This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hermitstudy (talk | contribs) at 00:07, 20 September 2010 (→Original research: response to Esoglou and also to objection that article totally supportsTransubstantiation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:07, 20 September 2010 by Hermitstudy (talk | contribs) (→Original research: response to Esoglou and also to objection that article totally supportsTransubstantiation)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||
 Archives |
|
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)