Yes, Transubstantiation is belief in the Real Presence. But here's what they're trying to say to you that not all of Real Presence belief is Transubstantiation.
[MENTION=11]Lämmchen[/MENTION]
Transubstantiation goes BEYOND Real Presence, it is an ADDITIONAL dogma. I agree with Luther that it indeed destroys Real Presence because it destroys any textual reason to accept it. But YES, technically anyway, the RCC still embraces Real Presence (it did not deny it or replace it in 1551, it just laid another dogma ON TOP of it). OFFICIALLY, the RCC teaches TWO dogmas on the Eucharist. What seems very evident, is that the result of having TWO different dogmas is this leads to confusion when we ask what is THE position of the RCC. Laity may use the terms INTERCHANGABLY (as if the two dogmas are the same).... official statements (such as the Catechism) tends to present Transubstantion as the dogma while mentioning Real Presence too (we see this in the official Catechism) but Transubstantiation is not taught typically to laity so the laity often think Transubstantiation IS Real Presence in stead of a very separate dogma.
Lamm, let me convey this historically. The evidence is solid that everyone accepted Real Presence (as I convey in the Communion thread # 131) for AT LEAST the first 800 years. BUT in the East, they did use the word "change." We find Eastern Fathers speaking of a sense of CHANGE (no consensus if this a change in what is present or a change in the elements) - but the "change" was carefully left as mystery and there was no denial of bread and wine. To me, to this day, the EOC view is very undefined (and NOT dogmatic) BUT while there is SOME sense of SOME change - there is NOTHING like the RCC dogma, NO concept of alchemy, NO concept of Aristotelian Accident, NO description of anything, NO philosphy, NO denials: CHRIST IS PRESENT. How, why? Those are left alone. But in the WEST, there arose a movement called Scholasticism. It was a broad thing, some aspects of it positive, but one thing unfortunate was a desire to "explain away" mystery by employing the secular, pop theories of the. Still happens when Christians try to use science to explain the Flood or the Ten Plagues (you've probably seen those TV programs) - using TODAYS science to explain what the Bible says. Well, what they had at their disposal was a lot of ancient stuff from pre-Christian times (nearly all of it wrong). How to use these ancient pagan Greek-Roman ideas to explain HOW and WHY Christ is present in Communion? Well, they actually came up with SEVERAL theories but only one caught on (after centuries of being mostly condemned), and that was that the priest performs an alchemic Transubstantiation. Alchemy was all the rage in the 9th Century when this theory was first invented- and continued to be in the 13th when this theory began to be taught in the RCC (but NEVER in the East) and by Luther's time was pretty much accepted. Alchemy was VERY broad, very complex system (all forgotten and rejected today) but among other things is Transubstantiation - a technical, precise word from alchemy that refers to a change in elements accomplished by pre-science concepts of chemistry, incantations (the power of words) and a bit of what we'd call magic done by one with unusual powers. Turning (Transubstantiating is the technical word) lead into gold was the dream. THAT must be what's happening with Communion, this theory conveyed: there's special bread and wine.... the power of the priest via his ordination...the magical words of the consecration .... and BING, BANG.... transubstantiation! What WAS bread and wine is - via alchemy - now Body and Blood. BUT this theory had an obvious flaw....because transubstantiation changes the properties!!!! It SHOULD have the properties of bread and body - but it doesn't? How to get around that obvious flaw? Well, eventiuaully another ancient pagan (wrong) idea was brought in: Accidents. This again is a complex idea of Aristotle (one of my physics teachers called it "ghost physics" meant explain the reality of ghosts - which all the ancients believed in) but this is the idea that the PROPERTIES (Aristotle called them "accidents") of a reality can remain AFTER the reality no longer exists. His example was lightening. Now, he didn't know that lightening is actually electricity (not known yet) and he didn't know about wave physics. He THOUGHT the light was the actual REALITY and that thunder was the property of it. BUT the property (the thunder) actually continues AFTER the light no longer exists: it is an ACCIDENT. SO.... actually, the bread and wine are no longer REAL but the ACCIDENTS