Talk:Transubstantiation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Human consumption

So, what happens when you digest it and it comes out of the other end? Do you get to shit Christ or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.80.217 (talk • contribs)

As stated in the article, a sacrament is an "efficacious sign of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us" (CCC 1131). Without the sign, there is no sacrament, which is why the Catholic Church insists that the "accidents" (the appearances of bread and wine) that remain in the Eucharist are real. If a sign ceases to exist, as when the appearance of wine changes to that of vinegar, the sacrament ceases to exist. Lima 14:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV / Studies disproving an actual physical change

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there were a few studies done that showed that there was no physical change into the body and blood. I'm having difficulty finding these studies and was hoping someone could help me out. Adding a section about the studies disproving the notion of transubstantiation would help balance out the point of view in my opinion. --194.164.80.71 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Who on earth would think it necessary to do such a study? Does anyone maintain that in the Eucharist there is a physical change? The Catholic Church does not. It believes there is a real change, but not a physical, chemical one. Physical, chemical aspects are part of what the doctrine of transubstantiation calls "accidents". See, for instance, Christ's Presence in the Eucharist, The Reality of the Real Presence, ARCIC Elucidation on the Eucharist. Lima (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite a number of Catholics believe it actually turns into the blood and body of jesus. I can't recall off the top of my head who did the studies, that's why I was asking for help from the community. I'm very positive I've come across several independent mentions of these studies in the past, but I can't remember where. For your reference, there are many studies done on topics which we intuitively know the answer to. When the doctrine was formally instituted in 1252, I'm under the impression a physical change was believed to occur. Many thanks.--194.164.80.71 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

They do believe that "it actually turns into the body and blood of Jesus", that it does really become the body and blood of Jesus. But they don't believe there is any change whatever that can be detected by the senses, such as a chemical alteration. Lima (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, and for my own information, how can that possibly be believed by anybody? I could say my coffee turns into something else with a few Latin words, but add the proviso that no physical change occurs. If I claimed this, everybody would think I was out of my mind. The fact no physical change occurs surely indicates that this is a phenomenon not to be believed or even taken seriously. In my mind, transubstantiation doesn't even pass the credibility test, much as the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't. In fact, it doesn't even make sense to me - how can a wafer and wine turn into Jesus when it doesn't actually turn into Jesus? It contradicts itself. This isn't an attack on religious teachings, but what is the thought process of intelligent human beings when they believe something that is self-contradictory and self-disproving? I really would like to raise my understanding.--194.164.80.71 (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For a very brief explanation (more elaborate ones exist), read Transubstantiation#Theology_of_transubstantiation. Lima (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Philosophically, transubstantiation requires a dualistic frame of understanding. No, it doesn't make any sense in a purely materialistic sense. I don't say this as a critique - I'm a practicing Catholic who believes in transubstantiation. But if you work from a fundamentally different frame of reference, of course the doctrine seems crazy. Discussion of transubstantiation necessarily presupposes a dualistic worldview in which a material/ideal duality has meaning. I don't think the article needs to be overburdened with discussion that assumes a contradictory set of first principles. As such, I think discussion of studies disproving physical change is entirely irrelevant (and makes me wonder about the researchers a bit). The accepted Catholic theology of transubstantiation already postulates no change in accidents, so studies demonstrating what's plainly obvious and theologically undisputed seems like a clear violation of neutrality by implying that these studies are in some way relevant to said theology.Yakaji (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a reference for it, but I once heard Douglas Adams being interviewed and expressing the opinion that religions seem to become involved in an 'Arms race of piety', in that I might claim to be more pious than you, because you merely believe in what is believable (which takes little of no faith), whereas my faith is so deep that I am prepared to believe in that which is unbelievable.Far Canal (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Trinity mention in Scriptural Foundations

A minor note possibly, but shouldn't that paragraph be moved to the article dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity? RedDragonStar (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Transubstantiation In Art

I think that this is relevant to this article, but it has been removed as irrelevant - An Oak Tree by Michael Craig-Martin is a glass of water that the artist claims is an oak tree.He has stated that "It's not a symbol. I have changed the physical substance of the glass of water into that of an oak tree. I didn't change its appearance. The actual oak tree is physically present, but in the form of a glass of water." In a Richard Dimbleby Lecture, on 23 November 2000 Sir Nicholas Serota said "We may not "like" Craig-Martin's work, but it certainly reminds us that the appreciation of all art involves an act of faith comparable to the belief that, through transubstantiation, the bread and wine of Holy Communion become the body and blood of Christ.[42]"Research Method (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This section has been deleted as irrelevant without comment here. Since the artist's text describes the work as "a full-grown oak tree," created "without altering the accidents of the glass of water.", and I have provided a source for the opinion that it is relevant, I am reversing the deletion.Research Method (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The work of art in question is compared to Transubstantiation; it does not depict the subject in the sense that is covered in this article. Furthermore, there is no WP:CONSENSUS that your addition be included. Two separate editors, including myself, believe it is not relevant to this article. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is not covered in the article is why I made the addition! Your objections led me to rewrite it. Why have you deleted my references?

"Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue. This is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of GOOD REASONS.Research Method (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please add some examples of literal depictions of transubstantiation - there are '000's!Research Method (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Revised version of the text - "==Transubstantiation in Art== An Oak Tree by Michael Craig-Martin contains a glass of water the artist has turned into "a full-grown oak tree," created "without altering the accidents of the glass of water.". The work states that "It's not a symbol. I have changed the physical substance of the glass of water into that of an oak tree. I didn't change its appearance. The actual oak tree is physically present, but in the form of a glass of water."" In a Richard Dimbleby Lecture, on 23 November 2000 Sir Nicholas Serota said "We may not "like" Craig-Martin's work, but it certainly reminds us that the appreciation of all art involves an act of faith comparable to the belief that, through transubstantiation, the bread and wine of Holy Communion become the body and blood of Christ."Research Method (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

On this, I agree with Kafka Liz. Does anyone agree with RM? If not, he should cease to insist on including this matter, since only on the basis of a strained logic can an attempt be made to justify a claim of connection with the article's subject. Lima (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I must say I agree with Research Method and NOT Liz. The work entitled "An Oak Tree" is a perfect analogy to, and an incisive critique of the religious doctrine of Transubstantiation. This analogy helps anyone understand the self-contradictory and impossible nature of Transubstantiation. In other words, you cannot make something into something else by simply SAYING you have done so. An Oak Tree shows that Transubstantiation is simply gullibility for the sake of self-proclaimed gullibility. A sort of gullibility that says": "I SAY I'm gullible, therefor I AM." NPOV does not require the kidd gloves treatment of Transubstantiation any more than it is required in the case of any other medieval hoax. 24.160.80.225 (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC) William Malmstrom, Clearwater, FL

Image of Francis of Assisi

Carlo Crivelli Hl. Franz von Assisi fängt das Blut Christi aus den Wundmalen auf

This image has been removed as irrelevant. Given that it shows a chalice filling with Christ's blood does anyone support its restoration?Research Method (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To me the image does not seem to indicate wine changed to the blood of Christ. Lima (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It depicts a mediaeval cleric, Francis of Assisi, filling a chalice with Christ's blood.Research Method (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A cleric, yes. More precisely, a deacon, who had not the power of consecrating the bread and wine and thus bringing transubstantiation about. Lima (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It shows him collecting Christ's blood. It may not be the best image, but I think is is relevant, and should be reinstated.Research Method (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it shows his blood being turned to wine? There must be a meaning to the ChaliceResearch Method (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

the image is surely a image about John 19:34 that is considered by the Fathers of the Church a clear reference to the institution of Baptism and Eucharist. The faithful who drinks from the chalice is drinking the Blood of the Lord. Kneeling is the position to receive the Communion, not to consecrate it. A ntv (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless Method can back his speculation up with a reliable source, or unless some editor comes and supports him, I think we can consider this discussion ended. Lima (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Frontispiece to "On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church"

Martin Luther Von dem babylonischen Gefängnis der Kirche (On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church) Wittenberg, 1520, title page Paper (21)

I added this image of Luther to illustrate the section on Protestants. Given that Luther was mentioned next to it, and that it comes from his book that dealt with transubstantiation I fail to understand its removal on the grounds of irrelevance.Research Method (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The caption speaks only of Luther and the book title. The connection with the subject of the article would have to be expressed. Certainly the book cannot be presented as "(Luther's) book that dealt with transubstantiation" as if that was what the book was about.Lima (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a picture of Luther. It is taken from his book on the sacrements. I don't see how it detracts from the article.Research Method (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either the sacraments in general or the Eucharist in particular were the main theme of the book. Lima (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It disputes transubstantiation =

2.26Therefore it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words, to understand "bread" to mean "the form, or accidents of bread," and "wine" to mean "the form, or accidents of wine." Why do they not also understand all other things to mean their forms, or accidents? Even if this might be done with all other things, it would yet not be right thus to emasculate the words of God and arbitrarily to empty them of their meaning.

