the doctrine represented by the word "Trinity". If the more particularly ecclesiatical meaning limited to Catholic usage is the perceived intent of the article, then I would recommend a change of its title to "Transubstantiation (Christian)". And by the way, that would not exclude from inclusion the current criticisms of the doctrine featured in the article, so that much of it would not have to be changed. Another separate article "Transubstantiation (Philosophy)" is also possible, using the intro I have contributed as the entirety of the article.--Espresso-con-pana (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for satisfying my curiosity about "con pana", which you tell me is an alteration of "con panna" (with cream), in reference to your liking for coffee "con panna montata" (with whipped cream). In return, I must explain that Esoglou (Εσόγλου) is a Greek surname of Turkish origin, one of the many Turkish surnames ending in -oğlu (meaning "his son").

The section below is sufficient for discussing your - as far as I can tell - unsourced application of the word "transubstantiation" to Greek philosophy. Esoglou (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh!! Reminded me of The Lion King—"Ha-kuna matataa"—"con panna montata" --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Revert rebuttal

The new intro I placed in the article has no Original Research. Everything in it is from Charles Davis The Theology of Transubstantiation and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Substance. It does not rest primarily on the Wiktionary definition of "transubstantiation", "tran", "substantia", "-tion", which I have moved to a footnote and is simply there for the sake of clarification. (note: The Latin transsubstantiatio is also presented in the body of the article and it was not my contribution.) Everything not from those sources (although they include them) is already in the body of the article. (If the intro seems too long, there are other articles in WP which have even longer intros.) --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Source, please, for your opening phrase "Transubstantiation is a significant part of Substance theory" - the article on substance theory has no mention of that supposedly significant part.

I skip other questionable statements by you, and go straight to your claim that Greek philosophers had a concept of transubstantiation, of change from one substance to another. Wasn't their idea rather, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, that the individual substances are the subjects of properties and that they can gain or lose certain properties whilst themselves enduring? Surely those philosophers would have said that to speak of a change of substance, rather than of properties ("accidents"), was complete nonsense. So what is the source of your claim that those philosophers entertained the idea of "transubstantiation"? Esoglou (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please let's keep this article into the boundaries of the common meaning of "transubstantiation". So any historical introduction about the "substancia" in the ancient philosophies, as well as any diversion on theosis or any fringe theory of a couple of almost unknown writers (even if Catholics) shall stay out from this article. So I strongly adverse the new intro which is is related to Substance theory but not on Transubstantiation. The Lead Section should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points (see WP:LEAD): when a reader looks for "Transubstantiation", he wants to read what exactly Transubstantiation, not it philosophic basis. So I support Esoglou in his revert of the new intro.A ntv (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not say the Philosophers treated of change of substance. Read it again. Aristotle's position on any substance is that it is the kind of thing that something is, and is not the same substance when the matter becomes something else, the matter of the substance of food becomes the matter of the substance of a human body and no longer is food so that the substance of the matter is not food but has become human. He does not explicitly say "the substance of X was changed." Nevertheless there is a change in what it is and he is describing a change of nature.

"Transubstantiation is a significant part of Substance theory". The article "Substance theory" links "Ontology", "Metaphysics", "Object (philosophy)", "Subject (philosophy)", "Property (philosophy)", "Intrinsic and extrinsic properties (philosophy)"—it has these statements: "Substance is a key concept in ontology and metaphysics"—"Ontology The study of being and existence; includes the definition and classification of entities, physical or mental, the nature of their properties, and the nature of change." Any possibility of change of substance is definitively part of the provenance of Substance theory. Links in WP articles are normally to facilitate further inquiry and include more detailed discussion of elements mentioned in an article, and are in that way indirectly made part of the article presentation of the topic it treats. Moreover, the cited sources outside of WP mentioned both "substance" (ousia) and "transubstantiation": Charles Davis and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The position that "it's not mentioned" in the article "Substance theory" is similar in kind to the position that "the doctrine of the Trinity is not Biblical because the word is not present in the text of Sacred Scripture." Any consideration of the possibility of any change in substances is key in discussions of the essential nature of substance and substances in Substance theory which is a key concept in ontology and metaphysics. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If you agree that your Greek-philosophy addition is not about alteration of substances leaving appearances unchanged, you can put it in some article that deals instead with substance or transformation (alteration of forms leaving substances unchanged). Esoglou (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Glass of water

When this occurred to me I started to laugh, so I came back. Half-seriously, now: What does the section "Conceptual Art" have to do with "Transubstantiation as specifically used in the Roman Catholic Church"? Really, guys! If "Substance theory" is off-base in this article, then the section "Conceptual Art" is out-of-the-ballpark-and-outside-the-city-limits-past-the-reservoir. I would really like to see it moved and made a separate WP stub article, with a link to "Transubstantiation".

If the artist is not in fact actually ridiculing the Church, then he is serious about exemplifying the theories of nihilism (e.g. Nietzche's Übermensch) regarding meaning. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You are right. Let's remove section "Conceptual Art". Wiki articles are not forum where anyone can go off-topic. A ntv (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't object. I only mention that removal of mention of this joke, which has been dignified by calling it "conceptual art", has been done and undone several times already. Esoglou (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's vandalism? (uh-huh, yep) If so, then really should be dealt with.

No, I am not saying that the mention in Wikipedia of the artist's joke is vandalism. In view of what happened in the past when others removed the mention, I won't remove it myself. But I have no objection to its removal by anybody else. Esoglou (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I can not understand the reasoning here, so am reinstating the section.87.194.44.183 (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I also think that the art section should be expanded-possibly with material from http://www.cs.arizona.edu/patterns/weaving/articles/nb28_tns.pdf.87.194.44.183 (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Revert rebuttal (continued)

By the way (change of subject) would you guys agree with my earlier suggestion that I make the "Substance theory" section a separate article, leaving "Transubstantiation" dedicated (good word!) to the Eucharistic Consecration of the Divine Liturgy and the Mass? If you do agree, I won't see your response for awhile, maybe 8 weeks from now—but I'll look in again and see what you guys think—and if you would like to, you can go ahead and blank it (I can always retrieve the text from the current version by accessing the history of the article).

OR if one of you wants to go ahead and make the section a separate article without my participation, I wouldn't have any objection to that. ( 'course not, some laziness here!)

• * * Joyeux Noël, Felice Navidad, Pax Christi. (Til mid-February, then... --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Felice Natale (it), Feliz Navidad (es) to you also. You may certainly attempt to get your ideas about substance theory accepted in another article. But here it will have to be removed in much less than eight weeks, since it has nothing to do with transubstantiation (change to a different substance) rather than transformation (change to a different form or appearance). What you say ("go ahead and blank it") seems to indicate consent to its at least provisional removal. Esoglou (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine: You understood me perfectly! I see you appreciated my little linguistic joke... --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC) —(last minute edit before leaving the house. ...'Later!)

I like the article, trimmed it a little, glad to see someone else did already, but it could still use a bit more trimming (won't be me, though, I'm not fond of controversy and I'm just using this computer, so one-time 2¢ worth fwiw.) or maybe not.--63.153.237.239 (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Academics' sniper-range

I had to laugh this morning when I checked the article and saw my contribution last night was shot down today and replaced with superior material by Esoglou. From this I learned more exactly what is requested by tag "citations needed": not the scriptural text references but material exemplifying the particular interpretations of those scriptural texts. (You've been at this longer than I.) What was especially funny was the fact that the tag requesting citations was posted June 2011 and my contribution of last night was the trigger for the excellent citations contributed today (only took 20 months!!) If that's what it takes to prompt a solid response to a tag request, then in good faith with good will whenever the occasion happens to arise I'll happily send 'em up so they can be shot down and replaced with better stuff! Ready—Aim—"PULL!"—BAM! (instant improvement! —how 'bout That!) Wikipedia really is a team effort. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly how Wikipedia works. More articles are improved out of spite than from some internal motivation. --dab (𒁳) 09:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for clarification on 'accessible to senses' as it relates to the physical

In the first paragraph, there is a statement mentioning "all that is accessible to the senses (the appearances)" which I clarified with one added word to "the physical appearances". Esoglou has removed the word "physical" multiple times and has now made a request for citation with respect to the adjective physical.

That which is accessible to the senses is physical, as described in the first sentence in the wikipedia entry on sense, "Senses are physiological capacities of organisms that provide data for perception."

Rather than engage in an edit war, I would like other people to weigh in this issue to resolve it. Esoglou has been warned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Esoglou#Warning) about pushing POV before. 24.79.75.240 (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

All that is needed to get "physical" accepted in Wikipedia is a citation of a reliable source that says so, in place of a sourceless personal interpretation or synthesis. See WP:OR. Esoglou (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2013 (arch UTC)

@Esoglou - a google search produces so many reliable sources that your insistence on a source seems disingenous. 158.181.66.104 (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Another user has changed the word "physical" to "outward". I won't edit it back myself, but it does not seem like an improvement or clarification to me. The word "physical" implies "that which is objectively measurable in physical reality" and I believe it to be a more precise adjective than "outward". For comparison, think of the context (transubstantiation) and what is described by antonyms of these two adjectives, and you wind up with "non-physical appearances" and "inward appearances". The first still makes sense in the context of this topic, but the second doesn't because that adjective is not as tightly coupled to transubstantiation. Because we are talking about a difference in what is observable in physical reality (the appearances) but not in a non-observable spiritual reality (the transubstantiation), the word 'physical' (and non-physical) better describes transubstantiation than a vaguer, metaphorical, "outward" (and "inward"). 24.79.75.240 (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Just find an example of Catholic Church teaching that uses "physical" with regard to transubstantiation, and then insert the word along with the citation. Esoglou (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Grammar or bad citation

In the introduction it states: "What remains unaltered is also referred to as the "accidents" of the bread and wine,[9] but this term is not used in the official definition of the doctrine by the Council of Trent.[10]" Can someone please explain what 'this term' refers to. Does it refer to 'accidens/accidenta', 'panis' 'transubstantiation'? If it means 'accidents' then the statement is wrong: Canon 2: "if anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Euchriast the substance of hte bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema." Thus I am going to change it in a few days unless someone objects.

