In America when ‘vs.’ is used we take it to mean two opposing things. We would expect an essay on contrast. The title makes one think they’ll be reading an essay about the difference between Transubstantiation and Real Presence.
Okay, I will think about that. Maybe I will change the title to something else later on—except that if I do, it will break all the links that I have already given to it here, which I don’t want to do.
I know the two teachings were first taught about 1100 years from each other and are two completely difference things, so I read it.
“Different” or not, all I know and care about is that they are highly interdependent. You cannot eliminate one and keep the other, in Catholic theology at least. That is the main point that I was trying to make.
The definition for Transubstantiation from Trent was not included.
That is puzzling. I thought it was. This is the definition I gave:
“If anyone says that the substance of bread and wine remains in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and denies that wonderful and extraordinary change of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, while only the species of bread and wine remain, a change which the Catholic Church has most fittingly called ‘transubstantiation,’ let him be anathema.” (Session 13, can.2) Source: The Real Presence Eucharistic
I presume you were referring to the passage that you had quoted, which is this one:
On Transubstantiation.
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.
The Council Of Trent: Session 13, Chapter Iv.
They may be from two different sections of the decision of the Council; but they are saying the same things. Can you tell me what is the difference (doctrinally) between them that I should have preferred your passage to mine? I prefer my quoted passages because they come from the came context, and therefore more closely interrelated.
There was no explanation on the teaching of Transubstantiation.
Such as?
Transubstantiation and Real Presence were twisted together . . .
There was no “twisting together”. I was showing the close interdependence of them. I don’t call that “twisting together”.
. . . and then it turned into an anti-catholic rant on the Real Presence.
No idea what you are talking about here. Legitimate criticism is not a “rant”.
Which means is still did not address any issues on Real Presence already brought up in this thread.
Don’t make sense to me. I thought I had.
zerinus
!! )