2.27Moreover, the Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this transubstantiation — certainly, a monstrous word for a monstrous idea — until the pseudo-philosophy of Aristotle became rampant in the Church these last three hundred years. During these centuries many other things have been wrongly defined, for example, that the Divine essence neither is begotten nor begets, that the soul is the substantial form of the human body, and the like assertions, which are made without reason or sense, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself admits.Research Method (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added these quotes to the article, as they relate directly to the history of Transubstatiation.Research Method (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to keep the image because "it is a picture of Luther", but changing it to Martin Luther Von dem babylonischen Gefängnis der Kirche Wittenberg, 1520, title page Paper (21), i.e. without (On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church) that is quite insulting for the Catholics and irrelevant for this article. A ntv (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But it is the same thing in German. This is not a Catholic Encyclopaedia. It is directly relevant, because it is both an image of Luther, and a page from the book that is cited.Research Method (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but the choice of this single book among lots of other Lutheran texts more relevant for the argument of the Article could look like simply a way to make polemic using this title. Because I'm sure it is not your intention, I kindly ask you to edit it yourself. The text under the image shall be useful only for reference of the image. Thanks. A ntv (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am unaware of any polemical or offensive nature of this 500 years old book. Before I edited the article it claimed that Luther largely agreed with Transubstantiation. Research Method (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Luther and the Lutherans keep a different position of the Transubstantiation than other protestants: Lutherans don't deny the Real Presence, even if they believe the bread remains also present (catholic theology calls this position with the name of "Consubstantiation"). About the title, what about if your denomination is said to be prisoner of Babylon? A ntv (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Luther said

"Moreover, the Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this    
transubstantiation — certainly, a monstrous word for a monstrous idea — until the pseudo-philosophy of Aristotle became rampant in the Church 
these last three hundred years."

this was a very different position on Transubstantiation. Consubstantiation does not describe Luther's position which is Sacramental union, if you can trust wikipedia:)Research Method (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I specified "catholic theology calls this position with the name of "Consubstantiation"", not that the Lutherans call it with such a name. I know that there are slightly different meanings for this term. A ntv (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a source, as I doubt that Catholic Theology would deliberatly use misleading terems.Research Method (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I can[1], but this is a talk page, not a forum. It is off-topic. We could talk in the Consubstantiation Article talk page, but it is not a priority of mine to add a opposite view there. You can find me on the bigger Christian forum on the net if you want to debate. A ntv (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How is it off topic to say that this article contains serious errors? If it is off topic, remove the reference from the article.Research Method (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed the section title to "Protestant Reformation (Criticism of Transubstantiation)" to try to reduce insult. Research Method (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Need For References on This Page

I think that this page would be better if people could use footnotes to support their contributions. Can we reach a consensus on this?Research Method (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes are for articles, not for talk pages..Modernist (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just hyperlink the URL(s) in your post, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org] gives a numbered link:[2]. [http://en.wikipedia.org wikipedia] gives a word link: wikipedia. That way the reference is immediately available to other editors and gets archived properly with the post. When using a word link with URL, just leave a space between the end of the URL and the word(s) to be linked. Wikilinks (i.e. internal links within wiki) use a bar instead of a space. Ty 00:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ownership of this Article

Transubstantiation is important to the development of Western Culture and philosophy. The article should reflect this, not just the view of the Roman Catholic Church.Research Method (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that there are many articles about what happen in the Eucharist, each one from a different point of view: see for example Real Presence, Eucharistic theologies contrasted, Anglican Eucharistic theology and so on. Of course T. is not believed only by the Catholic Church but is supported also by other Churches. In other words, this article shall include also criticism to the T. but it is not the main article about theology of the Eucharist. A ntv (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Transubstantiation is Catholic Dogma, and has been since 1215. People have died because the rejected the precise verbal formula. This article should be specifically about transubstantiation. Maybe there should be a seperate article on the History of Transubstantiation, but there isn't. Transubstantiation is a specific term "adopted by the Roman Catholic Church to express her teaching" according to 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. It is NOT an ecumenical term.Research Method (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

metousiosis

If this is Transubstatiation, as the article claims, it should be covered. I have added an official definition.Research Method (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Eastern teaching is that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ ("the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord", same expression as in the Council of Trent): that is what is meant by transubstantiation/metousiosis (both words mean exactly the same thing). The quotation says that the manner is which the change occurs cannot be understood. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the same. Catholic and Orthodox meanings do not differ. Lima (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The text I wished to add was "The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, known also as The Catechism of St. Philaret states: "In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord."[3] The official Greek version of this passage (question 340) uses the word "metousiosis".