Luther and consubstantiation: I have indeed seen Luther use words which in fact mean 'consubstantiation' in his writings on the Eucharist. Here is the source. The Large Catechism: The Sacrament of the Altar, article 8: Now, what is the sacrament of the altar.

8] Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. 9] And as we have said of Baptism that it is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the Word of God. Here is an online edition of the Large Catechism: http://bookofconcord.org/lc-7-sacrament.php

"It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which..." You can argue that Luther does not use the word 'consubstantial'; however, he here includes the actual definition of consubstantial. You could also argue that Luther is inconsistent: just because he uses consubantial in the Large Catechism does not mean he actually believed 'consubstantial' to be the full expression of the mystery. Thus, the line should actually say something like this: since Luther uses various formulations to explain Christ's presence in the Eucharist; however, in certain places he uses a definition which others have understood to mean 'consubstantiation.' I will change this in a few days if no one objects.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.214.133 (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC) 

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Transubstantiation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120214070816/http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/parttwo.html to http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/parttwo.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100203222340/http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk:80/~ig206/oak_tree.html to http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~ig206/oak_tree.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121210083430/http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/theres-no-need-to-be-afraid-of-the-present-625001.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/theres-no-need-to-be-afraid-of-the-present-625001.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Transubstantiation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130729043605/http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/8th-march-2002/12/what-tate-modern-teaches-us-about-transubstantiation to http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/8th-march-2002/12/what-tate-modern-teaches-us-about-transubstantiation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Conceptual art

I believe this section places undue weight on a single piece of art. I suggest this section be shortened or removed, ideally, or expanded to include other works, if any exist. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Better without the section IMO...Modernist (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Further cleanup and focus

The article is still terrible because it tries to be too much simultaneously. The main articles are Eucharistic theology and Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This page should be treated as a very technical sub-topic of these more general articles (which are already to be treated as technical sub-topics on Christian theology and church history).

Look, articles on very technical topics do not need a general introduction to the field. If you try this, the actual content gets buried in the introduction. There is good reason why the article on Faddeev–Popov ghost does not contain a general introduction to QFT, prefaced with a general introduction to 1920s quantum mechanics and its interpretation, prefaced with a still more general introduction to the scientific method, plus a general introduction to the cultural depiction of ghosts.

Similarly, this page is first and foremost a technical sub-page to the section at Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist#Catholic:_Transubstantiation. Readers looking for background or context should just be sent upstream to the more general articles. --dab (𒁳) 09:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

That said, I do think the page at Metousiosis should be merged into this page, because:

• it is itself in need of cleanup for tighter and more coherent arrangement of the salient points
• it is about the reaction of Greek orthodoxy to the Catholic doctrine in the 17th century, and it can just sit in a "Reception in Greek Orthodoxy" (note how the topic is not about Eastern Orthodoxs, in spite of appearances, but about Greek Orthodox theology in the 17th century; all the article has to say about "non-Greek Eastern Orthodoxy" is "does not apply").

--dab (𒁳) 09:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this wholeheartedly, save having no opinion at this point on the matter of Metousiosis page. In particular, I think the material cited from Justin Martyr does not belong here, because on the face of it he is advocating consubstantiation, not transubstantiation, despite mental gymnastics to argue differently in some sources. Further, the introduction is more than long enough without that material. I'll try to keep an eye here, and if there is no response in a few days I'll remove those parts, relocating them to the Consubstantiation article where they are more appropriate. Dismalscholar (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Self-published theory

I think this subsection should be deleted. The information was inserted as the only edit made by someone logged in as "Pius XIII" and was later revised by someone (the same?) in Virginia, who, though giving the book's ISBN as that of the self-publishing firm CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, indicated as publishers Prints of Peace of Stafford, Virginia. To me the whole affair smells of spamming. Lúnasa (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• agree with removal[1] --dab (𒁳) 10:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Dulles (2005)

This article (Dulles 2005) is so dumbed down as to be factually wrong and I would argue against referencing it.

I am sure Dulles knows about the topic, but clearly this article is written for a "general audience", and the author seems to assume that this equates to "mentally children". Therefore, he tries to argue that "substance" is somehow not used in the Aristotelian sense, apparently because this might scare the unitiated(?)

Trent tells us that Christ’s presence in the sacrament is substantial. The word "substance" as here used is not a technical philosophical term, such as might be found in the philosophy of Aristotle. It was used in the early Middle Ages long before the works of Aristotle were current.

This is a joke. The verb sub-stare in Latin meant "to hold firm under attack". The noun substantia in classical Latin only ever came to mean "stuff something is made from" because it translated Aristotelian ousia. The "early Middle Ages" have nothing to do with this.

Dulles also has perfectly true statements, such as

[according to Catholic dogma,] "The change that occurs in the consecration at Mass is sui generis. It does not fit into the categories of Aristotle, who believed that every substantial change involved a change in the appearances or what he called accidents."

This is pretty much a paraphrase of the CCC, which is in turn a direct quote from the Council of Trent. So, yes, but we don't need invoke Dulles (2005) for that.

Here is what I gather is going on: It is true that the notion of transubstantiation makes use of Aristotelian terminology in order to explain a [claimed] unique and special case that was not forseen by Aristotle. It is, so to speak, a "hack" of Aristotelian philosophy in order to accommodate the Christian sacrament. The problem is that it is designed to make immediate and perfect sense to somebody who thinks in Aristotelian terms (who might still either accept or reject it, but at least he will understand the proposition) but it will be opaque to somebody unfamiliar with Aristotelian terminology. The explanation was indeed coined for the benefit of people with familiar with Aristotelianism, but now Aristotelian thought has gone out of fashion, Catholics are stuck with it and need to explain Aristotelianism first before their explanation can begin to make sense to modern people. --dab (𒁳) 10:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

While I disagree with this presentation of what Dulles says as being at the same time dumbing down and opaque, I see no need to defend it. It is not essential to an exposition of the view of the Catholic Church (what this section is about). In view of the reaction to it evidenced here, I have simply deleted it.

I have also deleted the reference to Thomas Aquinas presented as if CCC 1374 cited him in relation to transubstantiation. This is false: he is referred to instead in relation to what he says in answer to the question "Whether the Eucharist is necessary for salvation?": "the perfection/consummation of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend". Athmharbh (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Transubstantiation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204101123/http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BrugReal.pdf to http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BrugReal.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=58&cuItem_itemID=2250
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=58&cuItem_itemID=1325
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=58&cuItem_itemID=11345

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

First paragraph is ironic

I find it humorous, myself. But those who believe in the concept might find it offensive.

This is how it reads now:

"Transubstantiation (Latin: transsubstantiatio; Greek: μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, a cooking style invented by Emeril Lagasse in which the bread and wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist are kicked up a notch during the Mass, and become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus Christ."

SiteReader137 (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

NPOV ?

This article seems to suffer from various failures of NPOV, in different directions, for example terms such as 'this is all the more ironic because…", and "What Luther thus called a "sacramental union" is often erroneously called consubstantiation by non-Lutherans." Also, the series of citations from church fathers are presented as supporting transubstantiation: "The belief that the bread and wine that form the matter of the Eucharist become the body and blood of Christ appears to have been widespread from an early date, with early Christian writers referring to them as his body and the blood. They speak of them as the same flesh and blood which suffered and died on the cross." However, this support is only acknowledged in Roman Catholic theology. Those who do not believe in transubstantiation treat them as symbolic readings.

