Talk:Transubstantiation

message: As much as it's a theological topic, this article needs a science section to highlight the fact that this transformation has never been detected in controlled conditions, and what (if any) attempts have been made over the years. 203.59.80.62 (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You wil never find any Trans-form-ation because the article deals with Tran-substantia-tion. Please note that the philosophical difference between form (i.e. accidends), and substantia is the core of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. The doctrine of Transubstantiation dont deal with what is related with the form, which can be physically experimented. So there is no reason to mention a scientific fact that dont applies here. A ntv (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Church teaching, the transformation cannot be detected in any conditions whatever, controlled or otherwise.  Detection of any change in the appearances would contradict the teaching.  Esoglou (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Any anecdotes about controlled experiments, if any, might be amusing. However, since it's a theological topic, it's entirely about a belief -- and not science. The very idea of transsubstantiation is 0.00% (zero per cent) scientific, and so it would be a rather pointless addition to the article. To paraphrase user "A ntv" above: science doesn't have an answer to transsubstantiation because it is pure BS.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.44.0.4 (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's curious that the above editor doesn't advert to the Mind-body problem.  Can anyone say absolutely that the human mind is pure BS since the only evidence for it scientifically is the bio-electical activity of brain cells interpreted (by many) as the effect of a human mind on the individual human brain?  That's why some people say there is no mind, but only brain activity:  no mind has ever been detected in controlled conditions.  In any case, observing this debate from a distance, I would say there is as much evidence for the existence of the human mind as there is for the transubstantiated presence or reality of Jesus Christ himself in the form of bread and wine.  Neither of these seems to be a problem for Physics but for Metaphysics (you can't measure gravimetric intensity with a demographic study!—wrong tool!).  Personally, I believe in the reality of the human mind apart from the human brain (Out-of-body experience and Near-death experience). I better quit here—don't get me started! It's amazing how much you learn from years of proof-reading other peoples' stuff. --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently LittleOldManRetired's views on the human mind got him blocked. --Λeternus (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the user failed a sockpuppet check.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.45.222 (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Agreed, and such section could be very short, as in, "scientifically, no such thing exists".  2001:9E8:461B:D00:3878:8015:5E47:EB29 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a scientific view 

message: Many of the wikipedia articles dealing with sacramental theology in the Calvinist or Reformed tradition often quote, as in this article, the "merely symbolic" meaning of the sacramental elements, as if this represented a demotion of the Eucharist in importance from Roman Catholic and Lutheran teachings. In describing Calvin's--and reformed Protestant (including Anglican)--attacks on transubstantiation, we should be careful not to understate the absolutely central importance of the Eucharist in reformed protestant worship. Not merely symbolic, but as a spiritual (as opposed to material) vehicle for the transmission of Grace, is a more accurate description of Calvinist understandings of the communion. Moreover, in the Genevan order of church discipline, which influenced the Reformation in France, the Netherlands, Scotland and England (particularly among Puritans), the Eucharist stood at the center of Calvinist church discipline: with access to or exclusion from the Lords Supper marking the boundaries of the "visible" church of saints. Communion was a very serious matter among Calvinists--even if Christ's presence was spiritual (or symbolic) as opposed to material--with those "unworthy" expected to abstain.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.206.37.234 (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Calvinism clarification

message: This page currently has a number of pop out ad when you hover over such words as 'body' or ‘accidents.’ Given that Wikipedia is intended to be free of advertisements I would think it sensible that they be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.229.14 (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no ads, and there have never been any. The only thing you should see are what article names the links are to (usually the same word as the link, occasionally with some minor differences). If you are seeing something else, you likely have malware on your computer so you may want to look in to that if it is still occuring this many months later. Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisements

message: :::By the way (change of subject) would you guys agree with my earlier suggestion that I make the "Substance theory" section a separate article, leaving "Transubstantiation" dedicated (good word!) to the Eucharistic Consecration of the Divine Liturgy and the Mass? If you do agree, I won't see your response for awhile, maybe 8 weeks from now—but I'll look in again and see what you guys think—and if you would like to, you can go ahead and blank it (I can always retrieve the text from the current version by accessing the history of the article).
:::OR if one of you wants to go ahead and make the section a separate article without my participation, I wouldn't have any objection to that. ( 'course not, some laziness here!)
:::* * * Joyeux Noël, Felice Navidad, Pax Christi.  (Til mid-February, then... --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Felice Natale (it), Feliz Navidad (es) to you also.  You may certainly attempt to get your ideas about substance theory accepted in another article.  But here it will have to be removed in much less than eight weeks, since it has nothing to do with transubstantiation (change to a different substance) rather than transformation (change to a different form or appearance).  What you say ("go ahead and blank it") seems to indicate consent to its at least provisional removal.  Esoglou (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine: You understood me perfectly! I see you appreciated my little linguistic joke... --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert rebuttal (continued) 

message: I had to laugh this morning when I checked the article and saw my contribution last night was shot down today and replaced with superior material by Esoglou. From this I learned more exactly what is requested by tag "citations needed": not the scriptural text references but material exemplifying the particular interpretations of those scriptural texts. (You've been at this longer than I.) What was especially funny was the fact that the tag requesting citations was posted June 2011 and my contribution of last night was the trigger for the excellent citations contributed today (only took 20 months!!) If that's what it takes to prompt a solid response to a tag request, then in good faith with good will whenever the occasion happens to arise I'll happily send 'em up so they can be shot down and replaced with better stuff! Ready—Aim—"PULL!"—BAM! (instant improvement! —how 'bout That!) Wikipedia really is a team effort. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly how Wikipedia works. More articles are improved out of spite than from some internal motivation. --dab (𒁳) 09:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academics' sniper-range 

message: In the introduction it states: "What remains unaltered is also referred to as the "accidents" of the bread and wine,[9] but this term is not used in the official definition of the doctrine by the Council of Trent.[10]"  
Can someone please explain what 'this term' refers to.  Does it refer to 'accidens/accidenta', 'panis' 'transubstantiation'?  If it means 'accidents' then the statement is wrong: 
Canon 2: "if anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Euchriast the substance of hte bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema."  Thus I am going to change it in a few days unless someone objects.
Luther and consubstantiation:
I have indeed seen Luther use words which in fact mean 'consubstantiation' in his writings on the Eucharist.  Here is the source.  The Large Catechism: The Sacrament of the Altar, article 8: Now, what is the sacrament of the altar.  
8] Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar?
Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. 9] And as we have said of Baptism that it is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the Word of God. 
Here is an online edition of the Large Catechism: http://bookofconcord.org/lc-7-sacrament.php
"It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which..."  
You can argue that Luther does not use the word 'consubstantial'; however, he here includes the actual definition of consubstantial.  You could also argue that Luther is inconsistent: just because he uses consubantial in the Large Catechism does not mean he actually believed 'consubstantial' to be the full expression of the mystery.  Thus, the line should actually say something like this: since Luther uses various formulations to explain Christ's presence in the Eucharist; however, in certain places he uses a definition which others have understood to mean 'consubstantiation.'  I will change this in a few days if no one objects.  
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.214.133 (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar or bad citation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Transubstantiation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120214070816/http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/parttwo.html to http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/parttwo.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100203222340/http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk:80/~ig206/oak_tree.html to http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~ig206/oak_tree.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121210083430/http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/theres-no-need-to-be-afraid-of-the-present-625001.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/theres-no-need-to-be-afraid-of-the-present-625001.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Transubstantiation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130729043605/http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/8th-march-2002/12/what-tate-modern-teaches-us-about-transubstantiation to http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/8th-march-2002/12/what-tate-modern-teaches-us-about-transubstantiation
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I believe this section places undue weight on a single piece of art. I suggest this section be shortened or removed, ideally, or expanded to include other works, if any exist. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *Better without the section IMO...Modernist (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conceptual art 