There is clearly a difference, in that substance, accidents etc are not discussed.Research Method (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Bishop Kalistos Ware States - The Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. As the words of the Epiclesis make abundantly plain, the Orthodox Church believes that after consecration the bread and wine become in very truth the Body and Blood of Christ: they are not mere symbols, but the reality. But while Orthodoxy has always insisted on the reality of the change, it has never attempted to explain the manner of the change: the Eucharistic Prayer in the Liturgy simply uses the neutral term metaballo, to ‘turn about,’ ‘change,’ or ‘alter.’ It is true that in the seventeenth century not only individual Orthodox writers, but Orthodox Councils such as that of Jerusalem in 1672, made use of the Latin term ‘transubstantiation’ (in Greek, metousiosis), together with the Scholastic distinction between Substance and Accidents (In medieval philosophy a distinction is drawn between the substance or essence (i.e. that which constitutes a thing, which makes it what it is), and the accidents or qualities that belong to a substance (i.e. everything that can be perceived by the senses — size, weight, shape, color, taste, smell, and so on). A substance is something existing by itself (ens per se), an accident can only exist by inhering in something else (ens in alio). Applying this distinction to the Eucharist, we arrive at the doctrine of Transubstantiation. According to this doctrine, at the moment of consecration in the Mass there is a change of substance, but the accidents continue to exist as before: the substances of bread and wine are changed into those of the Body and Blood of Christ, but the accidents of bread and wine — i.e. the qualities of color, taste, smell, and so forth — continue miraculously to exist and to be perceptible to the senses). But at the same time the Fathers of Jerusalem were careful to add that the use of these terms does not constitute an explanation of the manner of the change, since this is a mystery and must always remain incomprehensible (Doubtless many Roman Catholics would say the same). Yet despite this disclaimer, many Orthodox felt that Jerusalem had committed itself too unreservedly to the terminology of Latin Scholasticism, and it is significant that when in 1838 the Russian Church issued a translation of the Acts of Jerusalem, while retaining the word transubstantiation, it carefully paraphrased the rest of the passage in such a way that the technical terms Substance and Accidents were not employed (This is an interesting example of the way in which the Church is ‘selective’ in its acceptance of the decrees of Local Councils (see above, p. 211)). [[4]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method (talk • contribs) 14:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The absence of a mention of the distinction between substance and accidents in the Russian texts referred to does not amount to an actual denial of the distinction. In any case, "the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs" to which the Catechism of St Philaret makes reference has been called the most authoritative statement of the Eastern Orthodox Church in the second millennium, and it does explicitly contain these words; and this teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church clearly outweighs suppositions based merely on lack of explicit affirmation in some other documents. Their silence is by means a proof of your contention of (an alleged) conflict between Eastern and Western teaching about the change of the reality of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ while the appearances remain as before. Lima (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, or what you know. Please reference your statements.Research Method (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Distinction beteween Transubstantition and The Eucharist

Transubstantiation is a dogma of the Roman Church that explains HOW wine and bread becomes blood and flesh. This article should concern itself more with the detail and evolution of the formulation, and less with the question of whether a change takes place, which should be discussed under Eucharist.Research Method (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Transubstantiation is a dogma of the Church only in the same way as the Trinity is a dogma of the Church: to speak more precisely, as one should in an encyclopedia, one should say that the dogmas affirm the Trinity and transubstantiation, that they hold that the Trinity is real, that transubstantiation is real. The Trinity and transubstantiation are (alleged) realities. Your affirmation that the dogma explains how bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ is contradicted by the express declaration of the Church that holds that transubstantiation is a reality, a declaration that has more weight than your affirmation. Lima (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Transubstantiation is the term adopted by the Roman Catholic Church to express her teaching on the subject of the conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist".Research Method (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. iv; can. ii) not only accepted as an inheritance of faith the truth contained in the idea, but authoritatively confirmed the "aptitude of the term" to express most strikingly the legitimately developed doctrinal concept."[5]Research Method (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The term Transubstantiation is, even occasionally, used also by not catholics, as in this official lesson of Patriach Shenouda III of Alexandria: The Eucharist is how to pray that this Prosphora, this holy bread, may be transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ, and the wine into His Blood.see Question 4]. It is used also and mainly by catholics, but this is due only to the fact the this term requires the correct understanding of what is "substance" in the Aristotlelic philosophy. The quotation of Britannica, even if correct, is not a definition of Transubstantiation but simply states who use it (an information already present in the Article). So I Suggest to revert such an edit. A ntv (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The term was coined by the Catholic church in the 11th century - see above reference from the Catholic Encyclopaedia. The quotation from britanica is the first line from the article:) You provide one obscure reference to support occasional use, and question Britannica.Research Method (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please reread the first line, with "term" instead of "Dogma", and give your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method (talk • contribs) 01:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It is much better to write that "Evaporation is conversion of a liquid into vapour" than to write: "Evaporation is a term used to refer to conversion of a liquid into vapour". The second text, as well as being unnecessarily complex, is inexact, unless the word "evaporation" is put in quotes or italicized. The term "evaporation" does exist. You can say many things about the term. But the term is not evaporation. Lima (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have provided the first line from the encyclopedia britannica. Transubstantiation is the term used by the Catholic Church to express their position on the real presence. Other churches use different words, such as Consubstantiation, to express their position. This is not the place to debate the real presence.Research Method (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What Encyclopaedia Britannica? Oh, you mean the edition of almost a full century ago, in 1911. Much less than a full century wasn't need to ensure that corrections were made to that edition. Have you seen what the latest edition says? Lima (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain a} how transubstantiation has changed since 1911, and b) how the latest edition starts it's article. I would like to see some sources to support your POV.Research Method (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course transubstantiation hasn't changed since 1911. What people say about it may need correction. The Encyclopaedia Britannica has made a correction. Its latest edition begins: "transubstantiation: in Christianity, the change by which the substance (though not the appearance) of the bread and wine in the Eucharist becomes Christ's Real Presence—that is, his body and blood." The ODCC article begins: "transubstantiation. In the theology of the Eucharist, the conversion of the whole substance of the bread and wine into the whole substance of the Bod and Blood Christ, only the accidents (i.e. the appearances of the bread and wine) remaining". These phrases should be quite familiar to you: they are both now at the beginning of this Wikipedia article, in view of your intervention. Much more sensible than using the style "A giraffe is a term used for an animal with a long neck" instead of "A giraffe is an animal with a long neck". Lima (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Why you place the neutrality flag? which is the dispute? This article is not to demonstrate "whether a change takes place", but simply explain what the term "Transubstantition" means. I dont see the need of neutrality flag. Please explain A ntv (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Should this passage be deleted then, as it seems to be entirely about that, which I don't believe is in doubt.Research Method (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"While the word "transubstantiation" is not found in Scripture and the doctrine is not explicitly stated there, those who believe that the reality in the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and no longer bread and wine hold that this is implicitly taught in the New Testament.[12]

Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholics, who together constitute about two thirds of Christians,[13] hold that the consecrated elements in the Eucharist are indeed the body and blood of Christ. Some Anglicans hold the same belief.[14] They see as the main Scriptural support for their belief that in the Eucharist the bread and wine are actually changed into the Body and Blood of Christ the words of Jesus himself at his Last Supper: the Synoptic Gospels[15] and Saint Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians[16] recount that in that context Jesus said of what to all appearances were bread and wine: "This is my body … this is my blood." Belief in the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is based on these words of Christ at the Last Supper as interpreted by Christians from the earliest times, as for instance by Ignatius of Antioch."

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. Policy shortcut: WP:YESPOV

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are clearly described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from asserting which is better. Please read above. There are lots of unresolved disputes. For example whether the historical development should be covered, the presentation of non catholic viewpoints, misleading descriptions of the views of other churches, etcResearch Method (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Which of the statements in the passage you quoted do you think are not based on reliable sources? "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'": is it just possible that this is what you are attempting to do? Lima (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

ntv says "This article is not to demonstrate "whether a change takes place", but simply explain what the term "Transubstantition" means." The statements quoted do not explain what Transubstantiation means, but rather discuss whether a change has taken place. They confuse transubstantiation with the Real Presence. Research Method (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

They don't. Lima (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC) They speak about a change. The Real Presence is what follows the change. Lima (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Transubstantiation is the term that expresses the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on the conversion. Other churches believe in the change, but disagree with Transubstantiation. This article claims a wider meaning for Transubstantiation than is normal, and fails to support that argument. Please can you provide some sources that contradict the ones I have cited.Research Method (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

How do we get this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method (talk • contribs) 21:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

no, the 1911 Britannica statement is false. Britannica is not a third part in describing the Catholic believes: it uses often protestant prospective.

The point you miss is what is the substantia (Substance). Trans-substantation is the change of substantia. The term Trans-substantation requires the understanding and the use of the Aristotle/Thomistic philosophical background. Catholics don't consider this philosophical background as mandatory, but as the very best. So we have catholic theologians and even official documents that don't use the substantia terminology to express the teaching about the "Change", even if no more precise terminology has been found. So a more correct sentence would be the preferred term adopted by the Roman Catholic Church and by other Churches to express their teachings.... Anyway this is not at all a definition, but it is simply an information (anyway already present in the third line) about who use this term, and so it cannot stay in the first line of the Article. The definition shall something like: "T. is the change by which the substance of the bread in the Eucharist becomes the the substance of Christ, i.e. the Real Presence.