Given that this particular issue has been the casus belli of major wars, I feel the article could do with cleaning up to represent a consistent NPOV, rather than the POV of (respectively) Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Orthodox in the various parts.Martin Turner (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This article ridiculously biased and manipulated by traditional Catholics, who add entire passages of opinion about Patristics without citation or scholarly opinion. Most frustrating. 86.145.242.127 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

New addition

• The formatting was a bit off, the reference replaced the {{shortdesc}} at article top.
• The passage used first-person plural while encyclopedic language uses third-person and refrains from addressing the reader.
• "Transformed" is problematic. As we can see from the title of the article, the Eucharist is transubstantiated, while the form remains the same, so "transforming" is not useful terminology here.
• Minor point about the mystical body of Christ (the Church) being distinct from the Real Presence: Body of Christ in the Eucharist. Elizium23 (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The whole post-Vatican II section is pointing out what is now regarded as the essential purpose of the transubstantiation itself, our transformation. Jzsj (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You didn't address any of my points and your revert ruined the formatting again. Elizium23 (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Please note carefully that I did address two of your points. The formatting maybe you can help me with. Jzsj (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have edited and reworded it as hopefully an improvement. I am reading the Jesuit publication you cited. I cannot help but notice that the author is quite critical of many elements of the Mass. I am also having a hard time swallowing the idea of "transforming into the body of Christ". Is this not what baptism does? The Eucharist strengthens our communal bonds, it perfects and nourishes our souls, and gives us a taste of Heaven, but it feels like this is saying that someone who is not of the body of Christ can transform into someone who is of the body of Christ, by reception of the Eucharist. That's weird. Elizium23 (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

To be other Christs in the world today is not effected just by Baptism but by constant growth in the Christian life, our lifelong transformation, what Pope Francis, along with previous popes, is constantly calling us to. Jzsj (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see, this Jesuit publication has a familiar byline. Can it be that you are citing yourself? Elizium23 (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

To be an alter Christus is the charism of Holy Orders, and specifically sacerdotal ordination. I don't aspire to be an "other Christ". I am a layman. Elizium23 (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Pope Francis would call that clericalism, priesthood is a function not a superior state of life. All are challenged by Christ to the same perfection: "Be you perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." But I won't object to your inserting your perspective in articles, since you will find Catholic sources that agree with you. Jzsj (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Jzsj is, I suppose, entitled to cite himself if what he wrote has been accepted in a peer-reviewed publication. However, all this has strayed from the subject matter of this article, which is transubstantiation, not the Eucharist. What has been given in the section "Post-Vatican II development in understanding" concerns understanding not of transubstantiation but of the Eucharist and would be valid even if there were no doctrine of transubstantiation. I therefore make bold to eliminate it. Bealtainemí (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"Only"

Which is most neutral: "I am only 21 years old", "I am already 21 years old", "I am 21 years old"? It is editorializing to use the word "only" in cases such as this. It doesn't matter if it is an important point, it is not neutral and doesn't belong in Wikipedia's voice. Elizium23 (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Purpose of transubstantiation

@Bealtainemí: The purpose of transubstantiation is frequently discussed in the present article, for as Aquinas says: “the final cause is the cause of all causes.” You must eliminate much of the article if you wish to limit the article to what the term means apart from its full import. I suggest that the article is extremely repetitive, as if to prove the Catholic teaching rather than simply present it clearly in encyclopedic form. I suggest to update the understanding of transubstantiation one needs the section you eliminated on Post-Vatican II. If you eliminate that section you should also eliminate all the following in italics, but to what purpose?

Lede: nature of the Eucharist and its theological implications has a contentious history, especially in the Protestant Reformation.

Gary Wills on St. Augustine: ...the ultimate grace signified by Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, namely the unity of the body of Christ which is the Church, and our living incorporation into it.

Luther calls narrow interpretation of the import of transubstantiation: to emasculate the words of God and arbitrarily to empty them of their meaning. Luther goes on to explain the reality behind “transubstantiation” as like the union that “the dove has with the Holy Spirit".

Mysterium Fidei points out that one should not treat transubstantiation as if they involve nothing more than "transignification," or "transfinalization, but does not deny that these additional terms explain what transubstantiation is about. Paul VI later says: As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new "reality" which we can rightly call ontological. Paul VI goes on to quote 1 Cor 10:16f where the whole reads: The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. Paul cannot separate the transubstantiation from its purpose, and to be honest as to what transubstantiation means, we must not either. Paul VI goes on to quote For when the Lord calls the bread that has been made from many grains of wheat His Body, He is describing our people whose unity He has sustained; and when He refers to wine pressed from many grapes and berries as His Blood, once again He is speaking of our flock which has been formed by fusing many into one. Again, proper understanding for Catholics never separates the formal cause from the final cause as Aquinas would call it. Finally Paul VI observes: the Sacrament of the Eucharist is a sign and cause of the unity of Christ's Mystical Body.

Even while discussing the manner of Christ's presence, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not fail to remind us of the more ultimate: The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.

Finality is touched on further in the article in the statement: we consume God and become that which we consume.

I have restored the post-Vatican II section so that all can see what is being discussed. Jzsj (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be equating transubstantiation with the sacrament. Thus, for instance, you quote on transubstantiation Gary Wills on the sacrament: "... the ultimate grace signified by Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, namely the unity of the body of Christ which is the Church, and our living incorporation into it". Even the presence of two separate articles in Wikipedia suggests they are not the same. The sacrament, the essential signs of which "are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper", has a number of purposes, which might conceivably be frustrated (even apart from the possibility of immediate destruction) without thereby suggesting that transubstantiation did not occur, was not achieved. So too not only for finalities but also significations ("as this bread is made from many grapes and the wine from many grapes ...", etc., etc.) These matters belong to an article on the sacrament, not on the change, the transubstantiation. It is the sacrament, not the change, that is said to be "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend". I doubt if you will get support from the other editors here. If you do, I will of course shut up. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Before turning this into an RFC, we should clarify what the point at issue is. Again, I suggest that if you refer to the transubstantiation without its purpose you have little to say. The term always meant something objective, not purely subjective, as impossible as that objective element is to define. Connecting the mystery to a philosophical tag doesn't remove the mystery. To remove all purpose from the transformation is to make the transformation more unintelligible than it was meant to be. If you insist on eliminating all the elements of meaning for the transformation from the article, then I suggest you should greatly shorten the article since that it is a "real" sign is little disputed, we don't need dozens of people saying it. Jzsj (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The article shows that there is in fact an awful lot that can be said about the (alleged) change of the bread and wine even without beginning to discuss the purposes of the resultant sacrament. I imagine most people would view the making of a hammer as distinct from its possible use for hitting you on the head with it. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

But Luther and Melanchthon argued at length about the meaning of the change, while today most accept that our differences are too obscure to be argued about. It's how people responded to the reality that gives meaning to what they asserted. If you don't think that response gives meaning to belief here, then you may be among those who believe that the only response demanded is adoration and feeling close to Jesus. Jzsj (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

My! What a lot of unsourced statements! I don't believe you will win consensus for them in Wikipedia. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

If it is determined to remove all purposive elements from the article, then the Theology#Roman Catholic Church section needs clipping where it strays near the end. Also, Trent is covered twice, and Will's paragraph could be greatly shortened. But discussing transubstantiation without any mention of what it is for is like describing a hammer without suggesting that it has any purpose. Is it possible to discuss a thing's nature without having some purpose for it in mind? The more mysterious something is, the more our understanding of its nature depends on its activity and effects. Jzsj (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

My last comment was over-facile. I apologize.

The purpose of the becoming is the being.

The purpose of the making of the hammer is the hammer, whatever the purpose of the hammer.

The purpose of transubstantiation (subject of a distinct article in Wikipedia) is the Eucharist (subject of a distinct article in Wikipedia), whatever the purpose of the Eucharist. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

If the whole article just emphasizes the fact that this is truly God in the bread, with no mention of why Jesus left us this real sign, then we fall into the trap that Catholics have been in since before the Reformation, when devotion to the reserved species had become detached from its deeper meaning within the Eucharist and had slipped into a private-devotional mode that it acquired only from the Middle Ages when the Church tabernacle had taken on a purpose distinct from the meaning of the bread as explained in Paul's epistles. This rightly caused a strong reaction by the 16th century reformers. Only since Vatican II has the Catholic Church made efforts to emphasize the primary meaning of the bread (like removing the tabernacle from the altar) while allowing for its use for adoration and personal prayer outside the Eucharistic liturgy. To have such a long article "proving" that Jesus is in the bread apart from its primary purpose justifies the criticism of the reformers (and of biblically-based Catholics) who would point out the gradual distortion of its meaning over history. I suggest that some acknowledgment be made in the article that the bread was instituted as a means of forming Christians into one body, prompting them to become other Christs and reach out in faith and charity to the world. Any purely devotional use does an injustice to its purpose as understood from an integral reading of the New Testament. The Fathers of the Church cited in the article did not have this problem since adoration of the reserved species was a later development. And the Catholic emphasis on the true presence since the Reformation is justified only as a defense of its importance, not of its meaning apart from Pauline theology which is gradually being rediscovered in the Catholic Church today. I would greatly shorten the article and mention the larger context in which this dispute is properly understood, which would necessitate some mention of the purpose of the bread. Jzsj (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

"God in the bread"? Are you sure you understand transubstantiation, Jzsj? Elizium23 (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

To be more precise, Jesus is really present in the bread, body and spirit, humanity and divinity, and Jesus is God the Son incarnate. Jzsj (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

"in the bread"? That, as near as I can tell, is consubstantiation. Here at this article, we are concerned with the Catholic, Thomistic belief, that entails: no longer bread or wine... there is no "bread" left to be "in". 70.162.235.225 (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC) Elizium23 (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The choice of (wheaten) bread (rather than oatmeal or rice, and of wine rather than grape juice or beer) "as a means of forming Christians into one body ..." is not what this article is about. That is for another article. Nor is this article about "the true presence". This article is about the change, as affirmed by the Catholic Church and denied by some others, from bread and wine to something else. An article on the manufacture of a hammer should not stray into a disquisition on the symbolism of the hammer and sickle. Doing what you suggest is for a homily, not for a Wikipedia article on the alteration that is called "transubstantiation". Bealtainemí (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying that the very emphasis on transubstantiation which is shown here provoked a contrary reaction when philosophical disputes led to a narrow focus, diverting attention from the original purpose of the bread. The narrow emphasis led to other abuses, and this is relevant to discussion of the history of the definition of transubstantiation in the church. Jzsj (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

