Transubstantiation

I shall continue my response here. PRO SAID: "Con fails to mention that substance is not very difficult to determine. I'll give an example: If someone looks out of his window at a ski lodge and state that "Snow is white," he would be attempting to define snow's accidents, that an attribute (color) is present in a substance (snow). However, if he is to walk along a path, and find some yellow snow, he would come to the conclusion that snow is yellow. The substance remains the same, but the accidents have changed. This is simply one example of how substance is separate from accidents. " MY RESPONSE: Pro’s analogy fails because it confuses the categories. Pro assumes that one can see that snow is snow even if it is yellow, however Pro never explained how he would be able to determine that what he saw outside of his lodge was indeed snow. 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, but I will take his analogy further. Let us suppose Pro went outside and picked up a lump and held it in his hands and observed the coldness and texture of the snow. Let’s go even to the extreme of placing it under the microscope and observing the structure of the molecules which indicate that it is snow. Is that enough? Certainly not. 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. Therefore, Pro’s analogy fails. Likewise, he cannot be guaranteed that what he observes of the printed ink on the manuscript parchments matches the substance. If one were to grant Pro’s analogy, whereby observance would be enough to determine the substance, then we can conclude on this failed criteria, that the substance doesn’t change because all observation points to the wine remaining as wine. Such a criteria disproves Pro’s entire thesis. PRO SAID: “See above. Although we can only sense the accidents of the Bible, we can know the substance from Divine insperation. ” MY RESPONSE: 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. PRO SAID: “I won't be overturning substance theory in this debate, and I've shown how I can provide evidence from the Bible without overturning substance theory. ” MY RESPONSE: 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. PRO QUOTED: Mark 14:22-24 once again. MY RESPONSE: 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. PRO SAID: “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. If this is not enough, in John's Gospel, which you have affirmed to be true, confirms the transubstantiation in 5 different statements:” MY RESPONSE: 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. PRO QUOTED: John 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. " MY RESPONSE: In this verses Jesus says He is the living bread. There are a multitude of problems with my opponent appealing to this verse: 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. Catholics do not believe that partaking of the flesh of Christ gives someone eternal life. The context of this verse actually defines that eating is simply believing in Christ. Upon digestion, the substance dissipates and the presence of Christ is lost. This is taught in the Roman Catholic Catechism, paragraph 1377 which states, “The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ. ” 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. "Created by a priest and destroyed by digestion. .. The Roman Catholic Catechism, paragraph 1389 states: “The Church obliges the faithful to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season. But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily. ” As per point 5 above, Christ would remain in the person’s body until digestion is completed in an estimated time of fifteen minutes. Fifteen minutes out of a whole year certainly does not indicate the eternal life that this verse speaks of. 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. No accidents/substance distinction mentioned. No changing of one substance into another. PRO QUOTED: John 6:53 "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. " MY RESPONSE: This verse 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”. In Canon II, Trent stated, “if any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be anathema. ” Ironically, Jesus is the one who spoke these very words. Using this as a proof-text for transubstantiation would place Jesus under the anathema of the Council of Trent. No accidents/substance distinction mentioned. No changing of one substance into another. PRO QUOTED: John 6:54 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. " MY RESPONSE: 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. PRO QUOTED: John 6:55 "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. " MY RESPONSE: See John 15:1. Is Jesus a plant now? No accidents/substance distinction mentioned. No changing of one substance into another. PRO QUOTED: John 6:56 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. " MY RESPONSE: The Roman Catholic Church does NOT believe that Christ remains in that person. After approximately fifteen minutes, the presence is lost. Again, No accidents/substance distinction mentioned. No changing of one substance into another. PRO SAID: This is all in the Gospel, Con. Jesus seems to make it quite clear when he says that his flesh is "true food" and his blood is "true drink. " MY RESPONSE: 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. PRO QUOTED ME: “F) Transubstantiation violates the law of identity. “ AND SAID: “That would be true, if, of course, substance theory is incorrect. However, as I have demonstrated, the accidents of an object do not necessarily reflect its substance. Note, I am not contradicting myself. The accidents and substance of the Bible line up because of Divine inspiration, something that both Con and I stipulate is true in the scriptures. ” MY RESPONSE: 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? PRO SAID: “First off, why is this in quotation marks? Did you quote this from someone else? If so, could you credit him/her? ” MY RESPONSE: They were my own words. It was a simple formatting typo on my part. What you will notice however, is that 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. I look forward to my opponent’s response.