Talk:Transubstantiation
| This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on November 11, 2011. |
 Archives |
|---|
|
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Essay-like
Encyclopedias give only info and unbiased analysis but this article is totally supporting transubstantiation. Instead of only listing the facts it is stating opinion and is trying to convince the reader that it is a true theology. It really needs to be reworked big time. Lots of the words are written like an essay or from a book. Bbltype 21:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
[edit] "Consubstantiation" and Luther
Luther, as evidenced in The Babylonian Captivity of the Church(Luther's Works vol 36, p. 31f) rejected the notion of using "substance" and "accidents" to explain Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Thus the description of consubstantiation having anything to do with Luther should be removed. Mlorfeld (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Original research
I am sorry that I am not in the humour to engage in a prolonged discussion with Hermitstudy about his insistence on putting his original research into the article. I will just say that, when he applies to the Eucharist what he calls "the classic example of human body used throughout 2,350 years of philosophy", he is expressing a personal thought - unless he can cite some reliable source that applies that very example to the Eucharist. Much the same holds for other edits by him. Esoglou (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- The example of "hat" was used in the lead paragraph in section of Catholic teaching on transubstantiation to illustrate meaning of "substance"—the substantial reality underlying the appearance of the hat. Example of "human body" is consonant with same as further illustration of meaning of "substance"—the substantial reality underlying the appearance of the human body, the human being. The footnote and links advert to the classic 2,350 year philosophical consideration of the "substance" of the human body, the constitutive substantial reality of the human body, human person, from Plato to present day. A hat is not alive. A human being is alive. (A human corpse is dead. It is still a human body.)
- The Catholic doctrine about Jesus is that he is true God and true man. His body is human. His body is alive. The citations from reliable Catholic sources repeatedly state that from the moment of consecration Christ Jesus is substantially present at the Mass, body, blood, soul, divinity: the host handled by the priest and received by the communicant and reserved in the tabernacle is Jesus himself, his body, blood, soul and divinity—he is the substantial reality of the visible eucharistic host. "This is my body." His body can be seen. This is strongly evocative of the passage of scripture which says, "For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40)
- Per the argument of Esoglou above, consider the following:
- The introductory example of the non-living hat was allowed to remain in the article. It cannot be demonstrated that any hat applies directly to the Eucharist. It was not removed.
- The example of a living human body (and human remains) was frequently removed. I put it back. The true human body of Jesus is applicable to the Eucharist and is cited in the Catholic sources of Catholic doctrine and dogma. I cited them.
- The debates of Philosophers re: substance of the human body, human being, are not my personal thought, but theirs. The doctrinal decrees re: the substantial presence of Jesus Christ at Mass, on the tongue, in the tabernacle, body, blood, soul, divinity, are not solely my personal thought, but the teaching of the Church. The material I contributed cites a classic philosophical example re: substance of a human body. The material I contributed cites the Catholic teaching. These are not my personal opinions but the position of the Church.
- The objection of the other reader that this article "totally supports" transubstantiation has no substance: almost all positions re: transubstantiation are represented, pro and con, with substance (supportive of their positions). The word "consubstantiation" is from "con (with) + "sub-stare" (substance)". Dr. Martin Luther may not have used the explicit terms "consubstantiate" / "consubstantiation", he did maintain that the substantial reality of Jesus Christ himself was present "with, in, and under" the bread and the wine, which remain bread and wine and are not changed in any way, but have a "sacramental union" with Jesus Christ when received with faith. The substance of his body and blood is present with the substance of the bread and wine. Hence, the meaning of consubstantiation is present in his writings on the Eucharist even if the word is not on the page. Hermitstudy (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Requests for discussion of reverts re: Pew Forum
| No consensus for change, issuing editor also felt the need to insult those against policy even after being warned about it several times. University degrees do not give someone the right to step on anyone and everyone in their way.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I submitted the update material of a nearly century-old trend among European and American Catholics highlighting its current state by a reputable survey by Pew Research Center on 29 September 20:41 hours. It reveals a tendency for almost half of baptized Catholics to be "Protestant" in theological persuasion without conscious awareness of the fact. It was reverted 1 October 2:35 hours, 30:04 hours later as novel and irrelevant to subject of the article. I reverted the reversion (first time), with explanation that the thrust of the contribution was not in fact USA-centric and did not violate WP:RECENTIST, etc. rules, on 2 October 10:22 hours (not 2:35 hours) 24:00 + 8:13 hours later. The information is factual and indisputable and from a reliable and verifiable source and documents an on-going phenomenon, and I provided a footnote of the source (providing the Associated Press report) from which I obtained the information. No objection from the reverting editor appeared on the discussion page, he/she did not discuss the reversion here. The second reversion of the same Pew Forum material was made 2 October 21:57 hours, 11:35 hours later, 41:39 hours after the first reversion of the same submitted material, giving no substantive reason for the reversion, with an additional "null edit", but no discussion by the reverting editor appeared on the talk page of this article. I reverted this second inexplicable and unexplained reversion (my second revert) and revised and abbreviated it, per the suggestions in Wiki policy on interaction with other editors to improve material, on 3 October 2:28 hours, 8:06 hours later, 59:45 hours after I reverted the first reversion of the Pew Forum material, and included an explanation of its relevancy in the edit summary line. The revised presentation of the findings of the Pew Forum on this on-going decades-old trend was subsequently reverted a third time with the reproach that edits are not the place for discussion. The end result was that the useful information (which the first reverting editor acknowledged was interesting) was removed and made unavailable to the reader even though Wikipedia is supposed to benefit from updates in research and information as soon as it becomes available, and a recommendation on the explanation summary was made to discuss the reversion and the material itself on the talk page. I see no inherent discussion contained in a summary report of facts by a reputable research group that represents a nearly century-old trend among baptized Catholics which substantively places them among the "Protestant" believers of the Christian Church. The reasons given in the summary explanation of edits do not apply (N/A) since it is not a recent phenomenon which is not solely USA-centered, but the useful and "interesting" historically relevant material was removed; the abbreviation and revision of the presentation of the material was removed, and the reverting editor desired a discussion on the talk page. I myself have been accused in another place (totally different subject) of having an agenda (that it turned out I did not have, it was a misperception by another editor), and here there is also an appearance of an agenda by the reverting editor(s), since there are substantiated historical facts, the material is relevant to the opinions of Christians re: the reality or symbolism of the bread and wine (juice) presented in Christian worship, and no solid or applicable reason is given for excising the research results of a reputable research group highlighting the current state of this on-going historical trend of almost a century duration—according to the Associated Press report increasing in Europe and America. What is the scholarly, academic, scientifically verifiable documentary rationale for excluding this? Is there evidentiary information demonstrating invalidating bias by the researchers, skewed findings, defective methodology, that would preclude the presence of this material in an encyclopedia? So far, none has been presented, here or elsewhere. The findings do not reflect the opinions of a tiny minority group represented falsely as the majority view. I could only conclude from these facts that the suggested discussion would not be a reasoned discussion among editors and readers, but a pointless debate without purpose or goal, proposed solely by one editor (who states clearly for everyone to see that he has a problem with "perseveration") for the stimulation of the exercise of disputation for the sake of debate. I have presented here a reasoned rationale for inclusion of the Pew Forum material as reported by the Associated Press. I did not make a third reversion of an excluding edit; others "made war" on information they reverted without good cause, and without discussion of causes for exclusion here on the talk page of this article. Please declare and discuss substantive points of disputation over inclusion of the Pew Forum survey results that obtain per policy of Wikipedia. If there are none, the reverting (excluding) edit can be undone by another editor. —Hermitstudy (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
|
[edit] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
