A friend once had me consider this logic. Because the Catholic Immaculate Conception doctrine is a cornerstone tenet of the church, but is essentially a dogmatic belief, any dogmatic doctrine canonized by the church must also be as worthy of faith as the Immaculate Conception doctrine. However the doctrine of transfiguration is also a dogmatic belief. Yet even after a priest has blessed the sacramental wine and bread, in reality it does not literally transfigure into the blood and body of Christ even though the doctrine of transfiguration states that it does. If the wine does not literally turn to blood, the doctrine of transfiguration is wrong and because the doctrine of transfiguration is equally as valid as the Immaculate Conception, it too is also wrong by association. However, if the Christ were literally made of bread and wine, then all conflicts would be resolved. Can you please comment on this logic? Thank you

Comments

I'm not sure there's much "logic" there, frankly.

First, the relevant doctrine is that of transubstantiation, not transfiguration. The latter term refers to the events described in e.g. Luke 9, when Jesus appears "transfigured" in the presence of Elijah and Moses. Second, I'm not entirely sure why it is so obvious to you, or to your friend, that the consecration does not transform the elements into the body and blood of Christ. The fact that they do not look much like flesh and blood has nothing to do with it. (The Wikipedia article on the topic is excellent, by the way.) That said, transubstantiation is controversial within Christianity. It is, as was said, a pillar of the Catholic faith, but it is not widely accepted outside Catholicism.

I see no reason to suppose that all "dogmatic doctrine[s] canonized by the [Catholic] church" must stand or fall together. One might reason thus: If one of them turns out to be wrong, that diminishes whatever general reason one had to suppose that official endorsement by the Catholic hierarchy entails truth. That is: If the doctrine of transsubstantiation is false, then the fact that the Immaculate Conception has been endorsed by the hierarchy is not sufficient reason to believe that it is true. It simply does not follow, however, that it is false. If, however, one's one reason to accept the Immaculate Conception was its endorsement by the hierarchy, then perhaps one should no longer accept it. And then, given one's general reasons to believe that people get conceived in the usual way, maybe then one would have reason to reject it.

Read another response by Richard Heck

Read another response about Logic, Religion