Talk:Transignification

Untitled
I disagree with the notion that Transignification is of Roman Catholic origin in the Transignification page. The Church has always professed Transubstantion, not Transignification, to be a doctrine of the faith. I do however, agree with Carolynparrishfan's reversion to the use of the word Mass, as I was, until then, unaware of the Anglican use of the word Mass. I did remove the original entry that suggested "progressive Catholics" believed in Transignification, because, by definition, if a "Catholic", progressive or otherwise, does not believe in Transubstantiation, then he or she is no longer considered a Catholic in the Roman rite. Also, I know its a bit picky, but I took out the word "rationalistic" because I feel this may be a weasel word in that it suggests that other views could be considered irrational. Sheridp 14:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One's membership in the Roman Catholic Church is not necessarily revoked because one dissents. Excommunication is reserved for very specific offences - to say one "is no longer considered a Catholic" if one departs from the teaching of the Magisterium is simply inaccurate. If this were true, Wikipedia could not identify any biographical subject as a Roman Catholic without receiving a completed theological questionnaire from them. My father, for example, disagrees with the RC position of such issues as same-sex marriage but the man is one of the most pious RCs I know. I imagine that an RC who was unwise enough to admit disbelief in transubstantiation could be excluded from the sacraments, but not excommunicated (except perhaps in grave circumstances - e.g. a theologian teaching transignification in an RC university). The situation would be similar to that of the divorced and remarried, who cannot receive the sacraments, but are not excommunicated, and remain Roman Catholics.


 * As for the origins of the theory, my understanding is that it did originate amongst Roman Catholic theologians. I thought the article made it fairly plain that it had been rejected in its church of origin, but if not, feel free to clarify that. Eliminating references to its origins is, however, not the way to go about that. Carolynparrishfan 15:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Carolynparrishfan. -- Cat Whisperer 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've restored the old material, but tweaked it to render more explicit the "rogue" nature of the idea in RC theology. Carolynparrishfan 17:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I fear you may have gone a bit too far in using the word "dissident". I'm going to try editing it a bit. -- Cat Whisperer 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As Sheridp has pointed out, espousing transignification in the RCC makes one by definition a dissident. Perhaps you are reading a negative connotation in the word that I do not mean to imply? Carolynparrishfan 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's just that I believe the matter of dissent to be more subtle than what is allowed for by Sheridp's statement. Mysterim Fidei states, "Nor is it allowable to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent stated about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, speaking rather only of what is called "transignification" and "transfiguration, ...".  Yet Schillibeeckx writes in his book, The Eucharist, that he is not denying transubstantiation, rather, that he states that the concept of transignification he was trying to describe presupposes transubstantiation and is intimately connected with it.  Thus, I do not think it is correct to refer to Schillibeeckx as a dissident Catholic theologian. -- Cat Whisperer 01:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Web Sources
I've been looking at the following web pages in trying to understand what transignification is all about: -- Cat Whisperer 23:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1168
 * http://transsignify.blogspot.com/