Transubstantiation

This is a reinstating of my debate with David_Debates on the Subject of Transubstantiation at his request. David ran out of time and forfeited his round as a result. Wanting to ensure that the debate continues in the spirit of goodwill, I am giving him the opportunity to continue where we left off. The original version can be found at: http://www.debate.org... I shall copy and paste rounds from the original interaction. However, I will post his definition of transubstantiation which I accept as the definition that is implied throughout the debate.I have also extended the turnaround time from 24 hours to 48 hours so as to accommodate my opponent's time limitations, as he struggled to meet the deadline for his rebuttal on Round 3 previously. The Maximum Characters has also been extended to 10,000 characters, as my opponent somehow thought that I wanted him to keep his posts brief so as not to bore the readers. This was factually incorrect as people will discover by reading the original interaction at http://www.debate.org...NOTE TO MY OPPONENT: Please copy/paste your original opening statement. I will then post my original first rebuttal after which you can post your rebuttal. From there we will proceed. Any desire to accept my offer regarding your opening statement can be done after those steps if you so choose. Thank you.Soli Deo Gloria. I will refer to David as Pro from now on. He will refer to me as Con.===============================================------------ CON: ROUND 1 - CHALLENGE/ACCEPTANCE ------------I will argue that the Catholic Doctrine of transubstantiation is not a true doctrine. First round is for acceptance of the debate only.=============================================== =============================================== ------------PRO: ROUND 1 - CHALLENGE/ACCEPTANCE ------------- I gladly accept this challenge, provided I am able to define, seeing that I am Pro. 1) Transubstantiation: the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration, only the appearances of bread and wine still remaining.I also assume we are accepting the Bible, in its entirety, as a credible and valid source.Best of luck to my opponent.=============================================== ------------ CON: ROUND 2 - OPENING STATEMENT ------------===============================================I. Transubstantiation cannot be demonstrated to be true rationally. A. Transubstantiation is built upon the foundation of Substance Theory, a platonic concept that everything exists in a dichotomy of accidents and substance. Accidents refer to what appears to be so. Substance refers to what something actually is. B. Substance theory undermines epistemological certainty and thus puts the Catholic in a dilemma regarding interpretation. 1. A Catholic cannot know if the Scripture they read actually matches in substance with what they read or hear (accidents). 2. A Catholic cannot know if Church Tradition matches in substance what they read or hear (accidents). 3. A Catholic cannot know if patristic writings, papal bulls, or ecumenical decrees match in substance with what they read or hear (accidents). C. My opponent cannot therefore appeal to verses in the bible, or quotations from the church fathers, ecumenical councils, papal decrees or other ecclesiastical literature which can only be shown via accidents. D. The only way for my opponent to be able to provide substantial evidence in the debate, is to abandon the Catholic presupposition of substance theory, which would in turn render transubstantiation an invalid doctrine. E. Catholic doctrine teaches that the accidents remain as bread and wine, yet there is no verse in the gospels that teach that the appearance was different to the substance after the words of consecration. F. Transubstantiation violates the law of identity. 1. As the Catholic Catechism states - the sacrifice is of unbloody blood. 2. Since the term bloody derives from the substance in question, namely blood - the attribute would denote a self-contradictory term. 3. Bloodiness cannot be defined irrespectively of the substance of blood. G. The doctrine presupposes the idea that either (a) the accident remaining does not attach itself to the new substance or (b) that it does. 1. If the accident attaches itself to the substance, then the blood is physical as the attribute of physicality is attached to the substance. Since it is physical it cannot be said to be non-physical. 2. If the accident does not attach itself to the substance, then there is (i) A substance without an accident and (ii) An accident without a substance. That would violate the necessary substance/accidents dichotomy presupposed in substance theory which serves as the foundation of transubstantiation, thus proving it to be invalid. 3. Under both 1 and 2, the sacrifice at the mass cannot be said to be a re-presentation of the same sacrifice at calvary, since 1 would be with a physical blood that is not bloody and 2 would be an impossibility. II. Transubstantiation cannot be demonstrated to be true scripturally. A. It is not taught in the Gospels. 1. In Matthew 26:29 the cup is referred to as "this fruit of the vine" after the words of consecration. 2. If the Lord"s Supper is a re-presentation of the sacrifice, then there are two Christs. The Christ who is consecrating, and the Christ that is being offered up. 3. Just two verses later, a metaphorical device is used as an interpretation of prophecy, namely that the believers will be scattered as "Sheep of the flock" 4. Jesus refers to the death metaphorically as a cup a further 8 verses later. 5. John 6 is not referring to transubstantiation. B. It is not taught in the Acts of the Apostles 1. When speaking of the Church"s breaking bread and eating, flesh is not mentioned even once. 2. When speaking of the drinking of blood it always spoken of as a forbiddance. Acts 15:20, 15:29, 21:25. C. It is not taught in the Epistles 1. 1 Corinthians 11:27 says that the believers are eating bread. 2. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 demonstrate that the believers share one loaf, proving that it has not transubstantiated to be actual flesh. III. "When my opponent attempts to prepare a rebuttal to my points, it will be by assuming that what is heard matches the substance of my arguments. But how can it be guaranteed that is the case, anymore than bread could be flesh or wine could be blood?"