Transubstantiation—a doctrine I’m only now beginning to understand. A frightening doctrine in the twenty-first century. A doctrine based on an antiquated idea that has been shown, centuries ago, to be false. Transubstantiation is simply the Catholic doctrine that explains how the bread and wine, which after consecration are supposedly Jesus’ body and blood, still look suspiciously like bread and wine. Their substance has changed, retaining only their accidental appearance. And that, my friends, is Aristotelian “science” which has been shown to be false. It still permeates our thinking, though, as Pinker shows in The Blank Slate. Here is a whole doctrine based on—I don’t even know.

This helps explain for me how cupping glasses—something I need to write about for my site—can still be used here. It’s a country that abounds in antiquated thinking.

Obviously, I’m still reading Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical. It seems to be that the basic problem, the source of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants (and Protestants and Protestants) is the Bible itself, but that is never a considered possibility. The Bible in one place says one thing, and in another, something entirely different. What believers are forced to do is write books like The Hard Sayings of Jesus and WCG’s whole “difficult scriptures” idea to try to make obvious inconsistencies (which would be labeled as such were they found in any other book) appear as “seeming inconsistencies” or “difficult passages.”

Take for example the whole works versus grace thing:

  • For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith. (Ephesians 2.8)
  • . . . no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law . . . a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. (Romans 3.20, 28)
  • . . . a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. . . . by observing the law no one will be justified.” (Galatians 2.15, 16)

On the other hand, we find Jesus (who should have known what is required for salvation if anyone in the world ever did) and James saying something quite different.

  • You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. (James 2.24)
  • Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.” “Which ones?” the man inquired. Jesus replied, “‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.'” “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Matthew 19.16‑21)

It also explains why there’s such (as I called it in my “Why I’m not a Christian” piece) a literal/figurative potluck.