The council of Trent wrote about the word
Transubstantiation as an apt description of the change effected in the bread and wine consecrated in the holy Eucharist.
CHAPTER IV.
On Transubstantiation.
But because Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species *1
of bread to be verily 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 *2,
that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion takes place of the whole substance of the bread into *3
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, properly called Transubstantiation.*5
And one of the canons of the council affirms the aptness of the word
transubstantiation
ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
CANON II.-If any ... denieth that wonderful and singular conversion *3
of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining *2, 3 -
which conversion *2. 3
indeed the Catholic Church *5
most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema. *6
.
Notes....
*1 A very technical word taken from Aristotle's weird theory of accidents. A word never found in the text. The word Jesus and Paul used over and over is the word "IS" which you'll note the RCC consistently deletes. Note the powerful ways the RC denomination desires to distance itself from what Jesus and Paul so often and powerfully said/penned: IS (real.... present)
*2 Transubstantiation is NOT the "ever teaching" of Christians or even of just the RC denomination; it was invented out of thin air by a few Western, Medieval, Roman Catholic "Scholastics" no earlier than the 10th Century.
*3 Of course, entirely and completely missing from
ANY Eucharistic text are the words "change" "conversion" "from" "into" "transubstantiation" "Aristotle" "alchemy" "accident" "species" - all words to replace the word Jesus and Paul used. The word used over and over in the Eucharistic texts is "
IS". When the apostle said, "You ARE the Christ...." the word does does NOT mean "You have been converted from a man into a god via the precise, technical, physics mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind the mere Aristotelian Accidents of a physical human but not really present because the whole of man was converted into the whole of a god." The word "
IS" that the RCC essentially deleted at Trent (a few years after the death of Luther whom it desired to rebuke by this new dogma), the word is means is - real, present, existing. Thus, the affirmation of Real ('is') is abandoned and replaced by the invention (out of thin air) of these Western Medieval Roman Catholic Scholastics, replacing the key often repeated word of Jesus and Paul with words they never said.
*4 The singular, individual RC denomination COULD have replaced what Jesus said and Paul by inspiration penned with any one of several Latin words meaning a generic, nonspecific "change" (again, a word Jesus NEVER ONCE said in ANY eucharistic text). It didn't. It put extreme emphasis that this is embracing a very technical kind of change, that of alchemy, by using a word entirely associated by alchemy all during the middle ages and for a couple of centuries afterword. The RC a few years after Luther's death is NOT deleting the word Jesus and Paul repeatedly used and stressed with a generic change but with a very, very specific, technical kind of change - the focal point of alchemy (which was all the rage in the middle ages when this replacement for what the Bible says was first theorized an after Luther dogmatized).
*5 Correct, only the singular, individual RC denomination dogmatically deletes Real Presence ('is') and replaced it in 1551 with the dogmatization of alchemy's point of Transubstantiation and Aristotle's philosophy of accidents. No other does.
*6 Note the powerful condemnation of Real Presence and of affirming the word Jesus and Paul powerfully and consistently used, "IS". "Is" typically means "is" (Present, real, existing, here) and never means "undergoing a conversion from one reality into an entirely different one via the very precise, technical, physics mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation leaving behind mere Aristotelian Accidents." But if one agrees with Jesus and Paul (and Scripture) and not with this western, medieval, unique Roman Catholic invention, they are "anathema!" Condemned in the most powerful way.
One must wonder WHY the RC denomination in 1551 had such an adversion to the specific word Jesus and Paul used so often and stressed so much:
IS (the word typically means real, present, existing), why the enormous felt need to delete that word and replace it with all these pagan, wrong, secular philosophical and pre-science ideas that don't mean "is"?
This dogmatization of two pop (but wrong) medieval pagan ideas - from Alchemy and Aristotle - seem to be motivated by a desire to delete the key, most common, most stressed word use in every Eucharistic text: IS. A word meaning REAL, PRESENT.
Luther rejected this (then) popular theory not because he realized the error of alchemy's point of Transubstantiation and Aristotle's theory of accidents (of course, today we all know these errors - thus the desire to some Catholics to strip the dogma of any meaning) but because ...
1.
Luther noted the profound way the RCC deleted and minimize the word Jesus and Paul so often used and stressed (IS), essentially replacing it with things Jesus NEVER said in this context (and in most cases, at all) and things the Bible never remotely teaches (actually the Bible says "IS")
2.
Luther noted that this passion to remove the word "is" and to stress that what comes after that word in the Eucharistic texts aren't necessarily endangers if not destroys any reason to accept Real Presence. The point he expressed was almost immediately realized by Zwingli who followed the RCC exactly, insisting along with the RCC that the word "IS" be deleted (is doesn't mean is) and that what comes after the "is" isn't necessarily. True - Zwingli replace "is" not with "undergoing a conversional change via the precise, technical mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation; Zwingli avoided the dogmatization of pagan philosophies) but rather with "symbolize" and then Zwingli had to do exactly what the RCC did - choose which of the things after the "is" actually "are" and which really aren't (the RCC and Zwingli chose different things but out of the same exact need - is doesn't mean is, so at least some of what follows the is isn't). This new dogmatization of these two pagan philosophies to replace the "IS" Jesus and Paul used simply means Real Presence is untenable and unsupported by the Eucharistic texts. Luther was passionate to affirm Real Presence (IS.... real.....present) and thus was horrified by these medieval invention that removes the very reason to affirm it.
- Josiah
.
