Transubstantiation

Rebuttals:6) Again what is “this” referring to? It can’t be flesh because the consecration hadn’t been completed yet. It must be bread, because change had yet occurred. Yet what happens when the bread is destroyed? If would render the flesh as being equal to “nothing” since up to the completion of the words of consecration the bread is destroyed, i.e. the bread (which is nothing) is my body.The transubstantiation is not gradual. It is instantaneous. After all, if one could pinpoint an exact moment in which the bread becomes Jesus' body, this could then be slowed down to be extended, and thus, non-instantaneous. Instead, since transubstantiation occurs only with the assistance of God (who exists out of time), the transubstantiation must also occur out of time. In essence, there is a seamless transition from bread to body, from wine to blood. 1) Pro’s analogy fails because it confuses the categories.I am stating that when I am to take something with the substance of snow, and dye it, it's accidents change, but its substance does not. I then reasoned that if it is possible for accidents to change without substance changing, then it is possible for substance changing without accidents changing. I am going to hazard a guess that Pro would use his physical senses to determine that the substance was indeed snow – Pro’s analogy only implied visual perception...Once again, this is not the purpose of my analogy. My purpose is that my physical senses were different, yet the substance of the item (snow) had not changed. Under the doctrine of transubstantiation, what looks like wine, smells like wine, tastes like wine and even has the molecular compound structure of wine as observed under a microscope, it is not wine but blood.Under the doctrine of transubstantiation, what has the same accidents as wine (smells like wine, tastes like wine, etc.) has the substance of blood: specifically, the blood of the New Covenant.2) Pro’s criteria of appeal to Divine inspiration fails since the Eucharist itself is said to be divinely inspired, even containing the very Divinity of Christ Himself, yet the substance and accidents differ.This would be like saying that I am myself-inspired. Jesus is present in the Eucharist, meaning he is not inspiring the Eucharist. Instead, he is the Eucharist. Do you see my point, Con? 3) My opponent was confused around the nature of accidents and substance. I do not think he is in a position to confidently assert epistemological soundness when his analogy failed quite emphatically. I've both read and researched Platonic theories, and I've spent two years studying my religion. My analogy was misinterpreted by Con, and then flaunted as evidence for his theory, when, in fact, it proves my point exactly. 4) Again this does not show a change in substance or a difference between accidents and substance. My opponent can’t just quote verses without demonstrating the thesis.I thought I explained thesis when I stated: "These are Jesus' words in the Gospel, the ones that state that the bread "is my body," and the wine "is my blood." He calls them bread and wine, but then states that their substance is his body and his blood." 5) Pro is reading something into the text which simply isn’t there. The word, “substance” does not appear in any of the texts quoted. The word, “accidents” isn’t there either. Nor does it allude to the accidents of the elements after the words have been spoken. The exact word "substance" and the exact word "accidents" are not found in these five passages. However, the verses clearly state that unless one is to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, he "has no life within him." This shows how important communion is to be a Christian. If this was merely bread, and merely wine, what Jesus is stating is impossible. I cannot eat Jesus' body or drink his blood without the doctrine of transubstantiation.6) Applying the same hyper-literalism to this verse that my opponent applies to Mark 14:22-24 would mean that the substance of Jesus is actually bread and that his flesh is substantially bread. This is not hyper-literalism. I'll give my explanation.In other verses in John, we see Jesus calling himself a "door" and a "vine." We can clearly see that these are meant to be taken metaphorically. Nowhere do we see any of his followers stating "How is he made of wood?" or, "How is he a plant?" Comparing this to this passage, we see Jesus stating that his flesh must be eaten. This time, however, the congregation of his followers are genuinely confused. We see their response in the very next verse: "Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:52) Jesus then clears it up immediately by stating his flesh is "true food" and his blood is "true drink." He does not leave us up to interpretation here. Catholics do not believe that