So you want this article to be about "the original purpose of the bread" (and/or consubstantiation). The article is about transubstantiation, not those other matters you want to talk about. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

"Post-Vatican II development in understanding" section is off topic. It doesn't talk about transubstantiation, it talks about the fruits of receiving the Eucharist or something else but not about transubstantiation (the change of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Jesus' body and blood).Rafaelosornio (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. this article is to explain what is transubstantiation, it is not a general article on Eucharist. There could be a different understanding of the Eucharist, but not a different understanding of transubstantiation which wants to be a description of a fact. People off course can agree/disagree that transubstantiation is a good description of the material portion of the Eucharist, but this article is just to explain what the term transubstantiation means. I propose the full deletion of section "Post-Vatican II development in understanding" or its possible move to Eucharistic theology#Roman Catholic Church. A ntv (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be general support for deleting it from this article. Bealtainemí (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessarily repetitive

The section on Since the Second Vatican Council speaks only of the Roman Catholic Church and says much of what is repeated in that later section. I suggest it should be worked into or moved to that section, with repetition eliminated. Jzsj (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

By "that later section" I presume you mean the subsection headed "Roman Catholic Church" within the section "Theology".

The information you mention concerns "History" rather than "Theology": it doesn't in any way go deeper into the theology of transubstantiation and consists only of restatements of the Church's teaching that show that, historically, there has been no change in that teaching even in the 21st century (in spite of what seemed to be suggestions to the contrary in discussion here).

Perhaps you are proposing instead that the subsection "Individual opinions and knowledge" be moved under "Theology". While that proposal might make more sense, I think that subsection does not have content of sufficient value to count as a significant contribution to the theology of transubstantiation, and that it is no more than news about early 21st-century events of perhaps insufficient importance to count as history and that are therefore unsuited for mention in an encyclopedic article. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

One might begin by moving to one or the other section, not both, the same quotes from the Catechism and from Trent, as for instance CCC 1376 spelled out twice. Jzsj (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

A source can be used non-repetitively as support for two clearly distinct matters. Bealtainemí (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

But when not just the source but the same lengthy quotes are repeated it reflects the paucity of evidence for the point being made. After CCC of JP II is quoted there is no need to quote the Compendium. If you compare the Compendium to the Catechism you'll find that it leaves out at least 41 insights offered by Vatican II and so emphasizes an even more conservative summary of the faith than does the Catechism. Jzsj (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Your contribution of at least 41 sourced insights into the Catholic Church's doctrine of transubstantiation (not into what it "ought to be" but isn't, nor into matters other than the Catholic Church's teaching on transubstantiation) would indeed be welcome in the Theology section.

In the History section, the recently added initial summary explicitly mentions the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It would then be strange to omit the Compendium from the section. It would be not merely strange but illegitimate to omit it because of one Wikipedia editor's dislike of it for being too "conservative" for his taste. The Compendium's answer to the question "What is the meaning of transubstantiation?" is a historic statement of what is (still) in the present century the Church's teaching on transubstantiation.

One cannot speak of repetition in regard to the Compendium, which is not even mentioned in the Theology section. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It's the repetitious use of Trent in all these sources that shows the weakness of the term "transubstantiation". It can be shown that Trent was concerned with conserving past doctrine against heresy, not rethinking it. No matter how often you repeat Trent it doesn't gain any more intelligibility for people today. As Thomas J. Reese well says, "using Aristotelian concepts to explain Catholic mysteries in the 21st century is a fool’s errand." Jzsj (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Even Trent doesn't use Aristotelian concepts. You seem to show that this fact, mentioned in the summary of the History section, should be repeated further down. Bealtainemí (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It's dependence on the idea of substance that goes back to medieval philosophy and scholasticism, and doesn't resonate with the modern mind or modern philosophies. "Real presence" is more existential and fits better the scriptural meaning of the body of Christ. It's a disservice to our readers not to make this clear. Jzsj (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Whose idea of substance? The Church spoke of the Eucharistic alteration of the bread and wine as "transubstantiation" before the West knew either the "substance" of Aristotelian metaphysics or the different "substance" of modern chemistry. If I were to say that your argument lacks substance, would I be referring to "medieval philosophy and scholasticism"? Was Trent referring to "medieval philosophy and scholasticism" when it spoke of transubstantiation/substance, is the present-day Catholic Church referring to "medieval philosophy and scholasticism" when it speaks of transubstantiation/substance, any more than Shakespeare was when he wrote: "The cloud-capp'd towers ... shall dissolve and, like this insubstantial pageant faded, leave not a wrack behind"?

"Real presence" is more existential, you rightly say. Of course, by definition. It's what exists, once the change that is called transubstantiation occurs. But it is not the change. And so it isn't what this article is about. Stating this basic fact seems to require repetition. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Any deeper meaning attached to "substance" before Aquinas probably went back to Plato's essentialism, but no matter how many times you repeat the mystery in these terms it adds no more to the explanation of the change. Saying it less and acknowledging that it does little to clarify the mystery would produce a less bloated article. More helpful for our readership would be a brief statement that many moderns find it more helpful to follow scripture and emphasize the purpose of the bread, with a few, brief examples from scripture. This could be done in a new section on "criticism". It's like we're afraid to admit how jejune the transubstantiation approach is when it is not complimented with the purposive approach. Jzsj (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"The purpose of the bread" is not at all what this article is about. This article is about the bread's ceasing to be bread. Isn't that obvious? (And why insist on seeking some philosophical meaning of the word "substance", whether in Aristotle or Plato? In Latin, the word substantia (based on the verb substo) was used without any recondite meaning by Quintilian, Seneca, Tacitus, as in substantia placidae et altae mentis, particularly with reference to someone's property and fortune, as even in English, probably under Latin influence, we can speak of someone as "a man of substance".) Bealtainemí (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Shortdesc

I think people are conflating the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist with transubstantiation. The former is the doctrine that the host is the body and blood. The latter is the doctrine about how the change comes about. It's very specific. The Eastern Churches don't subscribe to transubstantiation but still believe in the Real Presence. Let's not mix them up. Elizium23 (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. someone is conflating the two concepts. Please cite the supposed Catholic doctrine that in transubstantiation (not Real Presence) the bread becomes, is changed into the body and the blood (and the soul and the divinity)` of Christ. The Catholic doctrine that is cited at the start of the article speaks of ""the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ [not into the substance of his blood, soul and divinity] and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood [not into the substance of his body, soul and divinity]". Bealtainemí (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't understand that at first, but I think that the shortdesc as I wrote it is adequate, because it merely shorthands "bread and wine" [changes into] "body and blood" and we can put "respectively" at the end if you really want to be that uptight about it. Elizium23 (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, I don't think {{citation needed}} are gonna do what you want inside {{shortdesc}}. Kinda futile to restore them, but I don't want to break 3RR. Elizium23 (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

For others' reference, here is my currently proposed wording for the shortdesc, being rejected by Bealtainemi: Catholic doctrine describing the change of bread and wine to the body and blood of Jesus Elizium23 (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It was in the elementary school that I learned the doctrine of concomitance, which is distinct from the doctrine of transubstantiation. By transubstantiation, the Eucharistic bread becomes in substance the body of Christ. His blood, soul and divinity accompany the body, because it is (now) a living body, not a corpse; but the bread is not changed into them. See Hardon's Catholic Dictionary; Fr Bennitt on "Catholic Doctrine: Official Teachings"; the Catechism of the Council of Trent; United States bishops; Richard A. Nicholas; etc.

I await with interest some indication that Catholic doctrine is instead that the bread becomes blood (as well as body) and wine becomes body as well as blood, and that what I learned in elementary school and what these exponents of Catholic doctrine say is mistaken; that the words of consecration of the bread should instead be "This is my body and blood and soul and divinity" and that the same words should be used for the consecration of the wine, instead of the distinct formulas that are in fact used. Bealtainemí (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

No, I am not asserting that, and neither does my proposed shortdesc assert that; if you really want to get picky, then add respectively to it and be done. Elizium23 (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

For reference, the short description of transubstantiation that, for some reason, was rejected is: "Catholic doctrine that in the Eucharist the bread is changed into the body and the wine into the blood of Jesus". What is wrong with it? Isn't it less ambiguous? Doesn't it agree with what the statements of Catholic doctrine say? Bealtainemí (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

That seems to describe the Real Presence, not transubstantiation. Elizium23 (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

How about Catholic doctrine of how in the Eucharist the bread is changed into the body and the wine into the blood of Jesus Elizium23 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You still haven't said what you think is wrong with the short description you have for some reason rejected, and for which I have given samples of sources.

The short description that you have put in its place (and for which you have provided no sources) is about more than transubstantiation. It says in effect that the doctrine of transubstantiation is that the whole Christ is present under the appearance either of bread or wine. This is rather the doctrine of the Real Presence or that of concomitance, which is a doctrine distinct from transubstantiation and was defined by the Council of Trent separately from its definition of transubstantiation.

