Transubstantiation

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?"