‘“Transubstantiation” IS the “doctrine of the Real Presence” in the Catholic Church, and this IS a matter of Christology because it is the most integral part of the Catholic Church’s theology of the Incarnate Word active, through the sacraments, in the Church and in the world.’

All that Trent says is that the real presence is fitly described by the word transubstantiation. It does not prescribe any “explanation” or theory, just the fittingness of a word. Perhaps Trent is playing down the importance of the theories of transubstantiation that flourished in scholasticism in the wake of Lateran IV.

Here is a post of interest about Cardinal DiNardo of Houston celebrating this usage earlier this year:

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2009/06/cardinal-dinardo-book-of-divine-worship.html#

It looks a lot like a solemn pontifical mass, but with more assisting priests,who wear the chasuble and not the cope

And yes I very much appreciate how Neil frames it above:
“In terms of his entire argument, I’m not sure what an adequate Catholic response could be. Of course, there is the argument that the Father is so boundless and excessive in love that he can send the Spirit upon irregular Eucharists. ”
Yes imagine that?

“One could also argue that the full implications of Root’s argument would include the dissolution of any concept of ordained ministry, since ecclesial communities that have only a purely functional concept of ministry have still managed to preserve the “basic truths” of the Gospel.”
I would say that all Religions from the beginning of times have never been too much bothered by a lack of logic. Since when does from A and B follow C?

“One could also argue that the situation of Christian disunity is so problematic that we should not expect that it be fully intelligible to us.”
True since one could certainly argue that the situation of humanity in itself is so problematic that we should not expect that it would be fully intelligible to us.

The old construct of valid orders or just a layman; valid eucharist or just a piece of bread is fading away. The Church is now moving towards a view that this is not black and white. Anglican clergy have real ministry. Their Eucharist is “means of grace” (Once said by JP2 without the world realizing how profound this is).

Thanks for writing. I am familiar with Michael Root’s argument. (Part of it, namely, that defectus ordinis be translated as “deficiency,” rather than “lack,” so that there could be an imperfect Catholic recognition of Lutheran ministry, is in the US Catholic-Lutheran Common Statement The Church as Koinonia of Salvation.)

In terms of his entire argument, I’m not sure what an adequate Catholic response could be. Of course, there is the argument that the Father is so boundless and excessive in love that he can send the Spirit upon irregular Eucharists. One could also argue that the full implications of Root’s argument would include the dissolution of any concept of ordained ministry, since ecclesial communities that have only a purely functional concept of ministry have still managed to preserve the “basic truths” of the Gospel. One could also argue that the situation of Christian disunity is so problematic that we should not expect that it be fully intelligible to us.

But I don’t think that these responses are even close to adequate, and Root’s observation that Catholic practice is inconsistent (e.g., when the Archbishop of Canterbury comes to Rome, he is not treated as a layman at all) is quite apt.

I am not sure if I’ve ever read a detailed account of a former Anglo-Catholic and presently Roman Catholic priest (or bishop) making theological sense of his former ministry. (This might reflect my ignorance.) I assume that such a priest (or bishop) can privately believe that he was offering the body and blood of Christ to his former parishioners. But what can he publicly attest? What can he publicly say by implication about present-day Anglo-Catholicism? I don’t know.

(I have only read somewhat vague statements – e.g., the late former Lutheran minister Richard John Neuhaus’ statement that “There is nothing in that [Lutheran] ministry that I would repudiate,” and that being ordained a Catholic priest was a “completion and right ordering.”)

http://theolog.org/2009/10/roundup-on-vatican-and-anglican.html

Obviously, the issue of ministry is the largest and most difficult to overcome for those who are serious about ecumenical convergence. It is much easier to say “We agree that our positions on this doctrine are no longer church-dividing” than to give up hundreds and thousands of years of liturgical traditions. Mennonites do not have a priesthood, and although we do have bishops, they are not in apostolic succession. So this would be one of the issues that would need to be dealt with. If Mennonite bishops were to submit themselves to the primacy of Peter, could they not be “re-ordained” (or “ordained), and then “re-ordain” (or “ordain”) Mennonite ministers/priests?

The advantage congregational traditions like Mennonites have over Anglicans is that we have structures in place to consult and educate the whole of the laity to bring about consensus, so that there could be a movement en masse to such an arrangement. Based on past experience, it would take decades, but it could be done.

Obviously, there are many questions that can be asked (and possible speculations that can be made) in advance of the release of the apostolic constitution.

Here are a few:

1. Was this an action deeply opposed – as has been reported – by Archbishop Williams, many English Catholic bishops, and Cardinal Kasper? Relatedly, is there any compelling reason why Archbishop Williams was only informed about the decision shortly before it was announced? (The decision not to inform Dr Williams seems to many, including myself, to be somewhat questionable.)

2. Austen Ivereigh, on America’s blog, has written,

[B]oth Catholic and Anglican churches prefer that disaffected Anglican groups belong to the Catholic Church than float freely. Dr Williams, remember, has a fundamentally Catholic ecclesiology.

Although it is usually reported that the Apostolic Constitution will come in response to a request from the Traditional Anglican Communion, is the main intention of this creation of a canonical vehicle to prevent a group from “floating freely” (rather than to, we might say, ease the exit of disaffected Anglicans)? Is this is the case, why wasn’t it made very explicit? (If it were made explicit, it would have discouraged charges of a new Uniatism.)

3. Given that many of the priests who will make use of the new canonical vehicle will have long considered themselves Catholic, if not Roman Catholic, and that many of them will have to be re-ordained, how will they consider their previous ministry? Given that many of the bishops who will make use of the new canonical vehicle will, on account of marriage, not be able to function as Roman Catholic bishops, how will they consider their previous roles? Obviously, the Roman Catholic judgment that Anglican orders are “invalid” does not mean that God cannot be really present in Anglican sacraments.

But will, for example, the formerly Anglican, now Roman Catholic, priests be able to publicly state that they believe that, as Anglicans, they consecrated Eucharists in which Christ was present, and adored Anglican Eucharists that were not “empty”? Will they be able to say that they believe that Christ is really present in Anglo-Catholic sacraments?

If not, how will their previous ministries and beliefs be in any way theologically intelligible to them?

4. As Brett implies, another question is whether similar sorts of canonical vehicle can be constructed for Lutherans, Mennonites, Methodists, and others. If not, what is so theologically distinctive about Anglicans, given that, unlike the Orthodox, there seems to be little question, alas, of judging Anglican orders to be valid. Is it a more fruitful ecumenical dialogue (e.g., the Mississauga Statement).

5. Will the Pope ever openly, unquestionably state that there is a problem with Catholics who believe that we are merely rivals of, say, the Anglican Communion?

Best,
Neil

Must Catholics believe in Transubstantiation or only in the Real Presence?

Transubstantiation is one way of expressing the truth of the Real Presence in Aristotelian categories. There are ways of expressing it in non-Artistotelian categories. So long as those other ways of expressing the Real Presence end up saying what is affirmed by transubstantiation, then those explanations are fine. Real Presence is the real issue, not the language of transubstantiation.