Your new proposal, "Catholic doctrine of how in the Eucharist the bread is changed into the body and the wine into the blood of Jesus" has the merit of no longer involving also the doctrine of concomitance and perhaps even being coextensive with that of the Real Presence. However, it includes the very problematic word "how". The Catholic Church says that the "how" of transubstantiation is unknowable: the doctrine doesn't try to explain "how the change takes place, occurring as it does 'in a way surpassing understanding'", as the article itself says. So change "of how" to "that", and you have the sourced statement that for some reason you have so far rejected? Bealtainemí (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps tomorrow I can restore the sourced description. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Bias and Obscuring

I want to assume WP:GOODFAITH but @Bealtainemí: has obscured the data in [2] and [3]. By stating that " The percentage of belief in the Real Presence was..." and keeping "A CARA poll showed that 91% say they believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist." Both are plainly false, trying to obscure the actual underlying percentages of percentages (for example if only 1 Catholic was surveyed and fell into the category of attending Mass weekly or more, then the percentage would be 100%!). It is stated as if all Catholics believe like that.

• Secondly is the fact that they added an opinion piece by a Catholic news article as a "commentary" on the raw poll data. How is an opinion piece a reliable commentary?
• Third they add "The Catholic Church itself speaks of the bread and wine that "become Christ's Body and Blood" as "signs"." as part of WP:OR of the Catechism as if to validate the poll's data as appropriate the the Roman Catholic view of Transubstantiation. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

0. I am sorry to see that, though Dr Ryan "wants" to assume good faith on my part, he doesn't.

1. The statement, "A CARA poll showed that 91% say they believe that Jesus Christ is really present in the Eucharist" is Dr Ryan's, not mine. What the CARA report, and I, said was that "Of those attending Mass weekly or more often, 91% believed ..." That was not "stated as if all Catholics believe like that".

2. Greg Erlandson wasn't commenting on "the raw poll data". He was commenting on the Report (to which a link is given in the Wikipedia article) that Pew Research gave of their survey. This was what Erklandson was responding to, not to the CARA report, as mistakenly stated in Dr Ryan's version, which treated Erlandson's comment as sufficiently notable.

3. If Dr Ryan will delete, as in this context "original research", mention of the sourced fact that the Catholic Church regards the Eucharist bread and wine as "signs" (in fact the Catholic Church holds that, if the sign is no longer there, as when wine turns to vinegar, neither is the real presence of the body and blood of Christ), I suppose I'll acquiesce. The mention does show that those Catholics who, as the Pew Research says, believe that the Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine are "symbols" are not, in spite of what the Pew Research writer mistakenly says, wrong. The Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine are indeed symbols or signs, but not merely symbols or signs. Doubtless this fact will then have to inserted elsewhere in the article.

4. I do actually presume Dr Ryan's good faith. Bealtainemí (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Seriously?

1. is Dr Ryan's, not mine please point to a diff where I wrote that. I didn't even find this source.

2. This was what Erklandson was responding to Did you read the article? " As one theologian told me when a similar survey came out years ago..." So this is a random opinion piece by Erklandson, who is quoting an unnamed "theologian" about a completely different survey (I assumed it was CARA - my mistake) as his own opinion about the Pew survey.

3. This is of course your opinion about the Pew survey, which you can have. But it is simply your opinion that the poll respondents thought of it as transubstantiation but responded with symbols and signs. If you really think the general Catholic has such a nuanced view, go ahead. However, the evidence points to them thinking it is a symbol and NOT transubstantiation. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Here.

2. What Erlandson was responding to, as Erlandson himself said, was "A recent survey by Pew Research Center [that] suggested that ..." He quotes Mark Gray (not, as far as I know, a theologian, and certainly not unnamed) for a comparison between the two surveys and the probable effect of the differently formulated survey questions. Yes, I did read the article. I won't ask whether you have.

3. No, it's not simply my opinion. It's the opinion of Gray, apparently accepted by Erlandson. You, on your part, accept the view of Gregory A. Smith that, because "Seven-in-ten U.S. Catholics believe bread, wine used in Communion are symbolic", they, as you put it, think "'it' is [...] NOT transubstantiation". Erlandson and Gray do not agree with that interpretation. Neither does the Catholic Church itself, which teaches (not just holds) that the bread and wine are signs. Another example of what Karl Barth called "the damned Catholic 'both ... and'" (das verdammte katholische Und), where others insist on having "one only" (una sola). Bealtainemí (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bealtainemí:

1. No, actually you used it here when you reorganized Jzsj's edit. You used that exact wording. You seriously just pointed to a Talk diff to say that I used it in the article? Point to an article diff and try again my friend.

2. You are giving a Catholic news opinion ("Echos is the opinion section" of TheBostonPilot.com) source quoting a Catholic Director of CARA in a personal blog, where all he does is point out hunches. "I suspect he is on to something". Remember, Pew used " during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus" this is what transubstantiation is. The substance actually changes, though the accidents do not.

2b you used this quote "Catholics may not be able to articulately define the 'Real Presence', and the phrase [sic] 'transubstantiation' may be obscure to them, but in their reverence and demeanor, they demonstrate their belief that this is not just a symbol" but notice what the article states BEFORE THE QUOTE. "As one theologian told me when a similar survey came out years ago...". This is plainly Catholic apologetics. We know have multiple variantly worded surveys producing the same results which prompted a unnamed "theologian" to make a comment about a similar survey. The opinion piece uses this theologian (unknown about what the survey is it is referring to, or who said the quote) about the Pew survey. This is not reliable. So the fact that you say He quotes Mark Gray. Well, that's not Mark Gray.

2c I won't ask whether you have. You claim WP:FAITH and now we have evidence against your claim. This is like the kindergartner saying "No offense".

3.opinion of Gray apparently accepted by Erlandson exactly. This is not a WP:RS. If we cannot move further, I'd say we open a NPOV review. You, on your part, accept the view of Gregory A. Smith yeah. Because the CARA poll, this unnamed poll mentioned in Erlandson's opinion piece, and now the Pew poll all point to the same data, even worded differently. If you want to split hairs here, the RCC says the body and blood are "signs" not "symbols" these "signs" are physical in nature as stated by the Catechism they "become Christ's Body and Blood". That's transubstantiation. If you want to argue that symbols is somehow transubstantiation without the "becoming Christ's Body and Blood" part that's again your opinion (and Erlandson). Again fine, but WP:NOR. I never took anyone's opinion and injected it as a "true opinion" like you did with Erlandson. You CANNOT use that opinion piece as a WP:RS Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you would be hard pressed to see the Catholic Church denying that the Eucharist is a symbol. Everyone agrees that it is a symbol, but the doctrine of the Real Presence and transubstantiation say that it is both a symbol and a reality. Elizium23 (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah! Elizium23, how nice to see you on another Catholic article are we WP:FOLLOWING from the Real Presence article? Read the RCC doctrine again. The main feature is that it becomes, transubstantiates, into the body and blood. That is the defining doctrine of the Catechism. You state that it is a symbol, please quote official dogma on this. As I know the official dogma states the Eucharist is a sign. A physical sign of grace. A transubstantiated sign of grace. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1148 Inasmuch as they are creatures, these perceptible realities can become means of expressing the action of God who sanctifies men, and the action of men who offer worship to God. The same is true of signs and symbols taken from the social life of man: washing and anointing, breaking bread and sharing the cup can express the sanctifying presence of God and man's gratitude toward his Creator.

• Is the Eucharist a Symbol, Substantial Reality, or Both?
• America Magazine article - this is especially interesting, because it interprets the results of the Pew survey. Elizium23 (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"Oh Doctor, Oh Doctor, Oh Dear Doctor John" Ryan, the newspaper blog that you previously cited as reliable, you now consider unreliable because now out of step with you now. You ignore Erlandson's main topic, as if his parting recall of someone's remark were what his commentary on Smith's article is about. Yes, I should have recognized that Erlandson did mention that remark too, though not as a comment on Smith's article, which of course it wasn't, while what Erlandson and Gray said was. Erlandson adopted the anonymous remark as a reflection of the existing reality, and so not off-topic in this article, though off-topic with regard to Smith. You disagree. But that doesn't make it false. Please don't treat everyone who disagrees with you as doing so in Catholic-apologetic bad faith. Who does agree with you?