message: I think this subsection should be deleted. The information was inserted as the only edit made by someone logged in as "Pius XIII" and was later revised by someone (the same?) in Virginia, who, though giving the book's ISBN as that of the self-publishing firm CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, indicated as publishers Prints of Peace of Stafford, Virginia.  To me the whole affair smells of spamming.  Lúnasa (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published theory 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Transubstantiation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204101123/http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BrugReal.pdf to http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BrugReal.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=58&cuItem_itemID=2250
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=58&cuItem_itemID=1325
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=58&cuItem_itemID=11345
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I find it humorous, myself. But those who believe in the concept might find it offensive.
This is how it reads now:
"Transubstantiation (Latin: transsubstantiatio; Greek: μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, a cooking style invented by Emeril Lagasse in which the bread and wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist are kicked up a notch during the Mass, and become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus Christ."
SiteReader137 (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph is ironic 

message: This article seems to suffer from various failures of NPOV, in different directions, for example terms such as 'this is all the more ironic because…", and "What Luther thus called a "sacramental union" is often erroneously called consubstantiation by non-Lutherans." Also, the series of citations from church fathers are presented as supporting transubstantiation: 
"The belief that the bread and wine that form the matter of the Eucharist become the body and blood of Christ appears to have been widespread from an early date, with early Christian writers referring to them as his body and the blood. They speak of them as the same flesh and blood which suffered and died on the cross."
However, this support is only acknowledged in Roman Catholic theology. Those who do not believe in transubstantiation treat them as symbolic readings.
Given that this particular issue has been the casus belli of major wars, I feel the article could do with cleaning up to represent a consistent NPOV, rather than the POV of (respectively) Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Orthodox in the various parts.Martin Turner (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV ? 

message: *The formatting was a bit off, the reference replaced the  at article top.
*The passage used first-person plural while encyclopedic language uses third-person and refrains from addressing the reader.
*"Transformed" is problematic. As we can see from the title of the article, the Eucharist is transubstantiated, while the form remains the same, so "transforming" is not useful terminology here. 
*Minor point about the mystical body of Christ (the Church) being distinct from the Real Presence: Body of Christ in the Eucharist. Elizium23 (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't address any of my points and your revert ruined the formatting again. Elizium23 (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please note carefully that I did address two of your points. The formatting maybe you can help me with. Jzsj (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited and reworded it as hopefully an improvement. I am reading the Jesuit publication you cited. I cannot help but notice that the author is quite critical of many elements of the Mass. I am also having a hard time swallowing the idea of "transforming into the body of Christ". Is this not what baptism does? The Eucharist strengthens our communal bonds, it perfects and nourishes our souls, and gives us a taste of Heaven, but it feels like this is saying that someone who is not of the body of Christ can transform into someone who is of the body of Christ, by reception of the Eucharist. That's weird. Elizium23 (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: To be other Christs in the world today is not effected just by Baptism but by constant growth in the Christian life, our lifelong transformation, what Pope Francis, along with previous popes, is constantly calling us to. Jzsj (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see, this Jesuit publication has a familiar byline. Can it be that you are citing yourself? Elizium23 (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: To be an alter Christus is the charism of Holy Orders, and specifically sacerdotal ordination. I don't aspire to be an "other Christ". I am a layman. Elizium23 (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Pope Francis would call that clericalism, priesthood is a function not a superior state of life. All are challenged by Christ to the same perfection: "Be you perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." But I won't object to your inserting your perspective in articles, since you will find Catholic sources that agree with you. Jzsj (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

text: Jzsj is, I suppose, entitled to cite himself if what he wrote has been accepted in a peer-reviewed publication. However, all this has strayed from the subject matter of this article, which is transubstantiation, not the Eucharist. What has been given in the section "Post-Vatican II development in understanding" concerns understanding not of transubstantiation but of the Eucharist and would be valid even if there were no doctrine of transubstantiation.  I therefore make bold to eliminate it.  Bealtainemí (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New addition 