partaking of the flesh of Christ gives someone eternal life. Partaking in Communion requires for one to believea) that Jesus died upon the cross for our sins,b) the Eucharist is truly Jesus' body and blood, andc) to submit him or herself fully to God. Is this not what is necessary for salvation? The context of this verse actually defines that eating is simply believing in Christ. But presuppositions are required for this eating to mean anything. See above. Upon digestion, the substance dissipates and the presence of Christ is lost. This is taught in the Roman Catholic Catechism, paragraph 1377. According to Alphonsus Ligouri , "Thus the priest may, in a certain manner, be called the creator of his Creator, since by saying the words of consecration, he creates, as it were, Jesus in the Sacrament, by giving Him a Sacramental existence, and produces Him as a victim to be offered to the eternal Father." What Alphonsus Ligouri is saying here is that a Priest, with Divine assistance, can bring about Jesus in persona. This does not mean that he is somehow greater than his creator, as he is merely a limb of God, to assist him as best he can. The Roman Catholic Catechism, paragraph 1389 The eternal life, as Christ states later, is "in His kingdom." He then later states that his kingdom is "not of this earth." Thus, of course he is not giving people an infinite lifespan on earth, but instead, in His kingdom, or Heaven. Contrasting the Roman Catholic and Protestant positions, it is certainly more in line with Christ’s teaching that if we believe in Christ, we have eternal life. We would not be believers once a year, but it endures throughout our entire Christian life and the eternal life we receive is not received for 15 minutes and then lost again until the next week or dare we say next year. As we have seen before, in order to partake in communion legitimately, according to the Roman Catholic doctrine, one would need to believe in Christ. After all, to not believe in Christ and claim to eat his body is self-contradictory, right, Con? Paul states that those who eat and drink "without recognizing the body is eating and drinking his own condemnation." Thus, if one does not believe in Christ is not recognizing the body while eating and drinking. 7) This verse (John 6:53) illustrates the inconsistent position of the Catholic Church. For if it were to truly take it as literal as it claims to, then it would make the partaking of both emblems obligatory at the Mass. However, the Council of Trent stated in Canon I, “If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema."Wait, so this is a dispute on whether or not you are taking Communion when it has been consecrated or not. This is a completely different issue. This dispute is on those who claim they are following Christ's teachings by eating and drinking without the elements consecrated, they are committing a sin, as they are not Jesus' body and blood. This is not relevant to the subject at hand. 8) As above, the Catholic Church does not actually believe this. Fifteen minutes of life is hardly eternal. No accidents/substance distinction mentioned. No changing of one substance into another.As above, the Catholic Church requires for one to believe in Jesus in order to partake in Communion. They even require one to take their first Penance before partaking in the Eucharist for the first time! Also, the life stated is life in Jesus' kingdom, i.e. Heaven.9+10) The same gospel says the He is the “true vine” in chapter 15 verse 1. Is he a literal plant? Likewise food and drink are shadows of Christ as per Colossians 2:16-17. Since they are shadows, of him, when he refers to himself in those terms, it must be metaphorically as a reality cannot literally be its shadow.I'll reiterate my previous argument on the same subject. See response to (6).11) My opponent has confused the issue of the law of identity with the dichotomy of accidents and substance and thus missed the point completely. I challenge my opponent to explain how blood can be without blood. Does my opponent also believe truthless truth exists?Truthless truth is self-deprecating. It is non-physical, however, and thus has no accidents or substance. It is irrelevant to the disscusion and a red herring from the issue of transubstantiation. 12) They were my own words. It was a simple formatting typo on my part. I’ve been crediting you each time I’ve quoted you. I’ve noticed that this has not been entirely reciprocated on your part, but I won’t make a big deal of it.Sounds good, Con. By the way, I have credited you, all of your words are italicised. This is the way I format all of my debates, and all the previous rounds of this debate.Unfortunately, I have reached the character limit. If some portions of your arguments are missing, I apologize. I have responded to the full argument.