15 questions about Transubstantiation

I shall not bore anyone with the official teaching of the papacy on transubstantiation first officially formulated in 1215 (see, e.g., Trent, Vatican II and the RC Catechism), but this non-miraculous miracle has left me bamboozled. 

So here are 15 questions:

1. Did Jesus say this ‘is’ my body or this ‘becomes’ my body? 

2. Was our LORD holding His own (glorified?) body / divinity in His own hands? 

3. Is the Apostles’ Creed wrong when it insists that ‘He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty’ until the final judgement Day? 

4. Is Jesus truly human if He can be present both in heaven where He remains until He returns as well as in thousands of different altars (wherever the mass is celebrated and the elements are consumed) at the whim of a male priest’s intervention? Women excluded. Not sure about transgendered ones.

5. Is the doctrine of concomitance (not to mention the use of a wafer rather than bread!) not a flagrant violation of our LORD’s command in Matthew 26:27, as well as the universal practice of the apostolic church? 

6. Why does Paul retain ‘eating bread’ (1. Cor. 11:27ff.) if the bread has disappeared?  

7. How does transubstantiation differ from ‘transubstantiation’ in John 2:1-11?

8.  Once the communicant has partaken of the Mass, at what stage do the elements ontologically cease to be the literal person of Jesus? 

9.  Which New Testament writer relies on the Aristotelian explanation of ‘substance’ and ‘accidents’?

10.  How can one get drunk on blood, if the wine ceases to be wine? Just let any priest drink a few cups of the left-over 'blood'!

11.  How can the ‘real presence’ be reconciled with the teaching of Jesus in Mark 14:7 and John 16:7?

12.  Does transubstantiation not destroy the sacramental character (destroying the analogy between the sign and the thing signified) as defined by Augustine, since the symbols (about to vanish) are changed into Christ?

13.  Is it right to speak of two miracles, in the words of one scholar, who says that “it takes a miracle to have the substance of one thing and something else’s accidents, and it takes another miracle to have the accidents of something and the substance of something else”?

14.  Why ‘do this in remembrance’ when Jesus is actually literally present?

15.  How does partaking of the Mass differ from cannibalism? 

Let the reader be warned that 

a. the papacy has not rescinded the following statement: "CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema. " (source: click here)

b. My comments could have got me burnt in the 16th century! 

1933, 1948, or 2019?

This disturbing video on transgenderism has provoked numerous reactions. I had to remind myself that it is, indeed, 2019 and not 1933, or 1984, and that we do live in a democracy, if the politicians, who keep on lecturing to us on tolerance, can be trusted! I must, of course, immediately apologise to anyone who may choose to be offended, especially those with low blood pressure, but freedom of speech means freedom of speech. As I was born to talk (I think I got that from my mother!), I just cannot help it! I am, after all, a very human being, though normality may not come into it, but I have not consulted my Newspeak Dictionary! As yet I have not said anything significant - just saying, in case anyone wonders about me having misspoken! Indeed, for a change, I will let someone more intelligent have the penultimate word, enter D Robertson! Meanwhile, I am waiting for a response from the Scottish Education Secretary, who, as yet, has not replied! Not sure whether he will have the final say, though! So many voices are clamouring for attention! What's wrong with egological anythingism? Only bigots, like that young man, must keep their thoughts private!   

I'd better not translate Heine, or I might end up with a teacher trained by the thought police!

Amber is now off-colour!

So A Rudd got it in the neck again - this time not from me, but from D Abbott! But Amber Rudd apologises over 'coloured woman' comment! I hope she will also offer an apology to me, as she went on to say that "no one should suffer abuse because of their race or gender." Well, as far as I know there only is one human race which I was born into, but she may well live on a different planet altogether - if only! 

