Transubstantiation Vs Transignification

[mortify]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1726328' date='Dec 12 2008, 01:30 AM']Hmm. Does this example help to distinguish the difference between belief and intent? It's 11:30 here, and I'm going on about four hours of sleep from the night before ...[/quote]

I'm going to quote from Fr Regis Scanlon's article (the one I posted above):
[color="#0000FF"][b]
"Finally, a question remains. We know that the Eucharist is valid ("ex opere operato") when it "is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church."[36] But, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, and probably many others, have positively excluded the "meaning," and therefore the "intention," of the Council of Trent's teaching on transubstantiation in favor of their own notion of transubstantiation (i.e., transignification or transfinalization). So, are their Eucharists valid? And, what about the priests who have studied their works in theology and the seminarians who are now studying? This question about the validity of the Eucharists celebrated in the United States involves a most serious matter of justice to the faithful. For the faithful have a right to know whether they are offering, receiving, and adoring Jesus Christ, or just bread and wine!"[/b][/color]

[Veridicus]

[quote name='mortify' post='1726722' date='Dec 12 2008, 06:00 PM']I'm going to quote from Fr Regis Scanlon's article (the one I posted above):
[color="#0000FF"][b]
"Finally, a question remains. We know that the Eucharist is valid ("ex opere operato") when it "is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church."[36] But, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, and probably many others, have positively excluded the "meaning," and therefore the "intention," of the Council of Trent's teaching on transubstantiation in favor of their own notion of transubstantiation (i.e., transignification or transfinalization). So, are their Eucharists valid? And, what about the priests who have studied their works in theology and the seminarians who are now studying? This question about the validity of the Eucharists celebrated in the United States involves a most serious matter of justice to the faithful. For the faithful have a right to know whether they are offering, receiving, and adoring Jesus Christ, or just bread and wine!"[/b][/color][/quote]

Those are disturbing questions. So if we have a generation of priests or a localization of priests who were incorrectly educated on what the "Church intends" in the Mass and Eucharistic Liturgy then there may be a bunch of invalid Masses being sad by priests who have an erroneous understanding of what the Church intends...?!?!?!?!

[Aloysius]

the priest need not even know, believe in, or understand what it is that the Church intends to do. even if he simply intends to simply do some ambiguous "thing the Church intends to do"... even if the priest thought that the Church intends to make the bread and wine into oreos and milk, so long as he intends to "do as the Church does", the Church supplies the correct understanding and makes it valid that way.

[Formosus]

People like those listed a post above (Fr. Rahner , etc) know what the Church intends. They have read the Councils and the teachings and if they choose to believe in such a Godless view, then I have to seriously question if they truly have proper intent.

[Paddington]

I have trouble with the "oreos and milk" thing being combined with "intends to do as the Church does." Sounds too optimistic.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1770373' date='Feb 2 2009, 10:34 PM']the priest need not even know, believe in, or understand what it is that the Church intends to do. even if he simply intends to simply do some ambiguous "thing the Church intends to do"... even if the priest thought that the Church intends to make the bread and wine into oreos and milk, so long as he intends to "do as the Church does", the Church supplies the correct understanding and makes it valid that way.[/quote]

I would disagree with this. Though of course the Sacracraments work ex opere operato and do not require orthodoxy on the part of the minister for validity, I would think that the priest intending to turn bread and wine into oreos and milk would not be a correct intention in light of the decision of the CDF to declare Mormon baptisms invalid because of their whacky ideas about the Trinity. I may, however, be mistaken.

[Paddington]

I'm guessing that those receiving have nothing to do with the validity of the Eucharist?

[Resurrexi]

Nope. The recipient of the Eucharist has nothing to do with it changing into the Body of Christ. If, however, an unbaptized person consumes the Eucharist, he receives the Body of Christ, but he does not receive a sacrament.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Deb]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1771538' date='Feb 3 2009, 08:46 PM']Nope. The recipient of the Eucharist has nothing to do with it changing into the Body of Christ. If, however, an unbaptized person consumes the Eucharist, he receives the Body of Christ, but he does not receive a sacrament.[/quote]

Transubstantiation is the TRUTH. I would not worry to much about whether or not the Eucharist is valid. The cases where it may not be are very rare.


To clarify, communion outside the Catholic Church is not a sacrament. How one receives is of great importance. Many Catholics do not believe in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. I am not really sure why they even bother receiving.

Pope John Paul II, in his very first Encyclical, Redemptor hominis #20, said that if one does not constantly try to grow spiritually, receiving the Eucharist would "lack its full redeeming effectiveness" and there could even be a spiritual loss. To receive out of mere routine, with no special care, no thanksgiving, is more apt to cause spiritual loss than gain.

The Grace received from receiving the Eucharist is in direct proportion to how you enter into the Mass and the receipt of such a beautiful gift.

[mortify]

Many recipients of the Eucharist don't believe it's the Body of Christ, so it would be an ironic form of justice if they were not actually receiving It.

We can not know what a Priest intends, but we can trust that God can perform the Transubstantiation for those who sincerely believe despite the impiety of a priest.

Edited February 7, 2009 by mortify

[Nihil Obstat]

I voted true for the last option because I interpreted it as a priest knowing what transubstantiation entails, and believing in transignification or trans-whatever the other one was instead.

[kafka]

Rahner wasnt a heretic. He was among the finest theologians of the 20th century and provided a major influence on VII. He was a serious churchman, and to think that he denied transubstantian is absurd. From the quotes I briefly read in that article it seems he was seeking a deeper understanding of the Eucharist in a speculative way. I would have to read his works on the Eucharist in their complete context, to make sense of them and explain what he is trying to express. I think Fr. Regis might (in his piety) be prejudiced and taking Rahner out of context, or perhaps he fails to try and understand the points Rahner is trying to make. That is the feeling I get, but I didnt read the entire article. I have other things to read.