At the Last Supper Christ instituted the Eucharist as Catholics understand it

Before moving to the case, I will briefly address a new paradigm through which my opponent has framed many of his last round’s arguments. He has argued that unless something is found in sacred Scripture we cannot believe it. However, this is a major disagreement between Catholics and Protestants and should have been brought up earlier in the debate if he intended it to be a deciding factor. One reason Catholics do not accept this teaching is that the Bible itself never teaches it (thus the argument contradicts itself). Instead we have passages like John 20:30-31 which seem to suggest that there was more to what Christ taught than is in the Bible. Contention 1: The Last Supper I say why would you believe something that is not found in scripture and you don’t even understand? I believe and understand the nature of the Trinity, but I also believe in gravity because it can be explained and demonstrated. Firstly, the fact that the bread and wine is really Christ’s body and blood is found in Scripture, especially in John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11. The full explanation of transubstantiation is not in Scripture because the authors believed it to be a complication which would detract from their message and which they knew the Church could teach orally just as well. Just as my opponent understands the Trinity, so do I understand the Eucharist. My point was that it is outside of our normal human experience so it seems strange especially to non-Catholics, just like the teaching of the Trinity doesn’t make sense to non-Christians. According to my opponent’s logic as presented in round two, if Christ did not say that He is speaking figuratively then He’s not. My opponent is putting words in my mouth. My past argument has always been that we can indeed take Christ’s words figuratively if there is a good reason to do so. In the Last Supper case there is no good reason to take Christ’s words figuratively in light of John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11. The fact that the Old Testament says not to consume flesh tells us that he was speaking figuratively here. As I have shown (and will show under Contention 2), this Old Testament teaching would not apply to consuming Christ under the appearances of bread and wine. Contention 2: John 6 My opponent’s arguments under this contention have been that it is impossible that Christ could have given us his flesh and blood to eat without breaking Jewish law. If I can prove that it was possible that Christ was teaching that the disciples must eat his flesh and blood, then there will be no compelling reason left to believe that the verses like, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” were meant to be figurative. My opponent has agreed to the claim that consumption of the Eucharist is cannibalism. Sure. But this does not prove any of my opponent’s points since it is a unique cannibalism which would not have fallen under the restrictions intended by the authors of Jewish Law (especially God). My opponent uses an example that does not pertain to the original question… My opponent is now forming non-Biblical theology to support his side. Actually my example of the statues does pertain to this argument, because it shows that exceptions were made to Jewish law in special circumstances, and the Eucharist is a very unique and special circumstance. Thus, it is quite possible that Christ really wanted them to eat his flesh and blood under the appearances of bread and wine. I showed earlier that every Christian belief does not need to be spelled out word for word in the Bible as long as it does not contradict the Bible. Who says it’s a mistake? It is my opponent’s opinion that Jesus could have never said something in a way that would cause people to be misled. If you look at the life of Jesus, He constantly speaks in parables so that the Pharisees would not understand Him. Every verse of the Bible is inspired and was put in its place for a reason. The fact that John emphasizes that many disciples left Christ at this point shows that something significant happened to turn them off. A simple misunderstanding of a parable is not significant, but the teaching that Christ’s flesh and blood is edible is very stunning. Also, Christ spoke in parables, not solely to confuse people, but because human minds understand heavenly things best when they are closely associated with earthly things. The only good explanation of why his disciples left him was that they refused to accept a teaching as dramatic as eating Christ’s flesh and blood. Contention 3: 1 Corinthians 11 This verse is more than a reference to the Last Supper. Paul says, “So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. ” He is specifically emphasizing that the Eucharistic bread and wine are really flesh and blood. Contention 1: Jesus Speaks of the Spirit P1: My opponent has agreed that the actual process of transubstantiation is not Biblically described. Yes, but transubstantiation is the only way to explain John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11 P2: He has changed his terms for acceptance of evidence for figurative literature. We can see that because we Christ speaks figuratively in this case, He could have been speaking in a figurative way during the Last Supper as well. All along I have held the same position that we should take Christ’s words literally unless there is a good reason to take them figuratively. My opponent’s argument here does not stand unless he can first refute my contentions 2 and 3 which argue that there is stronger Biblical evidence for Christ having spoken literally at the Last Supper. P3: For the third point I questioned my opponent on his interpretation of a verse, because if we follow his interpretation, then Christ was speaking literally about speaking literally. My opponent must have made a mistake, because in the previous round he said ‘speaking figuratively about speaking figuratively’ which was the question I tried to answer. Yes, Christ is saying literally that he meant what he said in the verse in question. P4: Yes, however what was poured out to forgive sins, the wine or Jesus’ blood on the day of His crucifixion… Jesus refers to the contents as wine, then as His blood, then as wine again. The wine is Christ’s blood (not a duplicate, but his genuine blood), so it is the very blood poured out on the cross. Christ refers to the contents as wine (since it was wine before transubstantiation), then as his blood (after the change). The final reference to wine was not referring to the cup of blood in his hands, but to actual wine he would be drinking in the future. I say that he was referring to His crucifixion that was about to occur, and my opponent has agreed with me to that fact. I have agreed that there was a reference to the crucifixion, but the verse also says that the bread is flesh and wine is blood. I believe that I have won this round because I have given Biblical arguments showing that Christ was not speaking figuratively at the Last Supper while my opponent’s few biblical arguments do not contradict Catholic teaching as my opponent claims. My opponent has made several statements in this debate, which he has later retracted. I have never changed or retracted a statement in this debate as I hope I have made perfectly clear. The only confusion has been misinterpretations of my arguments by my opponent. My opponent has admitted to many of claims throughout the course of this debate. Yes, I have agreed to the claims which are consistent with Catholic teaching and disputed the ones which are not. I look forward to my opponent’s final round.