The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is false

IntroductionFor the most part Pros arguments are straw man arguments because his arguments are not what the Catholic Church teaches about Transubstantiation.From the Baltimore Catechism 884. After the substance of the bread and wine had been changed into the substance of the body and blood of Our Lord, there remained only the appearances of bread and wine. [1]885. By the appearances of bread and wine I mean the figure, the color, the taste, and whatever appears to the senses. [1]And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in the Summa Theologica:The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority. [2]So the Catholic Church does not teach that the Eucharist becomes in any way discernibly different to the senses. But it teaches that what it truly is has changed.As an (imperfect) analogy I have red, white and blue silk. Now I weave it it into a flag with stars and stripes and it has become something completely different. Yet to those who have no idea of its true nature it is just silk threads. They have the same chemistry and properties, yet now it is something that some people would die for, while still being the same fabric that it always was. That is because its "substance" has changed, but its "appearance" hasn't.In the Jewish Passover meal you had to eat the sacrificed lamb with unleavened bread, [3] as Christ's covenant is the perfection of the old Christians have to eat the body of the sacrificed lamb. Through God the unleavened bread of the Eucharist is truly the Lamb of God.Finally God is not bounded by time or space. As the Catholic concept of God is that he created space and time [4] thus all of history is in the present to God. Christ instituted the Eucharist by saying this is my body, this is my blood. The priest is in "Persona Christi" at mass because Christ gave his authority to the Apostles and through them to their successors. So when the priest repeats the words of consecration, they are simultaneously linked, by Christ's own authority, through time and space to Christ own words and his sacrifice on the cross. Thus it is the true flesh and blood of Christ, presented in an unbloody manner.This is what the Catholic Church teaches and what Pro has the burden of disproving.Rebuttals1. Rearrangement of parts. As previously noted this is a straw man attack. The Church teaches that while the bread and wine do become the body and blood of Christ, it maintains that the physical nature in which this is veiled still appears in every physical manner to be bread and wine.2. Flesh ex nihiloEssentially the Church teaches that the true "substance" of the bread is replaced with the true substance of "Christ".Con is arguing that this means that the Eucharist is a replica of Jesus. Yet as shown earlier the Church does not teach this. The Christian notion of God is that he is omnipresent. However, for our benefit he makes himself present in the Eucharist in a very real and tangible way. For God, this happens simultaneously with the sacrifice at Calvary. It is only for us that it happens at discreet moments in time. Thus to us it appears to come into being, but to God it happens simultaneously throughout history.3. Conservation of MassCon argues that there just isn't enough Jesus to go around. He fails to understand Catholic teaching on the topic. In the Gospel of John there is no discourse on the Last Supper. That is because John discusses the Eucharist in the feeding of 5000.Jesus told the apostles to feed the people themselves - just as the Catholic priests feed the multitudes. He then turned 5 loaves and 2 fishes into enough to feed the multitude. After this he tells the apostles to "Gather up the leftover fragments so that nothing will be lost." This is just what Catholics do with the precious crumbs of the Eucharist. If Christ is able to feed 5000 on a couple of fish and a few small loaves of bread, while having more left than he began with, then he is obviously capable of sharing his flesh with the whole world.4. PropertiesI have already addressed this argument in my opening statement, however since I have some space left I'll answer this using another analogy:Imagine that we have a person in a hospital bed all hooked up to a bunch of life support machines. We can all agree that he is a person. Now let's suppose that something happens and he is now brain dead, but all the machines are still running keeping all of his physical attributes fully functioning.His "appearance" is the same, the body will still bleed if you prick it and the blood will continue to move oxygen and whatnot around his body, but his "substance" has changed. It is no longer a person, it is just a body.Let's take this argument further. Imagine that a supercomputer has been built into which the person could transfer his consciousness. The supercomputer would go from just a machine into being a person. And yet there would be no discernible difference to observation. It is just another machine running a program.Now, if that supercomputer is able to reach out to all the computers around the world, one person could simultaneously be in a virtually infinite* number of places.While this analogy is not perfect it provides consistency with my arguments.ConclusionI believe that, since Pro has accepted full burden of proof for this debate, he must disprove the Catholic understanding of God to win this debate. The Catholic teaching on transubstantiation is intricately linked to the Catholic understanding of God (as limited as God can be understood). Thus he must show that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God is incapable of making himself truly present in the Eucharist.I look forward to Pro's arguments.[1] http://www.baltimore-catechism.com... [2] http://www.newadvent.org...[3] http://biblehub.com...[4] http://www.newadvent.org... * not infinite - just millions of places.