message: Which is most neutral: "I am only 21 years old", "I am already 21 years old", "I am 21 years old"? It is editorializing to use the word "only" in cases such as this. It doesn't matter if it is an important point, it is not neutral and doesn't belong in Wikipedia's voice. Elizium23 (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "Only"

message: Anonymous editor 73.219.142.120 (User_talk:73.219.142.120) has insisted on his/her personal synthesis of views on the content of Justin, First Apology, LXVI, in spite of warnings by Elizium23, User:Waddie96, User:Hillelfrei, User:RandomCanadian and User:HMSSolent. My own attempts to get her/him to be more collaborative have been unavailing. I have no choice but to support the efforts others have made to revert his/her edits. They can be discussed here in the hope of reaching a consensus. Into the section "Patristic period" 73.219.142.120 insistently inserts her/his accoount of how, over the centuries, later groups interpreted one passage of one writer (Justin). In the same section, what each of the other writers says is reported clearly without divagations about contrasting views of later groups. There is no justification for treating Justin differently.  Bealtainemí (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, this editor seems to be acting in good faith and is quite knowledgeable. It is a great shame that Bealtainemí is also correct about the contentious nature of the edits. There is a litany of warnings at the IP editor's talk page. This editor has spent a long time making wide-ranging changes to this article, and does not seem to communicate very well. Regrettably, now is a time of reckoning for him. Elizium23 (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Elizium23 above. comrade waddie96 (talk)  14:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given them a partial block from editing this article. It's up to them to come discuss here. bibliomaniac15 19:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contentious editing 

message: The distinction between substance and accidents is not well illustrated by the hat example which I have tried to remove from this article. The substance of a hat is not being hat, that is a purpose to which a substance, cloth, is being used. It remains cloth after being made into a hat, and can continue to be used as cloth, to bind a wound, to plug a hole. But with the Communion bread the "substance" is at a deeper, unseen level (the whole person of Christ under each species), which does not change the material substance of the bread. The example used here defines a substance by its usage. Also, to say that the "substance" (here, being hat) is not perceptible to the senses is clearly not demonstrated by the hat example. Jzsj (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your highly questionable original research. A hat isn't necessarily cloth. Never heard of a straw hat, a paper hat ...? Our senses distinguish, the shape. colour, material, size, usability, etc., of that hat, but not what makes it that hat regardless of shape, colour, size, material etc. In any case, that's what the cited source says, even if you have a different unsourced personal idea of it. Furthermore, in the Eucharist the bread isn't changed into Christ, as you say it is. The cited source rightly says that the bread is changed not into Christ but into the body of Christ, and where the body of Christ is, there also is the blood, soul, divinity, the whole Christ, but that isn't what the bread is changed into; and the wine isn't changed into the body of Christ, but into his blood. This is explicitly stated in the cited source, and elsewhere. Just remember what the elementary manuals of sacramental theology said about the theoretical case of bread changed to the body of Christ in the period between his death and his resurrection.  Bealtainemí (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You're splitting hairs here and evading my main point. Read what the article says, the parenthesis is his: "The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the color, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them. While the appearances are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not." He calls the hat the "substance" rather than the purpose to which the substance, cloth, is put. And how can he say that this being hat, what he calls the substance, is not perceptible to the senses. True, other substances can be used, but here he calls the purpose (being hat) the substance. Please address these specific objections to this 1934 analysis, which no, we did not use in our post-Vatican II theology courses. Jzsj (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are endowed with senses that get, not just to the material, shape, size, colour etc. of a hat or a piece of bread, but to its substance in the sense in which the cited source (and the Catholic Church's dogma) uses the term. Congratulations on your extraordinary powers. You still need a reliable published source to get them mentioned in Wikipedia. Most can only sense the object's material, its shape, its size, etc.  Bealtainemí (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have described being hat as purpose, not as substance. Jzsj (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Yes, your statements have been off-topic here, related not to transubstantiation, but to transfinalization (or perhaps transignification). They belong to the discussion pages on those heresies.  Bealtainemí (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Again you're ignoring my whole point here, that "hat" is a purposive not a substantive word, and so does not relate to this discussion of substance. Jzsj (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is no point in discussing any further under this heading your unsourced denial of the sourced affirmation "that the senses never (whether by their own power or with the aid of the most delicate instruments) make contact with the thing which has shape, colour, size etc." The discussion is closed.  Bealtainemí (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not like a hat 

