Transubstantiation

PRO CONCEDED: That I was correct with regards to sense faculties being limited in that they can only know the accidents of a thing and not its substance. However, Pro argued that he can comprehend God’s word because of “Divine intervention”. MY RESPONSE: I appreciate the concession on my opponent’s part to his being limited to sensing the accidents of a thing only. However, he needs to be consistent. You cannot perceive the substance of the “Divine Eucharist” through your senses, nor can you perceive what the “Divine Scripture” is actually teaching, because it could be completely different just as bread is from wine. The appeal to the Divine is arbitrary and refuted by the very example of the Eucharist itself. Pro stated that the substance of bread and wine is much different to the substance of words, but such a statement contradicts his earlier concession that he is unable to perceive what substance actually is. PRO CONCEDED: That the words accidents and substance do not appear in 1 Corinthians 11:29 and drew attention once again to eating and drinking without discerning the body and blood. As I have already pointed out, the eating refers to the nearest antecedent of the verb eating back in verse 28 which is bread, not flesh. Since transubstantiation holds that there would be no bread to eat, the doctrine is flatly refuted by this verse. PRO SAID: “Con is confused here. Although Paul uses the word bread in this passage, he then calls it the body. Paul isn't contradicting himself here, he's stating that it is bread and wine, and after Jesus consecrates it, it becomes "his body" and "the blood of the new covenant. "” MY RESPONSE: Pro’s accusation of my being confused is false. Paul never states that the bread and wine become the body and blood. Let’s read: 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. Three times in this portion it connects eating with bread: eat this bread, eat the bread, eat of the bread. When we get to verse 29 does it say eat the body? No, it says judge the body. Should we interpret these verses literally or metaphorically, Pro? If you say literally, then there is the literal eating of bread, and the literal judging of the body. If you say metaphorically, then there is the metaphorical eating of the bread and the metaphorical judging of the body. Notice also that the eating and drinking proclaim his death until he comes. Transubstantiation teaches that Christ comes before the eating and drinking takes place. Your interpretation does not work. PRO SAID: “The exact quote here is "For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. " (1 Corinthians 11:29) The verb attached to body of Christ is eating. ” MY RESPONSE: Pro is incorrect. Verses 26 – 28 clearly state eating the bread and drinking the wine. By the time we get to verse 29 it does not apply the verb eat and drink to the body of Christ. It is the verb discern which is used. Pro is ignoring the direct statements of eating bread three times in the verses preceding. If Pro appealed to verse 29 as eating the body (which it does not do), he would now be accepting the Lutheran position of Consubstantiation which is different from Transubstantiation! PRO SAID: “Con is correct here, I meant to quote 1 Corinthians 10:16. However, Con's argument does not make sense. Con argues that one cannot have fellowship in, as this verse states, "the blood of Christ" and "the body of Christ. " This is exactly what he calls us to do in Gospel. "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me. " (Luke 22:19) MY RESPONSE: Pro has misquoted me. I didn’t argue that “one cannot have fellowship in the blood of Christ. ” I stated transubstantiation denies the possibility of such fellowship. The reason is because under transubstantiation, what doesn’t exist (the wine) cannot fellowship or communicate to us the blood of Christ. In order for wine to fellowship something to us, it would have to actually exist. PRO SAID: “Of course people speak metaphorically. I do it all the time. The difference is that Jesus goes far and beyond to make it clear what he means by the statement that the bread "is his body," and the wine "is his blood," by stating it in five different ways in John 6:51-56. ” And again quoted John 6:51,53-56 I have already responded to and refuted Pro’s misapplication of all five of these verses. He is welcome to review this. PRO DEFERRED: My argument pertaining to the timing of the demonstrative word with respect to the elements to his next response. MY RESPONSE: I look forward to your attempt to reconcile the dilemma. PRO QUOTED ME: “7) Which blood was shed? Jesus’ pre-resurrection carnal blood or post-resurrection glorified blood? The former cannot be present in