Transubstantiation Vs Transignification

[Nihil Obstat]

I voted true for the last option because I interpreted it as a priest knowing what transubstantiation entails, and believing in transignification or trans-whatever the other one was instead.

[kafka]

Rahner wasnt a heretic. He was among the finest theologians of the 20th century and provided a major influence on VII. He was a serious churchman, and to think that he denied transubstantian is absurd. From the quotes I briefly read in that article it seems he was seeking a deeper understanding of the Eucharist in a speculative way. I would have to read his works on the Eucharist in their complete context, to make sense of them and explain what he is trying to express. I think Fr. Regis might (in his piety) be prejudiced and taking Rahner out of context, or perhaps he fails to try and understand the points Rahner is trying to make. That is the feeling I get, but I didnt read the entire article. I have other things to read.