of them continue. SO.... we have TRANSUBSTANTIATION which did the conversion but the ACCIDENTS of the original reality remain (obviously, the reality NOW present - those properties do NOT exist - a flaw in the theory never resolved). Once both of these theories came to be repudiated, Catholics could not change their dogma (dogma CANNOT be changed once declared; the RCC cannot err in formal doctrine). BUT there was a strong attempt to strip the dogma of its wrong pagan meaning, so Catholics will use the very precise, technical word of alchemy (the word is NOT one of many words for "changed" but a VERY PRECISE word for what happens in ALCHEMY- the word DEPENDS completely on alchemy) and they will use the word "ACCIDENTS" but try to distance that from Aristotle. Try as they must - it is what it is. Today, the formal Dogma still exists... your local priest or apologist can explain it.... but it's RARELY taught to laity. As my own First Communion teacher TOLD ME when I asked, she rejected it as wrong.... she said in reality, FEW actually teach the Catholic Dogma of the Eucharist. What is taught is c;lose to the Eastern Orthodox view that actually repudiates the Catholic Dogma. I have communicated with several Catholic teachers who said that the Lutheran view is far more sound than Transubstantiation/Accidents but again, I think Catholicism wants to hold to some kind of CHANGE while abandoning completely the RCC's dogma and the obsession with denying the bread and wine and in incorporating ancient, pagan, prescience ideas that EVERYONE now rejects. There's a lesson here...... avoid dogmatizing pop ideas, avoid thinking modern secular thoughts "trump" the word of Scripture and the Christian faith. What the RCC typically holds today is MUCH better than it's dogma - not really the Lutheran posiition but not significantly different; close to the ECO view but it can't say so because remember: the RCC can't be wrong, lol. BTW, Lamm, you will EVEN find Catholics who are so repulsed by the RCC's view of Transuhstantion/Accidents that they'lll TRY to tell you it was NEVER made dogma an the RCC still only holds to Real Presence - "we just started to use some words we shouldn't use." Nice try......
BTW, Luther didn't talk much about this RCC teaching. It wassn't doctrine (much less dogma) at the time and LOTS of Catholics didn't accept it (perferring just Real Presence). Luther's concern was with ZWINGLI and his "can't be true" view made dogma rather than a popular THEORY among some Catholics that STILL meant Christ is truly present. Luther's problem with Transuhstantiation/Accidents is 1) It's bad policy to invent new dogma founded NOT at all on Scripture but solely on two PAGAN theories (both of which he may well have accepted), 2) This theory means that "is" doesn't mean that .... and much of what follows the "is" actually isn't. To Luther, this DESTROYED any textual reason to believe in Real Presence! True, Catholicism didn't do that BUT it left the door WIDE OPEN: Real Presence DEPENDS on all the words meaning what they do. IF we say "is doesn't mean that" and then "what comes aft4r "is" is just as likely to not exist in any usual sense as to exist then why accept that Christ's Body and Bllood are present? It would be up to every sinner to opt for WHAT after the "is" actually is, and everyone's choice would be equally valid textually. THAT was his objection.
Here's how I take all this: All the Catholics I know accept Real Presence as fully as Lutherans do. And while they use language of a dogma they actually don't know (cuz they were never taught it), they really just have ONE dogma: Real Presence. I rejoice in that. FUNCTIONALLY, the RCC's new Dogma first invented in the 9th Century... embraced in the 13th..... made dogma in the 16h..... it's pretty much dead. It's just the RCC CANNOT admit it erred..... A man who teaches in the RCIA classes at my former parish once told me, "The Church never admits error in doctrine - it just stops teaching it and hopes no one notices." I think this is a classic example. The problem the RCC has with a dogma that's wrong.... I just rejoice that it doesn't teach it anymore and has gone back to their other dogma: Real Presece. They may want to word it more in the Eastern than Lutheran tradition, but that's okay with me.
Soooooo...... Catholicism holds to TWO dogmas, Real Presence AND Transubstantiation. But Catholics typically hold to just one of those, Real Presence. Soli Deo Gloria. The "problem" that applies HERE (in this thread) Catholics often still use the word "Transubstantiation" without meaning the word at all (even knowing WHAT it means).