Again Lima is right: here we are not speaking of the result of the Change of bread in the Body (the Real Presence), but of the very Change. Once the time we understand what is the substantia (not a easy thing), we see that this term is not at all a "Catholic" term, but it is a general term. A ntv (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have cited the Britaninica, Council of Trent, and a Catholic Enyclopaedia. Please cite something that expresses your view. I don't understand how "The term Trans-substantation requires the understanding and the use of the Aristotle/Thomistic philosophical background." contradicts the view that it is the interpretation of the Roman Church.Research Method (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

re "no, the 1911 Britannica statement is false. Britannica is not a third part in describing the Catholic believes: it uses often protestant prospective." I don't think you understand what is meant by NPOV. It means including points of view, not dismissing them, and backing them with citations if questioned.Research Method (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand perfectly what is a POV: for this reason you cannot place a POV as definition in the first line of the Article. In the article you can list all the POVs, but in the definition of the first line we shall use the more wildly accepted definition, that in this case is probably the one of Trent (you can not agree with the fact the the bread is transubstanced, but the definition is that one). About the Aristotle/Thomistic, I suppose you are expert of these matters to edit this article, and not simply looking for cut and copies on the net, so I don't think you need more explanations. A ntv (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It is POV to deny that it is a Roman Catholic word, and try to apply it to other churches. Please provide some citations for the view that it is not Roman Catholic.Research Method (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

On the related belief that Christ is present in the Eucharist in body, blood, soul and divinity, see Real Presence.

Why can't we relocate material covering this subject in detail to that Article? For example "In general, Orthodox and Catholics consider it unnecessary to "prove" from texts of Scripture a belief that they see as held by Christians from earliest times, since the Church and its teaching existed before any part of the New Testament was written, and the teaching of the apostles was thus transmitted not only in writing but also orally.[19] They see nothing in Scripture that contradicts the traditional teaching that the reality beneath the visible signs in the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. Instead, they see this teaching as definitely implied in the Bible." Why does this need to be here, rather than in real presence? The reference to Orthodox suggests that would be the natural home for it.Research Method (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

again, here we discuss the Eucharist from the prospective of the "Change". The "Real Presence" discuss it from the prospective of what is AFTER the Change. "Euchatist" is a generic article. Why you are so upset with this article? A ntv (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Transubstantiation is a technical term. It is the Roman explanation of how the change takes place. What do we learn from this text about Transubstantiation? Why the reference to Orthodox (and exclusion of the Coptic and Armenian Chuches?)93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Eucharist in the Catholic Church contains a long entry on Transubstantiation you disagree with.Research Method (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Research, to make edits it is not enough to find here and there cut and copies, but one shall have a quite good knowledge of the matter: the issue id leavened/unleavened bread is a completely different issue from this Article, the RCC can use (and uses in many its rites or uses) also the leavened bread while there are Orthodox that use unleavened bread (as the Armenian). This is anyway something related the accidents, not the substantia so it is completely a different matter. A ntv (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please can you provide some sources for what you are saying. You may be very well informed, but it seems as though you are illiterate.Peas & Luv (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need this preface? It doesn't serve the purpose of disambiguation that is usually performed by such notes. That the note is wordy and complicated is an indicator that it shouldn't be there. "Real presence" is linked in the text in the proper context and with the proper explanations. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Leavened and Unleavened bread

Can transubstantiation take place in either?Peas & Luv (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, it can: According to the catholic doctrine, the uses of leavened bread even in the Latin Rites is a matter of illicity, not of invalidity, so in any case the T. is present. About my statment about the Eastern Catholics who use the unleaved bread and Armenian Orthodox who use the leavened bread it is a so well known matter that you can find everywhere, as in the article about catholic Eucharist Eucharist in the Catholic Church#Matter for the Sacrament or here. Leavened bread is sometime used also into the Latin Rite, being considered as a light abuse that anyway dont touch the T. A ntv (talk) 07:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But some orthodox dispute that it can happen in unleavened bread, don't they?Peas & Luv (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The matter (bread and wine), the form (the words used by the priest), the minister (priest or lay or bishop) of the Eucharist do not relate the idea of T., but shall be included (as they are) in the Eucharist article or in its related articles, as Divine Liturgy (for Orthodox), Eucharist in the Catholic Church(for Catholics) or Last Supper(for protestants) or Sacrament (Latter Day Saints) and so on. A ntv (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Then, as to their argument drawn from Peter and the great Apostles who discipled the West, we have this to oppose them, that those Apostles did transmit the same to the Westerns but that with their alteration of the faith, the canons also were corrupted by their (Western) subjection to the will of heretical kings. And, in proof of this statement, we urge that if they all held the traditions of the Apostles, the Franks would not offer an unleavened, and the Romans (Greeks) a leavened oblation; since the Apostles did not transmit it in two different ways. Therefore, the Westerns have changed the faith and the canons, and not the Easterners."

This is taken from the article on Assyrian Church of the East who, it is claimed, largely agree with the catholic doctrine on transubstantiation.Peas & Luv (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead

What is wrong with this? Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio) is the term the Roman Catholic Church has officially used since 1215 to describe the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurring in the Eucharist while all that is accessible to the senses remain as before. In Greek it translates asμετουσίωσις (see Metousiosis).

What need is there to use "officially"?

Also "the term that" is an ugly wording. We could turn every WP article into "X is the term" and "Y is the name" (and some are working hard on this) but it would be wrong. "Transubstantiation" is not merely a term it is a concept and we should describe it. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

why have you removed the date the term was first used? This is relevant, since before that the doctrine existed, but was not known by this term, according to the body of the article.Peas & Luv (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The date is relevant but it is not needed in the very first sennce.

