Uno sguardo semiotico alla transustanziazione: differenze tra le versioni

Uno sguardo semiotico alla transustanziazione (visualizza wikitesto)

Versione delle 13:04, 20 gen 2025

4 304 byte aggiunti , 3 mesi fa

nessun oggetto della modifica

Admin

825

contributi

@@ Riga 1: / Riga 1: @@
+[[File:Transustanziazione rappresentazione grafica.png|miniatura|Rappresentazione grafica della transustanziazione.]]
 '''Uno sguardo semiotico alla transustanziazione'''
-Autore: Renato Ongania
+'''A Semiotic Analysis of Transubstantiation in the Catholic Faith'''
+By Dr Renato Ongania
+'''A Semiotic Analysis of Transubstantiation in the Catholic Faith'''
+Transubstantiation, a core doctrine of the Catholic Church, presents a rich ground for semiotic analysis, intertwining symbols, signs, and meaning with theological and ritualistic practices. By examining transubstantiation through the lens of semiotics, we can explore how it functions as a system of signification and how it communicates profound spiritual truths to its adherents.
+=== Theological Background as Semiotic Framework ===
+In Catholic theology, transubstantiation refers to the transformation of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ during the Eucharistic celebration. The term derives from the Latin ''trans-substantia'', meaning “change of substance.” This transformation is conceptualized as real and ontological, though imperceptible to the senses, leaving the accidents (appearances) of bread and wine unchanged.
+From a semiotic perspective, this distinction between substance and accidents is key. Using Ferdinand de Saussure’s model of the sign—where the sign consists of a signifier (form) and a signified (concept)—we can interpret transubstantiation as an intentional disruption of the usual alignment between signifier and signified. The bread and wine remain as signifiers of nourishment and sustenance, but their signified shifts dramatically from material sustenance to spiritual presence.
+=== Sign as a Mediator of Presence ===
+The Eucharist operates as a symbolic system where material elements serve as mediators of divine presence. Drawing on Charles Sanders Peirce’s triadic model of the sign—composed of the representamen (the form the sign takes), the object (what it refers to), and the interpretant (the meaning derived by the observer)—transubstantiation reconfigures the relationship between these elements.
+# '''Representamen''': The bread and wine as physical elements.
+# '''Object''': The Body and Blood of Christ.
+# '''Interpretant''': The believer’s understanding of these elements as both sacramentally transformed and spiritually nourishing.
+This triadic relationship reveals how transubstantiation transcends ordinary symbolic association. While most symbols point to their referents, the Eucharistic elements ''become'' their referents in a way that challenges conventional semiotic models. The interpretant is thus not merely cognitive but participatory, engaging the faithful in an act of communion.
+=== Ritual as a Semiotic Act ===
+The Mass, particularly the moment of consecration, functions as a performative semiotic act. J.L. Austin’s theory of performativity is helpful here: the priest’s utterance of the words of consecration (e.g., “This is my Body”) is not merely descriptive but transformative. The performative utterance changes the ontological status of the elements, making the Eucharist a site where language itself becomes a vehicle for divine action.
+This performative aspect is reinforced by ritual gestures, such as the elevation of the host, which serves as an iconic sign of Christ’s sacrifice. The visual and spatial elements of the ritual complement the linguistic, creating a multimodal semiotic system that engages all senses and deepens the signification process.
+=== Semiotics of Faith and Mystery ===
+The doctrine of transubstantiation also highlights the limits of semiotics. By asserting that the essence of the Eucharistic elements is transformed while their appearances remain, transubstantiation gestures toward a reality that eludes full semiotic capture. The tension between what is seen (signifier) and what is believed (signified) invites an interpretive act grounded in faith.
+Roland Barthes’s concept of the “myth” as a second-order semiotic system is illuminating here. The Eucharist functions as a “myth” in Barthes’ sense, where the visible bread and wine are infused with a deeper, transcendent meaning. Unlike Barthes’ critique of myth as ideological distortion, however, the Eucharistic “myth” is embraced as a sacred mystery that fosters communion with the divine.