Sir, - Having with exemplary clarity set out the Catholic understanding of the doctrine of transubstantiation, your correspondent, G. H. Duggan states, as a fact, that "this is not what our separated brethren in the Protestant churches believe regarding the Eucharist".
I assume that he includes the Church of Ireland (and that of England) among the "Protestant" churches. His statement necessarily implies, first, that he is able to state with equal clarity those churches' understanding of their doctrine of the Real Presence; and, second, that he is able to articulate the distinction between the Roman and Anglican positions in this matter.
I believe that the laity - of both persuasions - would be grateful if your correspondent (or someone on his behalf) would do just that. Simple "Yes, I do - No, you don't" exchanges are not helpful. However, I am bound to say that I believe that anyone would be hard put to distinguish between the two doctrines.
That may help to explain the absence of discussion of transubstantiation in the ARCIC statement: it is not actually as controversial a matter as G. H. Duggan appears to think. Of course, it was controversial, because many (perhaps most) Protestants believed that Catholics believed that not only the substance but also the physical properties (the accidents) of the elements were changed. Whether any Catholics ever actually believed that, I do not presume to know: but it was certainly the cause of great misunderstanding. - Yours, etc., Brian O'Brien,
Castlematrix, Rathkeale, Co. Limerick.