After reading two letters in the August, 2012, issue of AD2000, that of John Young ("Transubstantiation") and that of Theo Jorna ("Real Presence") I am left somewhat puzzled.
I understand that there is a dogma of the Real Presence, that it is an article of faith, namely that Christ is present, body, blood, soul and divinity, in the Blessed Sacrament (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1374), but what is the "dogma of Transubstantiation"?
The Catechism says in number 1376: "The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: 'Because Christ our redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change 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. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation'."
Is it possible that the people who say "Dogma of Transubstantiation" are referring to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? If so they are using the word "Transubstantiation" to describe the effect of the change, rather than the change itself, as does the Catechism in number 1376.
My confusion suggests to me that it is quite important for writers, speakers, to clearly define their words in some way or other, otherwise we are left with confusion which can, and does, lead to controversy.
JEAN-LEON SHANKS (MR)