Transubstantiation Vs Transignification

[mortify]

What say you?

[CatherineM]

We don't need to dumb down transubstantiation so that the modern laity can understand it better. We are better educated than believers in the middle ages, and they didn't have any trouble understanding it, so why should we.

[kafka]

weird poll, and weird quote. I suppose I could explain the Eucharist here, but what is the purpose of this?

[Didacus]

I had to read the first quote three times. The two others were kinda easy for me to reply.

[mortify]

[url="http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a043.html"][b]Is Christ "Really" Among Us Today?[/b][/url]
by Fr Regis Scanlon

[Apotheoun]

The Eucharistic elements are the personal presence of Christ in the liturgical assembly.

[Aloysius]

Pope Paul VI lists "transignification" and "transfinalization" under the heading "false and disturbing opinions" in his encyclical letter "Mysterium Fidei"

it is horrid, disgusting, and appaling heresy, pure and simple. no Catholic is free to believe it without being anathemized by the Council of Trent and really by the universal ordinary magisterium... this FALSE and DISTURBING opinion (which, in the language of the modern hierarchy which tends to be so apologetic and such, is tantamount to calling it damnable heresy)... anyway, it's an absolutely horrid heresy and ought to be rejected and hated with extreme zeal. the Eucharist becomes substantially present while the physical accidents (ie, absolutely everything testable by science present, past, and future) acts as bread and wine.

[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/...sterium_en.html[/url]

now, even a heretic priest can offer a valid Eucharist, all that is necessary is that he "intend to do as the Church does" even if he believes that to be different than what the Church believes, the Eucharist can still be valid if he has the intention to "do as the Church does" someone who believes in this terrible, false and disturbing belief about the Most Holy Eucharist, I could see as someone who might still consecrate "intending to do as the Church does"... really, it'd only be the priest who absolutely believed that no change at all occurred in any sense who might neglect to truly make this intention

[Paddington]

If the priest says the right words, but secretly and knowingly does not intend to do what the Church teaches about the Eucharist, then the Eucharist is invalid for everybody who receives at that Mass?

[Didacus]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1724074' date='Dec 10 2008, 01:56 PM']If the priest says the right words, but secretly and knowingly does not intend to do what the Church teaches about the Eucharist, then the Eucharist is invalid for everybody who receives at that Mass? [/quote]

What the hatred of men do, God will make just. In this I trust.

[mortify]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1724074' date='Dec 10 2008, 01:56 PM']If the priest says the right words, but secretly and knowingly does not intend to do what the Church teaches about the Eucharist, then the Eucharist is invalid for everybody who receives at that Mass? [/quote]

I think it would mean the Transubstantiation did not occur at that Priest's consecration.

I personally believe if a Catholic were to approach the Altar in good faith, believing in the Transubstantiation, God can still provide the Body of Christ to that person.

In a way, it protects the Eucharist from being given to those who don't believe in Him, nor approach prepared with a proper disposition.

[mortify]

The quotation in the first choice of the poll is from:

[b]Anthony Wilhelm, Christ Among Us, 5th revised edition (San Francisco: Harper Collins Pub., 1990), the cover and p. 216. [/b]

[Aloysius]

the quote is, however, is damnable heresy condemned His Holiness Pope Paul VI... does it have an imprimateur? (as if those matter anymore, being from California it's likely that it does sadly)

if the priest does not intend to do as the Church does, the consecration is invalid and the bread is mere bread; though the person who directs his worship to that host is inculpable for any objective idolatry, the person worshiping that host commits no idolotry (but of course, in the objective sense, the worship of an unconsecrated wafer is idolatry; but it is the priest who decieved the person who is culpable for that objective evil that was caused, the person himself cannot be said to have "commited" idolatry)

the person who recieves such a host in good faith recieves a spiritual communion, not a sacramental communion; it is not the disposition of the recepient which determines the nature/substance of the Eucharist recieved. if as a result of this the person fails at the Easter Duty, there is no sin (except the priest's sin), and God will certainly impart grace upon the person; but there is no special presence in a host when the priest does not intend to do as the Church does.

[Guest Jon]

[color="#000080"]Ummmh... has anyone ever just layed on their bed with their palms up and experienced the love of God ?

Just like sunbathing on a beach? Turn your bed into sand and lay there and drink up the warmth and love of the Lord?

Trans this and trans that ---it's all very simple ---just feel God, open your hearts.

Sorry for butting into an intellectual thread.

I'm stepping lightly here...

God bless,
Jon[/color]

[mommas_boy]

Voted "false" for all three ...

[indent]
"When we say that the bread and wine "become Christ" [b]we are not saying that bread and wine are Christ[/b], nor are we practicing some form of cannibalism when we take this in communion. What we mean is that the bread and wine are a sign of Christ present, here and now, in a special way-not in a mere physical way, as if condensed into a wafer. Somehow his presence has "taken over" the bread and wine, so that, for us who believe, it is no longer merely bread that is present, but Christ himself."
[/indent]

Voted FALSE for reason of the bolded statement.

[indent]
The terms "Transignification" and "Transfinalization" are translations of "Transubstantiation" so that modern laity may understand the ancient dogma
[/indent]

"Transignification" seems to imply that the Eucharist is [b]only[/b] a sign ... which it is ... but it neglects that not only does the Eucharist represent Christ, but it also [b]is[/b] Christ. The Eucharist is an "efficacious sign" ... a "sign that has the effect of what it symbolizes". It's sort of like the difference between a stop sign ... and a stop sign painted on a brick wall built across an road intersection. One is merely a symbol that suggests that one stops. The other one actually makes you stop. Efficacious symbol.

[indent]
Priests who believe in "Transignification" / "Transfinalization" *don't* offer a valid Eucharist.
[/indent]

So long as the priest is ordained validly by a validly ordained bishop, and so long as the matter and form are correct, the Sacrament is valid, whether the priest believes in it or not.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1722745' date='Dec 8 2008, 08:49 PM']We don't need to dumb down transubstantiation so that the modern laity can understand it better. We are better educated than believers in the middle ages, and they didn't have any trouble understanding it, so why should we.[/quote]

I likey this.