This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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." [1]. 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." [1]" 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. [2]" Research Method ( talk) 20:25, 3 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
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)
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)
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)
"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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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, etc Research Method ( talk) 00:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
How do we get this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Can transubstantiation take place in either? Peas & Luv ( talk) 07:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. [4] In Greek it translates asμετουσίωσις (see Metousiosis).
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)
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)
Should this be covered? Peas & Luv ( talk) 23:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.— Dæ dαlus 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)
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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." [1]. 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." [1]" 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. [2]" Research Method ( talk) 20:25, 3 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
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)
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)
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)
"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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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, etc Research Method ( talk) 00:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
How do we get this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Can transubstantiation take place in either? Peas & Luv ( talk) 07:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. [4] In Greek it translates asμετουσίωσις (see Metousiosis).
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)
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)
Should this be covered? Peas & Luv ( talk) 23:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.— Dæ dαlus 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)
|