As to D Abbott, I am not allowed to say that someone is calling the kettle black - it might amount to a white lie! But D Abbott is allowed to say that "-'‘white people love playing divide and rule.’' And her past remarks about the Miliband brothers - "the clash of the Miliband" - are somewhat offensive: “If you’re 44 and your 40-year-old brother is running against you, it can’t be all sweetness and light. There’s always rivalry between siblings, let alone in a leadership race. They’re both quite grown-up, but as a mother, I think there’s something not quite right about it. We’re selecting from one of the narrowest [Jewish?!] genepools in history [brackets mine]. (Source click here)” D Abbott perhaps mis-spoke - again, as did H Clinton, so why not A Rudd?

I note that UK passport photographs must be "in colour on plain white photographic paper", which presumably means that black is not a colour! An application form for a job in Parliament asks for 'other skin colour'. 

I do have a vested interest in all this as I am a non-coloured person. Come to think of it, most politicians do raise my BP, thus changing my skin colour to amber red! Blame it on my choleric genes, or the dark side of my nature! On top of that, I am actually colour-blind - literally!

But now I think it's time for a black coffee - no, let's change that to coffee without milk! Now where is my copy of Chesterton's "Tremendous Trifles"? Perhaps there is no 1984 edition! May be, I could ask Gordon Ramsay for a copy! 

Playing the Wilde Card!

17 June 2018

Watching this clip has left me asking the question as to who might receive the accolade for being the most popular person among that small-minded coterie.

I had been stupidly wrong about Andrew Marr, who I thought was such a jolly good fellow! But it isn’t the first time that the BBC has mocked Christians, and I am sure there is more to come! I should have known better!

Childish naivety, of course, is better than old-age cynicism, if I may excuse myself for being trapped in the wrong body with apologies to Peter Pan! We all know that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but Marr just wants to be, well, plain Marr! Thankfully, his Feuerbachian god is not my God! 

Oscar Wilde is dead, and one would not wish to speak ill of the living who seem spiritually dead (not that I am tarring all hypocrites – a well-known Greek synonym for ‘actors’ - with the same brush), or those who are no longer with us in body. 

Comparing Wilde to a “gay Christ” (so A Marr, though hardly original!) or viewing him as “better than Christ” (so Rupert Everett) is sheer fantasy (Christ was not a demi-god and the New Testament portrays Him as sinless), and most certainly a touch ridiculous, to put it mildly! At least Wilde was not linked to Muhammad, or it might have … okay, I’ll stop right here! And never mind the Beatles – who certainly were more popular than, well, Oscar, or Andrew Marr, or Everett rolled together into one! Not sure where that leaves this humble writer!

Oscar Wilde was wild by nature, but I do not for a moment think that he would have elevated himself above the Saviour of the world, judging by his (however misguided) admiration as vividly depicted in his ‘De Profundis.’ He was a fallen creature, and he fell mightily – very sadly!   

I care little for all the pretentiously sophisticated mockery one sees on the BBC these days. They tell me that little things amuse little minds. All the scorning has helped in strengthening my faith in the most hated man that has ever lived. And we are not talking about uncle Oscar now! We are talking about the importance of being earnest!

Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it well, if I may be allowed to quote him out of context: “Those of us who have learned to discern the power and nature of the world and of our own particular evil in the cross of Jesus Christ and who, in that same cross, deeply trust in the unending love of God for this world will surely not be so very surprised and shocked by certain expressions of this worldliness.”

The whole sorry saga has left me neither shocked nor surprised, but rather somewhat bored! Now why did I have to watch that clip in the first place?! Well, my BP is up again! I am alive! At least it’s out of my system! I am sure that Oscar would have liked some straight talking!

My vision of Christ has not been marred, and I have not gone wild.

Perhaps it’s time to read and study the Gospel accounts again, just as Oscar Wilde did in his Oxford days! All of us may be in for a nasty shock or a pleasant surprise! Anyone who wishes to be compared to Jesus needs their head sorted and remember that he is ‘wholly other’, ‘the man for others.’ He is no Oscar Wilde, but superior in every respect! Dangerously so!