You rightly recognize that the Eucharistic signs are physical and visible and remain such. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the same and says that they remain physical and visible as signs even after becoming the body and blood of Christ. You don't think they do become the body and blood of Christ, but this article is about the Catholic Church's doctrine of transubstantiation, not about Dr Ryan's doctrine of non-transubstantiation. It is not an opinion piece about whether the Catholic Church's doctrine is true or false. Bealtainemí (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Bealtainemí, I'm sure you realize that Anupam, Elizium, you, and I have a WP:COI here. If that is the case, I suggest we get a WP:3O. A non-Christian who has no conflict of interest. Bealtainemí read my comment again. You seem to be arguing something I'm not. I never claimed this was an opinion piece, or my opinion piece. Rather, You are obscuring a NPOV by taking out the relevant data (that it is a small percentage of those surveyed in CARA) who actually attend Mass more than once. Next, I said injecting opinion pieces like the one you gave is not a WP:RS. You are arguing doctrine, I'm arguing about sources. I am listing this in the RS dispute page. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Ryan E., as this article does not mention the Diocese of Phoenix, I can safely say that I have no conflict of interest, and I doubt any of the rest do either, unless they work in a dicastery of the Roman Curia? Elizium23 (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You already have a 3rd opinion, that only works when there are only two people in a dispute. You can try WP:DRN or WP:NPOVN, and I would suggest some WikiProjects, but you don't like Christians giving our opinion, and that's a rather large problem for you. Elizium23 (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, huh? Why does this article have to be about the Diocese of Phoenix to be a COI? It's about Catholicism, which is the main topic. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Mark Gray, from the Georgetown University CARA centre, who is cited by Erlandson with regard to the Pew Research survey, is clearly an opinion-survey expert. Erlandson's added subsidiary remark, that the reverence and demeanour of Catholics in general towards the consecrated Eucharistic bread and wine demonstrates their belief that these "are not just a symbol", is controversial only if viewed with contrary bias. Bealtainemí (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bealtainemí: "If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist are contained the body and blood, the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, calling it a sign, let him be anathema." -Trent. If anyone is calling it a sign, they are anathema. You might say "well those calling it a sign are not denying in the Eucharist "are contained the body and blood, the soul and divinity", but they are calling it a sign. According to Trent, it is anathema Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Ryan E., you're using a poor translation.

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

Elizium23 (talk) 07:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Canon I.—Si quis negaverit, in sanctissimæ Eucharistiæ sacramento contineri vere, realiter et substantialiter corpus et sanguinem una cum anima et divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ac proinde totum Christum; sed dixerit, tantummodo esse in eo, ut in signo, vel figura, aut virtute: anathema sit.

Elizium23 (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: typical, heard that argument before. You're using an outdated translation. One from thecounciloftrent.com:

...but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue

Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Ryan E., that's the one I used (English). It's from thecounciloftrent.com. It says the same thing you quoted.

Yes, there's that pesky tantummodo again: "only" changes the meaning of it, doesn't it? They anathematized anyone who excluded the reality and said it was "only a sign". Elizium23 (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure how a translation could be "outdated" when the text is 500 years old? Elizium23 (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? I am not arguing about translations here. Nor am I going to argue doctrine. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Ryan E., then what are you going to argue? "Transubstantiation" is a doctrine, and we're supposed to be here to improve the article, which you're not helping. Elizium23 (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It does seem to me that you are arguing about translations. Go to the original:

Canones de sacrosancto Eucharistiae sacramento/

1. Si quis negaverit in sanctissimo Eucharistiae sacramento contineri vere realiter et substantialiter corpus et sanguinem una cum anima et divinitate Domini nostri Iesu Christi ac proinde totum Christum sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo ut in signo vel figura aut virtute: a[nathema] s[it]. Bealtainemí (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Contentious editing

Anonymous editor 73.219.142.120 (User_talk:73.219.142.120) has insisted on his/her personal synthesis of views on the content of Justin, First Apology, LXVI, in spite of warnings by Elizium23, User:Waddie96, User:Hillelfrei, User:RandomCanadian and User:HMSSolent. My own attempts to get her/him to be more collaborative have been unavailing. I have no choice but to support the efforts others have made to revert his/her edits. They can be discussed here in the hope of reaching a consensus. Into the section "Patristic period" 73.219.142.120 insistently inserts her/his accoount of how, over the centuries, later groups interpreted one passage of one writer (Justin). In the same section, what each of the other writers says is reported clearly without divagations about contrasting views of later groups. There is no justification for treating Justin differently. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, this editor seems to be acting in good faith and is quite knowledgeable. It is a great shame that Bealtainemí is also correct about the contentious nature of the edits. There is a litany of warnings at the IP editor's talk page. This editor has spent a long time making wide-ranging changes to this article, and does not seem to communicate very well. Regrettably, now is a time of reckoning for him. Elizium23 (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Elizium23 above. comrade waddie96 (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I've given them a partial block from editing this article. It's up to them to come discuss here. bibliomaniac15 19:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Not like a hat

The distinction between substance and accidents is not well illustrated by the hat example which I have tried to remove from this article. The substance of a hat is not being hat, that is a purpose to which a substance, cloth, is being used. It remains cloth after being made into a hat, and can continue to be used as cloth, to bind a wound, to plug a hole. But with the Communion bread the "substance" is at a deeper, unseen level (the whole person of Christ under each species), which does not change the material substance of the bread. The example used here defines a substance by its usage. Also, to say that the "substance" (here, being hat) is not perceptible to the senses is clearly not demonstrated by the hat example. Jzsj (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

That's your highly questionable original research. A hat isn't necessarily cloth. Never heard of a straw hat, a paper hat ...? Our senses distinguish, the shape. colour, material, size, usability, etc., of that hat, but not what makes it that hat regardless of shape, colour, size, material etc. In any case, that's what the cited source says, even if you have a different unsourced personal idea of it. Furthermore, in the Eucharist the bread isn't changed into Christ, as you say it is. The cited source rightly says that the bread is changed not into Christ but into the body of Christ, and where the body of Christ is, there also is the blood, soul, divinity, the whole Christ, but that isn't what the bread is changed into; and the wine isn't changed into the body of Christ, but into his blood. This is explicitly stated in the cited source, and elsewhere. Just remember what the elementary manuals of sacramental theology said about the theoretical case of bread changed to the body of Christ in the period between his death and his resurrection. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs here and evading my main point. Read what the article says, the parenthesis is his: "The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them. While the appearances are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not." He calls the hat the "substance" rather than the purpose to which the substance, cloth, is put. And how can he say that this being hat, what he calls the substance, is not perceptible to the senses. True, other substances can be used, but here he calls the purpose (being hat) the substance. Please address these specific objections to this 1934 analysis, which no, we did not use in our post-Vatican II theology courses. Jzsj (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

So you are endowed with senses that get, not just to the material, shape, size, colour etc. of a hat or a piece of bread, but to its substance in the sense in which the cited source (and the Catholic Church's dogma) uses the term. Congratulations on your extraordinary powers. You still need a reliable published source to get them mentioned in Wikipedia. Most can only sense the object's material, its shape, its size, etc. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have described being hat as purpose, not as substance. Jzsj (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

This dispute over the hat illustrates the fallacy of the term "transubstantiation". Separating the reality of the bread from its purpose never happens in the New Testament which always speaks in the context of why Christ's flesh is given. As in John 6:53: "It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless." Jzsj (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your statements have been off-topic here, related not to transubstantiation, but to transfinalization (or perhaps transignification). They belong to the discussion pages on those heresies. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Again you're ignoring my whole point here, that "hat" is a purposive not a substantive word, and so does not relate to this discussion of substance. Jzsj (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is no point in discussing any further under this heading your unsourced denial of the sourced affirmation "that the senses never (whether by their own power or with the aid of the most delicate instruments) make contact with the thing which has shape, colour, size etc." The discussion is closed. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• As I said at the start and you have never shown otherwise, the substance is not being hat, but being cloth, and the cloth remains perceptible to the senses. What is not perceptible is what you have excluded from discussion in this article, the purpose of the cloth, which is being hat (just as the purpose of the bread is being Christ's body: in this case but not in the case of the cloth, we take on faith that the bread is no longer bread). The hat illustration shows what accidents are but not that they can persist after a change in substance, which is the point you can't prove because it must be taken on faith. We do "make contact with the thing which has shape, colour, size", it is the cloth, and so this example fails to prove what it sets out to prove, and so it should be removed from the article. Jzsj (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

First canon of the Council of Trent

If anyone were to deny that the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is contained vere, realiter et substantialiter in the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist..but is in it only in signo vel figura or virtute, let him be condemned

sourced here (at minute 52:50). The original text written yesterday was without errors. However, the source is a WP:reliable source. I will replace it with the exact indication of the point of the video to which the citation has to be referred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.38.234.79 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Relation to Eucharistic Miracles

I am wondering whether there is any relationship between Transubstantiation or its doctrine with Eucharistic miracles. It seems that the affirmation of the doctrine of Transubstantiation in Lateran IV is related to there being many Eucharistic miracles reported at the time. According to the Dominican Friars, this is the case, please see https://www.english.op.org/godzdogz/councils-of-faith-lateran-iv-1215/. Would it be alright to add this point to the Transubstantiation wiki page with that web reference? Please note that I am not specifically talking about the miracle at Lanciano. Acdc250 (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Give us the reliable source that "It seems that the affirmation of the doctrine of Transubstantiation in Lateran IV is related to there being many Eucharistic miracles reported at the time" (italics added). So far in your edits, you repeatedly reached that synthesized conclusion without justification (i.e., "Eucharist miracles occurred", synthesized with "Transubstantiation refers to bread and wine becoming Body and Blood", to conclude that there is a connection between the miracles and the origin of the term). As for the Dominican source, their web page doesn't state that the two are connected except to say that there were Eucharistic miracles around the time of the origin of the term. It does not specifically state that the miracles had any specific relationship to the origin of the term. If you reach such a conclusion, you have synthesized two statements in the source to reach an unsourced conclusion. If two things occur at similar times, that doesn't mean there is a connection between the two. For example, the assassination of JFK occurred about the same time as the arrival of The Beatles in the USA, but there is no connection between the two. It is even possible that the connection could be the other way around, i.e., the promulgation of the formally defined concept led to the increase in perception that Eucharistic miracles occurred. Wikipedia has specific policies prohibiting such synthesis (specifically, WP:SYN). We need a reliable source that clearly states that there is a connection between Eucharistic miracles and the origin of the term transubstantiation. I doubt that there is such a source. A secondary point: the concept of transubstantiation was widely accepted in the Catholic church long before the "affirmation" at Lateran IV. Like many doctrines in the Catholic church (such as papal infallibility, Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary), the belief was widely present among the church hierarchy long before the formal definition was formulated in detail. Sundayclose (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