message: I see that the "Middle Ages" section of this article is currently being revised, which is a good thing, since it's one of the weaker sections. I don't normally edit on religious topics (too contentious for me), and have no desire to wade into this one and step on the toes of other editors, but I'd like to suggest that, as long as you're working on this section, you might want to rewrite the paragraph on Berengar as well, since in its current form it comes perilously close to copyvio. To their credit, the editors who originally wrote this paragraph did cite their source (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church), but the wording is so close in places that it goes beyond what is normally considered acceptable WP:PARAPHRASE. Example:
* WP: "His position was never diametrically opposed to that of his critics, and he was probably never excommunicated, but the controversies that he aroused (see Stercoranism) forced people to clarify the doctrine of the Eucharist."
* ODCC: "Berengar's position was never diametrically opposed to that of his critics, and he was probably never excommunicated. But the controversy that he aroused forced men to reconsider the Carolingian discussion of the Eurcharist ... and to clarify the doctrine of transubstantiation."
Apart from rewriting to eliminate that problem, the paragraph would certainly benefit from a little expansion and discussion of Berengar's opponents in the debate, especially Lanfranc, whose De corpore et sanguine Domini is one of the most important surviving 11th-century discussions of transubstantiation. (The WP article on Lanfranc himself has a better treatment of this debate.) Just a suggestion. I'll be moving on now. Happy editing, Crawdad Blues (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berengar, Lanfranc, and uncomfortably close paraphrase 

message: @Sundayclose has twice reverted my edits to this article which used the term "artifacts", now saying "It adds no meaning, just one word" and we need a consensus on the use of the term; I have been unable to find any other consensus discussion on the subject, so here we go.  
From my earliest discussions, etc., of transubstantiation (several decades ago now), I have seen the term used, particularly in explaining the doctrine to non-Catholics (although the work cited was an insider's discussion of Aquinas).  As Wikipedia is for everyone, not just specialists in a field, it seems beneficial to use a variety of vocabulary to broaden understanding.  To be sure, I tend toward inclusion rather than exclusion, but it seems that breadth is the way to go here. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's clarify. The first revert was because it was unsourced, so "twice reverted" to suggest that the very same edit was reverted because of content is misleading. The only real additional content your edit makes is the word "artifact". The lead already explains the concept, just without the word "artifact": "the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the 'eucharistic species', remain unaltered". Later in the article it is explained again. The word "artifact" is not needed except that it is your preferred word. It adds nothing to the article, for either Catholics or those who have no understanding of the term transubstantiation. Sundayclose (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be careful to avoid personal attacks, or anything that comes close.  The paragraph above is written to the writer of the one before that (uses "your" twice).  A consensus discussion should be written to the community as a whole. JingleJim (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: (An aside comment: Addressing a comment to the editor to whom I am responding is not a personal attack. If someone wants to call it a grammatical issue that's fine. But it's not even close to a personal attack. Someone can disagree with another editor and express that disagreement without it being considered a personal attack. I would appreciate if all who comment here would assume good faith, as I have with the OP. And note that I have not used "your" in this comment.) Sundayclose (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

text: The use of the word "artifact" is not appropriate since the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other sources handle it as "accidents" or "species". It should be noted that the article already says what the user wants to add: (However, "the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the 'eucharistic species', remain unchanged".) In total, the same thing is mentioned seven times in the article, that the species or accidents remain unchanged. Adding the same an eighth time would already be a lot. Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Artifacts"