THE EDITOR, Sir:
WITH REFERENCE to Mr. Espeut's article published in your edition of Wednesday, February 5, 2003, transubstantiation is so amenable to empirical testing it ought really to be one of the easiest of church teachings to debunk.
According to the doctrine, the bread and wine served at the communion service is converted wholly into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Apart from anything else, flesh and blood are physical substances. We experience their existence through our physical senses. Recall as one example, the instance recorded in St. Luke 24:39 when doubting disciples were invited to touch the body of the risen Christ - a physical sensual activity. By this means they were to convince themselves that they were indeed experiencing Christ's bodily presence manifested in their midst in physical form of flesh and bones.
Now therefore, if bread and wine are converted into literal flesh and blood after the priest has pronounced his blessing, it should be possible to recognise the presence of the flesh and blood through the physical senses of smell and taste. If conversion were said to take place after ingestion, a simple blood alcohol test would settle the matter, when fermented wine is used.
What then is the truth of the biblical statement attributed to Jesus: "This is my body..."? It is empirically demonstrated that there can be no truth to a literal interpretation of the statement, Mr. Espeut. We must be prepared to test what we hold as truth.
I am, etc.,
D. GRAHAM
P.O. Box 433
Kingston 10
