Is transubstantiation infallible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2014taylorj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
2

2014taylorj

Guest
I read an article which stated that the council of trent only “recommended”, transubstantiation, as an articulation of the real presence, and that ‘in principle’, other articulations could be allowed. Is this correct, and is transubstantiation infallible?
 
Sure, the Latin is what’s binding on the faithful (I think.) But Trent has this to say:
And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species
of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of
God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread
and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the
substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the
substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and
properly called Transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t really read like a suggestion to me. Especially when it’s in the documents if a council.

Edit I mean so ok, maybe the church is leaving room for there to be other words besides transubstantiation to refer to it. But here she clearly declares that the bread and wine are gone and they are the body and blood.
 
Last edited:
More often then not, infallibility in doctrine usually applies to what something is. These are concrete statements as to the “What?” of our Faith.

The real presence fulfills this question of “What is the Eucharist?” and is infallible. Transubstantiation deals with the “How?” and “Why?” of the real presence. It is a theological theory (although one widely accepted by Roman Catholics) that goes beyond the dogmatic definitions of the real presence and thus is not infallible. It speaks about the nature of the act of the change, not necessarily about the end itself: the Eucharist. There are even some Eastern Catholic rites which do not hold transubstantiation in their theology but instead focus on the Eastern neo-Platonic philosophical tradition of symbol and sign. It has no less of a true presence in those systems of theology, it is simply explained differently.

Generally, the passage in the Canons of the Council of Trent is taken as simply a measure taken by the Council to put to rest the theological debate concerning the proper description of the Eucharistic changing of bread and wine. It was pretty much a “Just call it ‘transubstantiation’ and move on, people! We have more important things to worry about!” to those intense scholastic theologians who were so hung up on the topic that they refused to focus on anything else.

God Bless,
Br. Ben, CRM
 
Last edited:
So, why is transubstantiation often called a “doctrine”?
 
2014taylorj said:
I read an article which stated that the council of trent only “recommended”, transubstantiation, as an articulation of the real presence, and that ‘in principle’, other articulations could be allowed. Is this correct, and is transubstantiation infallible?
Click to expand...
The Council of Trent declared (‘de fide’ – the highest grade of theological certainty) that the whole substance of the bread is transformed into the body of Christ; and that the whole substance of the wine is transformed into the blood of Christ. (Denzinger 884, cf 335, 430 and 465).

This transformation is, of course, what is meant by ‘Transubstantiation’.

The dogma was defined against Luther’s doctrine of ‘consubstantiation’; and against the doctrine of ‘impanation’, as offered by Guitmund of Aversa.

Pope Pius VI adopted the dogma of Transubstantiation against the Synod of Pistoja, which sought to exclude it from the corpus of instruction for the faithful, on the grounds that it was a ‘purely scholastic question’ (Denzinger 1529).

PS: ‘Can. 2. If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema’ (Denzinger 884).
 
Last edited:
I’m confused. Why are eastern catholics, allowed to disagree with transubstantiation, if as you said it is a “dogma” of the faith? Can someone, please settle this confusion for me?
 
The word transubstantiation predates Trent or Aquinas or wide acceptance of Aristotlean metaphysics by Catholic theologians. It simply means “change in substance” or “change in what it is” in Latin. The Aristotlean metaphysics used to describe the change are not dogmatic. What is dogmatic is that the bread changes such that it is no longer bread but the body of Jesus Christ (and also his blood, soul, and divinity) under the appearances of bread. And that the wine changes such that it is no longer wine but the blood of Jesus Christ (and also his body, soul, and divinity) under the appearance of wine. Eastern Catholics also believe this, they just avoid trying to describe the specifics of what is going on in metaphysical terms.

A lot of objections I see are on the basis that the Aristotlean metaphysics are confused with the dogma and the word transubstantiation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top