You are right that the Dominican source only says that the two things happened around the same time. Is it alright then to mention in the Transubstantiation wiki page that the two things (affirmation and Eucharistic miracles) happened around the same time like the Dominican source, which is what I did in the previous edit? So, the relation I am claiming between the two things is that they happened around the same time. My previous edit was just adding the phrase "at a time when many Eucharistic miracles were being reported." I am NOT trying to find or claim the connection between Eucharistic miracles and the origin of the term. I am trying to find some connection between Eucharistic miracles and the term Transubstantiation. And the connection is that the affirmation and the Eucharistic miracles happened around the same time. Implicitly, they are linked together because they are about the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine. Acdc250 (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

No. The Dominican source does not have to concern itself with WP:SYN. We do. If you juxtapose the origin of the term at Lateran IV with mention of Eucharistic miracles, there is an unmistakable implication that the two are connected. That's WP:SYN and not allowed. If you read WP:SYN you will see several examples of such inappropriate juxtaposition. Again, two things happening at similar times is not evidence that the two are related, and as I said, it's even possible that the promulgation of the formally defined concept led to the increase in perception that Eucharistic miracles occurred. So no, you can't juxtapose the two statements. If you want to discuss Eucharistic miracles elsewhere (clearly away from the context of Lateran), that's an entirely different issue (I'm not suggesting that you should). To make a connection between origin of the term transubstantiation and Eucharistic miracles, you need a source that clearly and unequivocally makes the connection. For example, if you find a scholarly source that explicitly states that there were discussions at Lateran IV that the concept of transubstantiation should be defined in more detail because miracles were occurring, that might be acceptable. The Dominican source does not say that. But I seriously doubt that such a source exists because the concept of transubstantiation had already been firmly established for centuries before Lateran IV. Sundayclose (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

However, I found one source which says that a Eucharistic miracle was mentioned in the reports of the Fourth Lateran Council. Please see https://aleteia.org/2016/05/17/the-day-the-holy-eucharist-became-suspended-in-the-air/ . Is it alright to write an edit with citations of sources saying that "At that time many Eucharistic miracles were being reported [Dominica source], and one Eucharistic miracle was mentioned [Aletia source] in the reports of the Fourth Lateran Council". Acdc250 (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

At this point I might tentatively agree to the following: The event is obscure and relatively insignificant in the context of the history of Catholicism, especially in comparison to the enormous significance of Lateran IV. We have no reason to believe that there was more than a passing mention of the miracle. Reference to the miracle should not be in the lead. It's more appropriate in the later paragraph where Lateran is discussed. It should be very brief, a few words, one sentence at most. I want other opinions about whether this would be approptiate, how it should be worded, and exactly where it should go. I'll be off-wiki a few days. Until then do not make any changes and do not seek support for your proposed edit. That is WP:CANVASSing and a policy violation. There's a neutral way to seek opinions. I'll take care of that when I return. Sundayclose (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

How about in the History subsection of the Transubstantiation wiki page? Acdc250 (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll get more opinions when I return to discuss that and other matters. I'm not editing for a few days. It can wait. Sundayclose (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I have found another source [1] that says there was an argument that the Eucharistic miracles are intimately linked to papacy's desire for the Christ's physical presence of the sacrament:

"As Peter Browe argued, Pope Leo's miraculous mass and all the many others reported from the eleventh through the thirteenth centuries were intimately related to the papacy's desire to avow the reality of Christ's physical presence in the sacrament". [2]

Also, Eucharistic miracles was related to the controversy over the nature of the host:

"One of the most intriguing effects of the controversy over the nature of the host is that it led to a proliferation of Eucharistic miracles [2]. Beginning in the eleventh century there were numerous reports of Christ materializing at the altar during mass...Pope Leo IX, for example, performed a mass in 1052 in which the letters "IHS", written in blood, appeared on the consecrated bread... In fact, he was the first to condemn the teachings of Berengar of Tours at councils in Rome and Vercelli in 1050". [1]

The historical context was that there were many Eucharistic miracles at the time and these would be related to the controversy at the time about the real presence of Christ in the host.

[1] Heinlen, M. (1998) An early image of a Mass of St. Gregory and devotion to the Holy Blood at Weingarten Abbey", Gesta 37(1): 55-62.

[2] Browe, P. (1938?) Die Eucharistischen Wunder, pages 115-118, 123. Acdc250 (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

And the controversy at the time was related to the Fourth Lateran Council according to https://www.pinterest.com/pin/in-1050-the-eucharistic-controversy-exploded-with-berengar-of-tours-adopting-expanding-and-promulgating-ratramnus-view-lanfranc-of-bec-was-a-key-defender-of--163677767693432178/. Can we then conclude that the Eucharistic miracles were related to the Fourth Lateran Council? Acdc250 (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I found another source [1] which relates the Eucharistic miracle with the 20th decree of Lateran IV:

"In this way, then, the miracle led to an increase in faith in Christ’s real presence. However, tales such as this also fed into fears regarding the safety of the Eucharistic host, which was often in danger of being stolen from the church for use in rituals aimed at some worldly gain or other. It was for such reasons that the Fourth Lateran Council, in its 20th decree, mandated that “the Eucharist …be kept locked away in a safe place in all churches, so that no audacious hand can reach [it] to do anything horrible or impious” "(Tanner 1990, vol. 1, p. 244). [1]

[1] Ryan, S. and Shanahan, A. (2018) How to communicate Lateran IV in 13th century Ireland: lessons from the Liber Examplorum (c. 1275). Religions 9(3): 75; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel9030075

[2] Tanner, N.P. (1990) Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Acdc250 (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

The Pinterest source is unreliable. But I tentatively suggest that the first sentence of the last paragraph in the Middle Ages subsection of History be revised as follows:

At a time when many Eucharistic miracles were being reported and at least one such report was discussed at the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, the council spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God's power, into his body and blood".

This needs to be polished some. We need more opinions. I have posted a message at Wikiproject Catholicism to try to get more opinions. Don't change it while we wait to see if anyone responds. Sundayclose (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'd prefer to the effect: "The Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215 spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God's power, into his body and blood".[4] Catholic scholars and clergy have noted that numerous reports of Eucharistic miracles contemporary with the council.[1][2][3]" –Zfish118^⋉talk 23:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that change except I think it needs to be mentioned that Lateran IV discussed at least one reported miracle. That more clearly makes the connection between reported miracles and Lateran IV's formulation of the concept of transubstantiation. So I would change your last sentence to "Catholic scholars and clergy have noted numerous reports of Eucharistic miracles contemporary with the council, and at least one such report was discussed at the council." That information is in one of the sources. I also made a grammatical correction. Sundayclose (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no concern noting one such miracle was discussed, so long it is well-sourced. My concern, for clarification, is only to note in the text that it is Catholic scholars making this observation and implicitly suggesting a connection, not an observation made in Wikipedia's editorial voice. –Zfish118^⋉talk 03:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Good point. Sundayclose (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Is Michael Heinlen [1] a Catholic scholar or clergy? He is/was with University of North Texas (Is that a Catholic University?).

He wrote that "One of the most intriguing effects of the controversy over the nature of the host is that it led to a proliferation of Eucharistic miracles (at the time of the Eucharistic controversies, I think). Beginning in the eleventh century there were numerous reports of Christ materializing at the altar during mass...Pope Leo IX, for example, performed a mass in 1052 in which the letters "IHS", written in blood, appeared on the consecrated bread... In fact, he was the first to condemn the teachings of Berengar of Tours at councils in Rome and Vercelli in 1050" in [1].

[1] Heinlen, M. (1998) An early image of a Mass of St. Gregory and devotion to the Holy Blood at Weingarten Abbey", Gesta 37(1): 55-62. Acdc250 (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless you can provide the evidence, he cannot be considered a scholar, especially if we don't have access to the source. Please do your own legwork; you can find out if UNT is a Catholic school as easily as we can. But it sounds like a state school to me. That being said, someone can be both clergy and scholar, and being associated with a Catholic university does not necessarily mean the writer is not an objective scholar. I don't know what your point is here?? Does the source make a connection between Eucharistic miracles and Lateran IV's work in formally defining the term transubstantiation?? Please give us more information. Sundayclose (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see my response to your "one more important point" below. I think I am trying to get at is that may be it is not just the Catholic scholars or clergy but also other people saying that. I think Bynum (see below) is not a Catholic scholar nor clergy.