I also don't like the quoting of the Britannica in the lead. We may use it as a souce (despite the notoriously problematic character of that work) but me need not quote it, especially if it contains strange wordings like "the substance becomes the real presence" - No, bread and wine change in their substance into body and blood. The real presence is a larger concept involving transubstantation as well but the EB wording is bad. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

why is the date not relevant in the 1st sentence? It is only in the last 800 years that the term has been used, but the change has been happening for 2000years.Peas & Luv (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC

because the RCC uses also other terms different from T. for the change. And in Wiki the expressions "X is the term" and "Y is the name" are not used. A ntv (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Council of Trent

Should not reference be made to the fact that Transubstantiation was defined so Lutherans could not agree, as the 1t1h ed encyc brit says, or is this also untrue? I feel that the historical development of the term is not adequately covered.Peas & Luv (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Luther's start of the Reformation was in 1517, 300 and more years after 1215 definition of T. There was not an historical development of the term T. that strictly depends on the cathegory "substantia", that has a clear and definite meaning in the Aritotle philosophy (IV century BCE), a meaning that never changed. Lutherans and others simply do not like to use such cathergory or consider it not adequate or simply reject the fact described by T. A ntv (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a reference that contradicts mine. I can't understand you. Don't want to be rude:)Peas & Luv (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Both Kinds

Should this be covered?Peas & Luv (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is already covered in the first line and in 1215 and Trent definitions where both bread/Body and wine/Blood are mentioned. Anyway this article is about the idea of T. that is a single idea, so the kinds (species) are not a key point. Various detail about the kinds shall be placed in Eucharist related articles, as Divine Liturgy (for Orthodox), Eucharist in the Catholic Church(for Catholics) or Last Supper(for protestants) or Sacrament (Latter Day Saints) and so on. A ntv (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Does transubstantiation only apply to the eucharist, or can it ba applied to other things?Peas & Luv (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Coeliac disease & transubstantiation

I'm confused here. In the article on coeliac disease there is a section on wheat/gluten sensitivity issues and the eucharist. I don't understand how if after consecration any gluten could remain. Only the appearance of the wheat remains, none of the substance. There is no gluten, it's all the Body of Our Saviour. 65.6.35.13 (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Gluten is one of the elements open to the senses and scientific analysis. None of that is changed. It is what the object is in itself, not the chemical elements, the taste, the smell, the shape, the dryness or moisture, or anything of this kind, that is changed according to Catholic teaching. Lima (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That only confuses me more, to be frank. If the bread is not the chemical elements, what is it? Or in other words, what else is bread "in itself" aside from the water and wheat that Holy Mother Church limits the ingredients to? If the things that make an object what it is remain, precisely what changed? 72.155.127.171 (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

An attempt at explanation has been made in the article, under "Theology of transubstantiation". It would be inappropriate to go further into the matter on this Talk page, which is meant for discussing the content of the article, not for discussing the topic of the article. Indeed, even what has already been said here should probably not be included in the Talk page about the article. Lima (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Validity of Consecration

Under what circumstances can a non catholic perform transubstantiation? Peas & Luv (talk)

What are the objections to this formulation -

The Eastern Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches, along with the Assyrian Church of the East, agree that the bread and wine that they consecrate truly and actually become the body and blood of Christ. Some recognise the validity of Consecration by the Roman Church others dispute it.

?Peas & Luv (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced. Too vague ("some recognise ... others dispute it"). Suggests that (some?) Eastern Orthodox dispute the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, but by no means that of the Oriental Orthodox (called "Monophysite") or that of the Church of the East (called "Nestorian"). Lima (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Physics

People from outside this tradition have a problem grasping the logic behind transubstantiation, because prima facie it seems somewhat absurd. it doesn't actually have to be that absurd. Molecules are constantly cycling around the place. I have molecules in my body that were once inside Julius Cesar. Clealy atoms also are constantly on the move so we don't even have to be dealing with the same elements where we say that it may well be that the bread has been part of Christ's body. Why not? Furthermore, Christ does not just appear as he did when he was Jesus King of Jews, the Word made flesh; there may be Christ as a poor man to whom you took some compassion and gave some food. In some sense we are also all ikons of Christ, and the church herself is the body of Christ, right now fallible but ultimately incorruptible. 82.36.217.136 (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.217.136 (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

