At the Last Supper Christ instituted the Eucharist as Catholics understand it

Contention 1: The Last Spper My opponent affirms my position and then goes on to contradict himself. He has agreed with me that the wine and bread were in reference to the crucifixion that was about to take place. Because of this, I should win this debate. Looking back, I realize that I did not explain my point well at all. I apologize and will proceed to explain how my opponent’s belief that Christ was referring to his crucifixion and the fact that Christ said ‘this cup of my blood’ can only be reconciled in the Catholic view point. According to Catholic teaching, every time the Eucharist is offered, through a miracle of God who transcends time, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross at Calvary is also being offered. To phrase it differently, the sacrifice of the Eucharist is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross. Just like the Trinity, this is a mystery which the human mind cannot fully grasp, but it makes sense since God is able to step back from time and perceive every Eucharist as being offered simultaneously as it were with the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. This view is the only way to make sense of Christ’s words at the Last Supper. (Luke 14:26) - "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. " According to my opponent’s logic as presented in round two, if Christ did not say that He is speaking figuratively then He’s not. Well Christ doesn’t say that He is speaking figuratively, so my opponent must believe this verse is telling us to hate our family. As a matter of fact, the reasoning I have given does account for this verse, and is the best way to do so. If every Christian went through the Bible and took each verse to mean what he wanted it to mean, then we would never know the truth of the Bible. Rather, as I stated earlier, we must look for a ‘compelling other reason’ before we interpret a verse other than as it is stated. The fact that Christ said ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ elsewhere in the gospels tells us that he was speaking figuratively here. Contention 2: John 6 If we are to take the verses in question 100% literally then the Catholic Church encourages the consumption of flesh and blood. Don’t you claim that the food turns into actual blood and flesh? If this is true then this is cannibalism. Sure, I suppose that you can call it cannibalism under the appearances of bread and wine. Why is this exempt from the rule? Where are you getting this information from and from where does it say in scripture that if something that is considered sinful happens miraculously that it makes it ok? My opponent is now forming non-Biblical theology to support his side. To the contrary, there are other Biblical examples of this. For instance Exodus 20:4 says ““You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. ” Then a few chapters later God commands in Exodus 25:18 “And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. ” These ‘graven images’ were ok since they were being used directly for God. Just so, the blood of Christ under the appearance of wine is ok to drink since it not only is used for God but IS God. Just because some followers turned away does not change the sense in which Jesus was speaking. Just because people misunderstood what Jesus was communicating does not change what Jesus has actually stated. It is impossible that Jesus Christ the Son of God could make such a simple yet serious mistake. John says not only ‘some’ of his disciples left him, but ‘MANY’ of his disciples left him. How could Christ, who calls himself the way, the TRUTH, and the life, allow such a huge misunderstanding which cost so many people their relationship with Him when He could have fixed it with the sentence “I was speaking figuratively. ” No, Christ must have been speaking literally for this passage to make sense. Contention 3: 1 Corinthians:11 Since my opponent will not address this point, I will briefly restate my argument. Paul says that those who receive the Eucharist unworthily are guilty of the ‘body and blood of the Lord’. These are words he would not use if it were merely a symbol. Now, for my opponent’s case… Contention 1: Jesus Speaks of the Spirit P1: No, I was saying that nowhere is the transformation of the bread and wine into flesh and blood is it described. My opponent has misunderstood the claim I was making. Christ didn’t explain a lot of things in full while on earth, at least not that was recorded. For example, he left it up to the apostles to decide if gentiles needed to be circumcised or not. It is enough for this debate that Christ said ‘this is my body’ and expounded on this in John 6. P2: Well how do we know that he didn’t sprout branches… My opponent does not take this verse literally for the same reasons that I have not taken the Lord’s Supper literally. There is no indication of the process occurring in scripture, just like there is no process that describes Jesus becoming a vine. Also, because we can see that Christ speaks figuratively in this case, He could have been speaking in a figurative way during the Last Supper as well. I agree that if the Last Supper Statement were standing on its own, then it would be likely that it were figurative just like “I am the true vine” which stands on its own. However, when we see that Christ prefigured the Last Supper in John 6, telling us that it is genuine flesh and blood we are to eat, and that Paul believes that this is Christ’s real body and blood years later, we must realize that there is more to the Last Supper statement than Christ’s vine parable. P3: If you were to take this particular verse literally then Christ is saying that he speaks of the spirit, not of the flesh. So Christ is speaking figuratively about speaking figuratively? My opponent’s logic does not follow suit in this example. Christ calls the Holy Spirit elsewhere in Scripture, the Spirit of Truth. So, if his words concerning the Eucharist are full of the Spirit, then they are full of truth. This is statement fits well with the doubts presented by Jesus’ listeners a few verses back. There is no logical fallacy in this; he is speaking literally about speaking literally. P4: Well it also would not be strange to call it wine because it really is wine. After He has finished His wine, Christ calls it wine once again. This is another indication that He is referring to the crucifixion and not to the dinner. When one takes John 6 and Paul into account, however, we see that Christ meant it when he said ‘this is the cup of my blood’. If the wine really is His blood, then it fits the verse since it is the very blood “which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”. This debate will ultimately boil down to whether or not Christ was speaking literally during the Last Supper and such. I say that he was referring to His crucifixion that was about to occur, and my opponent has agreed with me to that fact. Therefore I say that I should win this debate. I did not agree that Christ was speaking figuratively, but that the verse obviously contains reference to his death the next day in addition to stating that the bread and wine are His body and blood. My opponent is correct to say that this debate will boil down to whether Christ was speaking figuratively, but not merely at the Last Supper, but at least half a dozen times in John 6 in addition to what Paul said in 1 Corinthians. My opponent has not given substantial biblical context for his belief that Christ was speaking figuratively, so I urge for a vote for Pro. I look forward to my opponent’s next round.