Please note that below, I am asking "Was Bynum suggesting that the miracles ALSO led to the definition of Transubstantiation?" I have forgotten the word, ALSO. Acdc250 (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I found another source: https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/course-corrections (by Loewen, P.J.?). It wrote that "The council (i.e., Lateran IV, I think) argued for the elimination of heresy: 'We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above.' Clearly, the Lateran IV council was addressing the Eucharistic controversies (where heresies are found) at the time and trying to establish a common understanding of the Eucharist. So, the connection of Eucharistic miracles led to Eucharistic controversies which led to Lateran IV trying to stamp out the heresies in the controversies is established unless the link is unreliable again. Acdc250 (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless I missed something in my reading of that source, I disagree that "So, the connection of Eucharistic miracles led to Eucharistic controversies which led to Lateran IV trying to stamp out the heresies in the controversies is established." The source has nothing about the reports of miracles; if I'm wrong give us a quotation. Again, the connection between the miracles and anything about Lateran IV's discussion of the concept of transubstantiation must be unequivocally made in the source. Otherwise, again, this would be your own synthesized conclusion. Does that source state anything about reported miracles? Some of your sources identify that connection as made by scholars, but your other attempts to synthesize your own conclusions simply are not acceptable. We seem to have hammered out an addition to the article that mentions reported miracles. Do you have anything to add? I want to give other Wikipedians a few more days to offer suggestions, then I think we can make the addition to the article. Sundayclose (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking we have source 1 that links Eucharistic miracles with Eucharistic controversies, and we have source 2 that links Eucharistic controversies with Lateran IV. So, we have the link between Eucharistic miracles with Lateran IV. If you are saying that we are restricted to only one source with the direct linkage, then perhaps the reference to Caroline Bynum is better (see below to answer your "one more important point"). Acdc250 (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Acdc250: One more important point. I don't have access to the Tanner source. Before I can include it as a citation I need direct quotations that clearly relate reports of miracles to Lateran IV's work on the concept of transubstantiation. Be sure to include page numbers. Otherwise the source can't be cited. But I think the other sources are sufficient. Sundayclose (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have access to Tanner. However, I found the following that relates Eucharistic miracles with Lateran IV (definition of transubstantiation):

"The explanation usually given for the proliferation of Eucharistic miracles after 1100, and for the fact that they came to take the form of Dauerwunder, has been that such miracles were the result of this definition (of Transubstantiation, I think [see below '*']) of the Fourth Lateran Council. In other words, the church said that these things literally became God’s body in substance or nature, although the appearance remained unchanged. People had trouble accepting this. Miracles that made manifest the substance under the accidents erupted in order to prove that the transformation was real and to quell widespread anxiety about doubting it (Browe 1926: 167–97 [2]; Langmuir 1996: 287–309 [3]). Such miracles also supported the role of consecration by the clergy in creating such holy stuff and hence were part of the clericalization of religion that is a major characteristic of post-Gregorian Reform Christianity." [1], page 76 (I have access to this reference).

'*'In [1], "this definition" refers to:

"Jesus Christ himself is both priest and sacrifice, and his body and blood are really contained in the sacrament of the alter under the species of bread and wine, and the bread being transubstantiated into the body and the wine into the blood by the power of God..."

Bynum further writes:

"The definition (see above '*') given by the Fathers of the Fourth Lateran Council comes after Dauerwunder have already begun to appear (as is evident from the account given by Gerald of Wales mentioned above). It seems clear that the need for a definition of Eucharistic presence came not only because of earlier controversy about what the ritual of the Eucharist meant but also because of the growth of a piety that supported such miracles." [1], page 76

Was Bynum suggesting that the miracles led to the definition of Transubstantiation definition?

[1] Bynum, C.W. (2015) The animation and agency of holy food: bread and wine as the material divine in the European middle ages. In B. Pontgratz-Leisten and K. Sonik (eds.) The Materiality of Divine Agency, pages 70-85, De Gruyter: Boston. (Bynum is from Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton).

[2] Browe, P. (1926) Die Hostienschändungen der Juden im Mittelalter. Römische Quartalschrift 34: 167–97.

[3] Langmuir, Gavin. 1996. The Tortures of the Body of Christ. Pp. 287–309, in Christendom and its Discontents: Exclusion, Persecution, and Rebellion, 1000–1500, ed. Scott Waugh and Peter Diehl. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Acdc250 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Please don't present a source, such as Tanner, if you have never seen it. No indication that Bynum refers in any way to reports of miracles. We have nothing about Browe or Langmuir. So nothing changes. Again, linking A to B and linking B to C, then concluding that there is a link from A to C is WP:SYN. I seriously suggest that you very carefully read WP:SYN, especially the examples, before making any more suggestions. The legitimate sources at this point are Javis and Ryan (as well as Herbermann that is already in the article). Unless you suggest reasonable changes that are not WP:SYN or sources that actually make a connection between reported miracles and Lateran IV, the edit as written by Zfish118 and me is what will go in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• I would be ok with text to the effect: "According to BauerBynum, the definition of the Eucharistic presence was needed due to "earlier controversy about what the ritual of the Eucharist meant but also because of the growth of a piety that supported such miracles." [1], page 76. Such a statement must be clearly linked to BauerBynum in text, particularly if he is the only source for this. However, whether such text needs to be added I don't have a strong opinion. –Zfish118^⋉talk 21:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zfish118: Bauer? Sorry, did I miss a mention of Bauer? What source is that in? That aside, I don't have a problem with the content of that sentence, but I am concerned about WP:WEIGHT. In the many centuries of development of the concept of transubstantiation by the RC church (as well as RC and non-RC information subsequent to Lateran IV), the reported miracles are a miniscule part. I would prefer to limit our additions to one or two sentences at most. There is already an article on Eucharistic miracle, where details can be added. Sundayclose (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I meant Bynum. I have no strong opinion about whether to include the text/quote in article, only how it should be attributed *if* included. –Zfish118^⋉talk 23:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, here is my latest version of the edit that I plan to add in the next 24 hours. Last call for suggested changes:

The Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215 spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God's power, into his body and blood". Catholic scholars and clergy have noted numerous reports of Eucharistic miracles contemporary with the council, and at least one such report was discussed at the council.

Sundayclose (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

References

References

Berengar, Lanfranc, and uncomfortably close paraphrase

I see that the "Middle Ages" section of this article is currently being revised, which is a good thing, since it's one of the weaker sections. I don't normally edit on religious topics (too contentious for me), and have no desire to wade into this one and step on the toes of other editors, but I'd like to suggest that, as long as you're working on this section, you might want to rewrite the paragraph on Berengar as well, since in its current form it comes perilously close to copyvio. To their credit, the editors who originally wrote this paragraph did cite their source (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church), but the wording is so close in places that it goes beyond what is normally considered acceptable WP:PARAPHRASE. Example:

• WP: "His position was never diametrically opposed to that of his critics, and he was probably never excommunicated, but the controversies that he aroused (see Stercoranism) forced people to clarify the doctrine of the Eucharist."
• ODCC: "Berengar's position was never diametrically opposed to that of his critics, and he was probably never excommunicated. But the controversy that he aroused forced men to reconsider the Carolingian discussion of the Eurcharist ... and to clarify the doctrine of transubstantiation."

Apart from rewriting to eliminate that problem, the paragraph would certainly benefit from a little expansion and discussion of Berengar's opponents in the debate, especially Lanfranc, whose De corpore et sanguine Domini is one of the most important surviving 11th-century discussions of transubstantiation. (The WP article on Lanfranc himself has a better treatment of this debate.) Just a suggestion. I'll be moving on now. Happy editing, Crawdad Blues (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

"Artifacts"

@Sundayclose has twice reverted my edits to this article which used the term "artifacts", now saying "It adds no meaning, just one word" and we need a consensus on the use of the term; I have been unable to find any other consensus discussion on the subject, so here we go.

From my earliest discussions, etc., of transubstantiation (several decades ago now), I have seen the term used, particularly in explaining the doctrine to non-Catholics (although the work cited was an insider's discussion of Aquinas). As Wikipedia is for everyone, not just specialists in a field, it seems beneficial to use a variety of vocabulary to broaden understanding. To be sure, I tend toward inclusion rather than exclusion, but it seems that breadth is the way to go here. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's clarify. The first revert was because it was unsourced, so "twice reverted" to suggest that the very same edit was reverted because of content is misleading. The only real additional content your edit makes is the word "artifact". The lead already explains the concept, just without the word "artifact": "the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the 'eucharistic species', remain unaltered". Later in the article it is explained again. The word "artifact" is not needed except that it is your preferred word. It adds nothing to the article, for either Catholics or those who have no understanding of the term transubstantiation. Sundayclose (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Please be careful to avoid personal attacks, or anything that comes close. The paragraph above is written to the writer of the one before that (uses "your" twice). A consensus discussion should be written to the community as a whole. JingleJim (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

(An aside comment: Addressing a comment to the editor to whom I am responding is not a personal attack. If someone wants to call it a grammatical issue that's fine. But it's not even close to a personal attack. Someone can disagree with another editor and express that disagreement without it being considered a personal attack. I would appreciate if all who comment here would assume good faith, as I have with the OP. And note that I have not used "your" in this comment.) Sundayclose (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The use of the word "artifact" is not appropriate since the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other sources handle it as "accidents" or "species". It should be noted that the article already says what the user wants to add: (However, "the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the 'eucharistic species', remain unchanged".) In total, the same thing is mentioned seven times in the article, that the species or accidents remain unchanged. Adding the same an eighth time would already be a lot. Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

"From the earliest centuries..."?

So, from the first century? The second? When treating a subject so profound as well as contested there must be a more specific reference to a point in time than this generality. Wayniack (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)