Wednesday, November 12, 2008

...on Paisley's attacks on Consubstantiation/Transubstantiation

Ian Paisley vs Transsubstantiation
by: hglundahl (36/M/N Spain)
03/14/05 07:00 amMsg: 1048 of 1049

His ten points (they seem to be more on analysis, 11) with Catholic answers interfoliated*
Holy Mother Church, however, curses us to all eternity if we do not believe: 1 that a man can make from a wafer a Being Who made him
ad 1 if the God-Man Who made all could, so can any man to whom He leaves that power, and if He could make Himself a body, so He could make it again by change from another substance
2 that what has already existed can begin to exist
ad 2 If God, Who has existed from all eternity, could begin to exist as Man in time, why not?
3 that a body born of bread is the same as a body born of woman
ad 3 or that a person with abody is the same person as a pure and perfect spirit
4 that a body born 2,000 years ago is the same as a body made today;
ad 4 or that a Person Who was before Abraham was is the same Person Who was born of Abraham' and Davids line
5 that a part contains the whole
ad 5 or that a manger contained Him to Whom the vault of stars and all within it is tinier than a little nut
6 that a body which is limited and local can be in all places at one and the same time
ad 6 or that He Who is in all places at once can limit Himself to a limited or local body
7 that the same body can be dead and alive at one and the same time;
ad 7 not true, but only alive and slaughtered in the same time, as the Lamb in the Apocalypse is alive and yet as one sacrificed in the same time
8 that a morsel of paste is the same as a fully grown man;
ad 8 or that the Son of Man be the same as the Son of God
9 that a body which cannot see corruption is the same as that which may corrupt
ad 9 not so, since it is the outer appearance of bread or wine that may corrupt, and not what has been changed to Christ
10 that a glorified body may be immolated and sacrificed
ad 10 mystically, not physically, because the immolation is the cause by which the Glory is merited
11 that Christ may pass Himself on the road - Priest A, having Christ in his pocket, on the way to Dublin, and Priest B, having the same Christ in his pocket, on the way to Belfast!
ad 11 or that He may hold His body in His hands, as He did on the last supper.

*I have not taken into account the east west debate on the proper matter of the eucharist (leavened/unleavened). Most of Paisleys "arguments" are merely him resuming Catholic teaching in a way as to try to make it sound silly. Two points he distorts Catholic doctrine. In the first case my answer is a parallel doctrine which [even non-Catholic] Christians do not see as silly, in the other two points a correction.


Hans Georg Lundahl said...

...on Paisley's attacks on Consubstantiation/Transsubstantiation...
...on Paisley otherwise

retrieved from:

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

Actually, though the site the arguments are taken from is dedicated to Ian Paisley, I think the text I am refuting might be from some XIXth C. Anglican or Calvinist rather than from Ian Paisley himself.