Transubstantiation Vs Transignification

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Jon' post='1724982' date='Dec 10 2008, 09:45 PM'][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][/quote]

Hi, Jon.

Thanks for the great post; you make a great point that our primary focus must always be on God, and that we are to love Him with a childlike faith.

Indeed, my favorite devotion of all time is sitting before the Eucharist, which Catholics believe to be Jesus [b]in the flesh[/b], and simply adoring him. Absolutely phenomenal.

More on topic, transubstantiation, while it is a big word, is actually a very simple concept. Catholics believe that when Jesus said at the Last Supper, "This is my body", that he really did mean it. In a straightforward and simple way. "Transubstantiation" is the big word for this simple reality. And hey, Christ said it!

For a more in-depth treatment of why Catholics believe that the Eucharist, or Communion, really truly is Jesus, have a look at this article, and the scripture it quotes: [u][url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp"]Christ in the Eucharist[/url][/u].

The ones that are trying to complicate things, though, are those people that are advocating this "Transignification" idea. They get into hoakey philosophical terms like "local" and "personal" presence, and stating that the "elements" are not Jesus, even though He is "spiritually" there ... they're actually making it too complicated.

No; for Catholics, Jesus said "This is my body". We take him at his word. Again, I refer you to the article that I mentioned above for more on this.

Blessings,
Kris

Edited December 11, 2008 by mommas_boy

[LouisvilleFan]

Never heard the terms transignification or transfinalization before, and it clearly doesn't help anyone understand a darn thing, and priests always offer a valid Eucharist when they intend to do so while using a valid rite of consecration. That question about whether a priest's person beliefs causes a sacrament to be invalid was pronounced anathema hundreds of years ago.

Edited December 11, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[mortify]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1725176' date='Dec 11 2008, 12:27 AM']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.[/quote]

The intention of the minister is required for a valid sacrament. If a priest does not intend to do what the Church intends, then nothing happens.

Right??

Edited December 12, 2008 by mortify

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='mortify' post='1726287' date='Dec 11 2008, 11:20 PM']The intention of the minister is required for a valid sacrament. If a priest does not intend to do what the Church intends, then nothing happens.

Right??[/quote]

It is correct that the intention to "do what the Church does" is required, but belief is not in order to validly confect the Sacrament.

The most salient example that comes to mind is that of the Eucharistic Miracle at Lanciano, Italy. The priest was having doubts that unleavened bread was valid matter for the Eucharist (he was Eastern Rite). Despite his disbelief, not only was the Sacrament confected, but the form miraculously changed into physical flesh and blood.

So, we must examine what is meant by "do what the Church does". I believe that this means that the priest must intend to say Mass, regardless of his belief in the True Presence. In other words, a priest cannot walk into an Italian Restaurant, and while having a conversation about the True Presence utter the words of the consecration for the sake of educating his company, and expect to have consecrated all of the bread in the restaurant. The priest was not intending to say Mass in this instance. Conversely, a disbelieving priest will say Mass, with the intention of saying Mass; and despite his disbelief, the bread and wine will be consecrated.

So yes; intent is important, but not belief.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1726325' date='Dec 12 2008, 12:27 AM']So, we must examine what is meant by "do what the Church does". I believe that this means that the priest must intend to say Mass, regardless of his belief in the True Presence. In other words, a priest cannot walk into an Italian Restaurant, and while having a conversation about the True Presence utter the words of the consecration for the sake of educating his company, and expect to have consecrated all of the bread in the restaurant. The priest was not intending to say Mass in this instance. Conversely, a disbelieving priest will say Mass, with the intention of saying Mass; and despite his disbelief, the bread and wine will be consecrated.[/quote]

Hmm. Does this example help to distinguish the difference between belief and intent? It's 11:30 here, and I'm going on about four hours of sleep from the night before ...