While it may be true in some grand scheme that atoms of Christ could be in the wafer, that theory would also hold that they were also in bird poop as well. There's no reason they'd be concentrated in priest's wafers more than anything else. (I'm also fairly sure that the odds that one of Caeser's atoms would happen to be in your body is pretty low—the number of total atoms in circulation is gargantuan). --140.247.253.176 (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that's precisely what I'm saying. The miracle is in that thing happening that is highly unlikely . The principle I'm trying to get across is that when people go on about "well I just don't see how that [transubstantiation] is logically possible", actually there might be a sensible point to it after all, that there's no reason other than probabilities why bread and wine can't be transformed into Body and Blood; and God facilitates that thing which chance alone would not 82.36.217.136 (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, it is the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins that has something to be used for this [NB I'm not sock-puppeting as long as you know I'm the above]. p. 366:

"Here's a favourite example: every time you drink a glass of water, the odds are good that you will imbibe at least one molecule that passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell. It's just elementary probability theory. The number of molecules per glassful is hugely greater than the number of glassfuls in the world. So every time we have a full glass, we are looking at a rather high proportion of the molecules of water that exist in the world.[....]Haven't you just breathed in a nitrogen atom that was once breathed out by the third iguanodon to the left of the tall cycad tree?" Eugene-elgato (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Great Example. Just like I always tell people who worry that we are going to run out of water. I tell them dont worry that logically all earths water around us is in one form or another. Moisture so far as I know cannot escape earths atmosphere. Cosmos0001 (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Only problem with the above observation is that it fails to recognize that water is lost through fuel expenditure by air and spacecraft out of the atmosphere without being replenished. Maybe a bad example. But I get the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.211.95.194 (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

yeah it's true; however noone knows how much H2O comes into earth from meteorite debris.Eugene-elgato (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not about physics, really. In order to understand transubstantiation you really have to understand Aristotle's metaphysics of substantial form and prime matter. They are two metaphysical principles that are not physical things but which are employed philosophically to describe Parmenides' problem of motion (how do things change or move?). Suffice it to say it's all very esoteric and most modern people wouldn't find Aristotle's metaphysics all that convincing or necessary. Jonalexdeval (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Transubstantiation of Enoch

In Kabbalah, there are some people who talk about the possibility of Enoch being transsubstantiated. It would be interesting if theologians could look into this. ADM (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? Soidi (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought Enoch was simply made immortal

Nuttyskin (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesus' Bones

It is important to remember that Tomb of Jesus is still a mystery . Also Before His death, He commanded His disciples to partake of the supper in His remembrance. Remembrance. It is also important to point out the fact that it has been over 2000 years since he has returned as it was written in scripture. It is equal to 40 life times who have not seen the glory of his re-resurrection.The term metousiosis is, of course, not found in the text of the Eastern Orthodox Church's Divine Liturgy, just as the term transubstantiation is not found in the text of the Latin Eucharistic liturgy.Cosmos0001 (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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) Honestly I strongly disagree with the proposed additions about the Liberal trend among American Catholics, and thus I support the editors that have removed it. The point is that this addition is completely out of the scope of this Article. This article tries to explain what is the "Transubstantiation" (quite a technical term). It shall not cover nor all the issues about Real Presence, nor the positions of every church/denomination about the Real Presence, and not even how much a position of a church is supported by some of its faithful. If you actually want to insert in Wiki such statistics, you shall works in articles as Liberal Christianity, where there could be room also for other statistics that cover (or perhaps reject) your statistic in a optic of NPOV. But here in Transubstantiation these statistic are off-topic and Transubstantiation is not the right article where to deal with today extension of the Liberal theology in the CC. A ntv (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC) A personal disagreement with the findings of a valid research institute does not invalidate the findings or facts they report, they are simply there whether we like them or not. e.g.: —There are people who are convinced the earth is flat. They strongly disagree with the evidence and claims of the scientific community that it is not. Their strong disagreement does not disprove the scientific evidence that the earth is an oblate spheroid falling in an orbit around the center of the sun's gravity well. How does your disagreement with what you call "the Liberal trend among Catholics" validate the other editors' position that the material is "RECENTIST", when it is not? Moreover, contrary to what you claimed in your response, in the paragraphs that remain at the end of this article is material that is representative of the spectrum of beliefs among almost all Protestants regarding transubstantiation. The article does cover all the issues about the subject, and the positions of virtually all the churches/denominations about the Real Presence. (Only the numbers are omitted.) Yet you did not take exception to such inclusion. This is not consistent. Your response (characteristic of most of the Wikipedia editors I have encountered) is a perfect example of the reason why I am leaving Wikipedia permanently. —Hermitstudy (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Good riddance. The encyclopedia is better off without someone who thinks they flippantly insult everyone they are in disagreement with. I directed you several times to this site's policies on personal attacks, and yet you still violate them. You profess yourself to be a historian, but you quite obviously know nothing of mental health, given you think that a personality trait of dropping things is an overall judgement of the entirety of my mental health. You were given your chance to apologize, but instead continued to insult. Good riddance.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)