multiple places and times. The latter was not shed on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. ” AND SAID: “Jesus says that this wine becomes "the blood of the new covenant. " Does this answer your question, Con? ” MY RESPONSE: “Not only does it not answer my question since it does not tell me whether you think the blood of the new covenant was pre or post-resurrection, but you likewise did not address the catch 22 that I inferred. ” PRO SAID: “As I have shown, Jesus clearly intended to tell us that the bread and wine become his body and blood, as seen in both the Gospels and Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. ” MY RESPONSE: I reject such a claim and remain totally unconvinced by your interpretation of these verses for the reasons I have given. Reviewing the debate thus far, my opponent has given no reason at all to consider the doctrine of transubstantiation as likely. My opponent has said that he doesn’t need to show that this is certainly true but only that it is more likely to be true than my position. Not only is my opponent’s position less likely than my own, it is an impossibility when analysing the layers of opposition to this doctrine: Layer 1: The Problem of Epistemology – Transubstantiation limits one’s knowledge to that of accidents only. My opponent conceded to this yet appealed to divine scripture being different but gave no justification when confronted with his own belief in the Divine Eucharist which exhibits such disparity. What is likewise interesting is that my opponent has assumed the entire course of this debate that the substance of my arguments match the accidents of what he reads. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume my opponent does not believe my writing to be divinely inspired. So how can he be certain of what he’s reading and responding to? Layer 2: The Problem of Inconsistency – My opponent infers that “true food” must render the meaning as literal, yet rejects the notion that Jesus is a plant, calling Himself the true vine. Layer 3: The Problem of false attribution. Despite my opponent’s repeated claims that the gospels and epistles of Paul say the bread and wine become the flesh and blood. No such word “become” is to be found. Layer 4: The Problem of false analogy – My opponent stated that the distinction between substance and accidents can be known. His analogy failed because it appealed to the senses to conclude the substance of snow. But if that is the case, then his entire these fails because one can likewise appeal to the senses to determine that what is consumed is bread and wine, not flesh and blood. Yet my opponent has conceded that he cannot know substances. Of course he made the exception of scripture, but Layer 1 refutes this arbitrary criteria. Layer 5: The Problem of sin – The book of Acts forbids believers to drink blood. Layer 6: The Problem of Blasphemy – A priest is said to be the creator of the creator. Layer 7: The Problem of mutability and mortality – Upon digestion the substances are destroyed. This violates God’s immutable and immortal nature. Layer 8: The Problem of being non-literally literal – Jesus calling Himself the living bread, saying that one must both eat and drink yet the Catholic Church forbade the wine. Layer 9: The Problem of timing – “This” referring to bread cannot then refer to flesh because the bread is destroyed. Layer 10: The Problem of nature – If the elements in the eucharist are “pre-resurrection” then they cannot be omnipresent. If the elements are “post-resurrection” then they are not the same sacrifice. Layer 11: The problem of null-definition – Using such a dichotomy renders things as indistinguishable from one another in terms of explanation. What essentially is bread? What essentially is flesh? Layer 12: The problem of false worship – One would have to be God, discerning the intent of the priest which if improper leaves the elements unchanged. Worship of them thus by clergy and laity alike is idolatry. Layer 13: The problem of diminishing terms – Jesus says that whoever eats and drinks of him has eternal life. Yet this life is destroyed after 15 minutes of eating. Layer 14: The problem of the undermined dichotomy – Since the substance is destroyed upon digestion, it negates the substance accidents dichotomy because the accidents exist without a hosting substance. This is absurd as saying “yellow nothingness”. Layer 15: The problem of multiple Christs – Christ would have been offering up a second Christ as bread and at third Christ as wine. Layer 16: The problem of reburial – Leftover “species” are poured back into the earth, which would be burying Christ again. More could be given, but this shall suffice. I look forward to Pro’s response.