[mortify]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1726328' date='Dec 12 2008, 01:30 AM']Hmm. Does this example help to distinguish the difference between belief and intent? It's 11:30 here, and I'm going on about four hours of sleep from the night before ...[/quote]

I'm going to quote from Fr Regis Scanlon's article (the one I posted above):
[color="#0000FF"][b]
"Finally, a question remains. We know that the Eucharist is valid ("ex opere operato") when it "is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church."[36] But, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, and probably many others, have positively excluded the "meaning," and therefore the "intention," of the Council of Trent's teaching on transubstantiation in favor of their own notion of transubstantiation (i.e., transignification or transfinalization). So, are their Eucharists valid? And, what about the priests who have studied their works in theology and the seminarians who are now studying? This question about the validity of the Eucharists celebrated in the United States involves a most serious matter of justice to the faithful. For the faithful have a right to know whether they are offering, receiving, and adoring Jesus Christ, or just bread and wine!"[/b][/color]

[Veridicus]

[quote name='mortify' post='1726722' date='Dec 12 2008, 06:00 PM']I'm going to quote from Fr Regis Scanlon's article (the one I posted above):
[color="#0000FF"][b]
"Finally, a question remains. We know that the Eucharist is valid ("ex opere operato") when it "is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church."[36] But, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, and probably many others, have positively excluded the "meaning," and therefore the "intention," of the Council of Trent's teaching on transubstantiation in favor of their own notion of transubstantiation (i.e., transignification or transfinalization). So, are their Eucharists valid? And, what about the priests who have studied their works in theology and the seminarians who are now studying? This question about the validity of the Eucharists celebrated in the United States involves a most serious matter of justice to the faithful. For the faithful have a right to know whether they are offering, receiving, and adoring Jesus Christ, or just bread and wine!"[/b][/color][/quote]

Those are disturbing questions. So if we have a generation of priests or a localization of priests who were incorrectly educated on what the "Church intends" in the Mass and Eucharistic Liturgy then there may be a bunch of invalid Masses being sad by priests who have an erroneous understanding of what the Church intends...?!?!?!?!

[Aloysius]

the priest need not even know, believe in, or understand what it is that the Church intends to do. even if he simply intends to simply do some ambiguous "thing the Church intends to do"... even if the priest thought that the Church intends to make the bread and wine into oreos and milk, so long as he intends to "do as the Church does", the Church supplies the correct understanding and makes it valid that way.

[Formosus]

People like those listed a post above (Fr. Rahner , etc) know what the Church intends. They have read the Councils and the teachings and if they choose to believe in such a Godless view, then I have to seriously question if they truly have proper intent.

[Paddington]

I have trouble with the "oreos and milk" thing being combined with "intends to do as the Church does." Sounds too optimistic.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1770373' date='Feb 2 2009, 10:34 PM']the priest need not even know, believe in, or understand what it is that the Church intends to do. even if he simply intends to simply do some ambiguous "thing the Church intends to do"... even if the priest thought that the Church intends to make the bread and wine into oreos and milk, so long as he intends to "do as the Church does", the Church supplies the correct understanding and makes it valid that way.[/quote]

I would disagree with this. Though of course the Sacracraments work ex opere operato and do not require orthodoxy on the part of the minister for validity, I would think that the priest intending to turn bread and wine into oreos and milk would not be a correct intention in light of the decision of the CDF to declare Mormon baptisms invalid because of their whacky ideas about the Trinity. I may, however, be mistaken.

[Paddington]

I'm guessing that those receiving have nothing to do with the validity of the Eucharist?

[Resurrexi]

Nope. The recipient of the Eucharist has nothing to do with it changing into the Body of Christ. If, however, an unbaptized person consumes the Eucharist, he receives the Body of Christ, but he does not receive a sacrament.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Deb]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1771538' date='Feb 3 2009, 08:46 PM']Nope. The recipient of the Eucharist has nothing to do with it changing into the Body of Christ. If, however, an unbaptized person consumes the Eucharist, he receives the Body of Christ, but he does not receive a sacrament.[/quote]

Transubstantiation is the TRUTH. I would not worry to much about whether or not the Eucharist is valid. The cases where it may not be are very rare.


To clarify, communion outside the Catholic Church is not a sacrament. How one receives is of great importance. Many Catholics do not believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. I am not really sure why they even bother receiving.

Pope John Paul II, in his very first Encyclical, Redemptor hominis #20, said that if one does not constantly try to grow spiritually, receiving the Eucharist would "lack its full redeeming effectiveness" and there could even be a spiritual loss. To receive out of mere routine, with no special care, no thanksgiving, is more apt to cause spiritual loss than gain.

The Grace received from receiving the Eucharist is in direct proportion to how you enter into the Mass and the receipt of such a beautiful gift.

[mortify]

Many recipients of the Eucharist don't believe it's the Body of Christ, so it would be an ironic form of justice if they were not actually receiving It.

We can not know what a Priest intends, but we can trust that God can perform the Transubstantiation for those who sincerely believe despite the impiety of a priest.

Edited February 7, 2009 by mortify