Transubstantiation

We commence the final round. PRO SAID: “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. ” MY RESPONSE: CONTRADICTION 1: You say that transubstantiation is instantaneous yet the exact moment cannot be pinpointed. Instantaneous implies a specific point in time. Consecration takes place once the priest has completed speaking the words “Hoc est corpus meum” [CCC, Paragraph 1377]. PRO SAID: “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. ” MY RESPONSE: CONTRADICTION 2: You conceded that you don’t know what happens at the level of substance, only accidents, but now claim that you can that a substance doesn’t change when a dye is applied. CONTRADICTION 3: You state that there is no change of substance, yet you then introduce a new substance, namely the dye. CONTRADICTION 4: You conceded that you don’t know what happens at a substance level, yet claim that if accidents can change while a substance remains the same, so accidents can remain the same while a substance changes. PRO SAID: “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. ” MY RESPONSE: CONTRADICTION 5: You first claimed that the purpose of the analogy was to show it’s easy to tell the difference between accidents and substance, yet now you say the purpose was to show your physical senses were different yet the substance (which you cannot detect) had not changed. PRO SAID: “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. ” MY RESPONSE: CONTRADICTION 6: You speak of smell, taste which are the same as wine, which is a substance. How can something “smell or taste like wine”? If wine is a substance and not an accident, then it does not have its own intrinsic smell or taste. PRO SAID: “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? ” MY RESPONSE: CONTRADICTION 7: You imply I can’t speak of the Eucharist as being Divinely Inspired because Christ is the Eucharist, yet you then say that Jesus is present in the Eucharist which would mean that Jesus is present in the Christ. I find it odd that my opponent would question the idea that Jesus is divinely inspired. 2 Peter 1:21 states men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Did Jesus spoke from God (John 14:24) while being carried along by the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:18-21)? Aside from this, my opponent cannot justify applying accidents and substance to the Eucharist but not to the scriptures that he reads with his eyes. PRO SAID: “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. ” MY RESPONSE: Your analogy was to explain how it is easy to tell the difference between accidents and substance. The fatal flaw was at the very beginning when talking about looking outside one’s lodge window and seeing snow. One does not see a substance according to substance theory. You can only see accidents. Hence why you conceded your senses cannot detect substances therefore it is not easy to detect the difference between accidents and substance. PRO SAID: “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. "” MY RESPONSE: You have explained your thesis, but failed to prove it from the text. Nowhere is the word substance stated by Jesus. This is just like in John 15:1 where Jesus does not state that his substance is that of a vine, even though He calls Himself the true vine. You said this is obviously a metaphor. Simply stating someone is a thing therefore does not mean that they are literally that thing. Here is a timeline: 1. Jesus lifts up the bread. [substance 1 = bread, substance 2 = doesn’t exist] 2. Jesus says “This” [substance 1 = bread], substance 2 = doesn’t exist] 3. Jesus says “is” [substance 1 = bread], substance 2 = doesn’t exist] 4. Jesus says “my” [substance 1 = bread], substance 2 = doesn’t exist] 5. Jesus says “body” [substance 1 = nothing], substance 2 = body] “This is my body” Translates as: substance 1 = substance 2. Which results in the following: “nothing is my body” PRO CONCEDES: “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. ” MY RESPONSE: Your statement Jesus says that this wine becomes "the blood of the new covenant. "fails to show the word “become” in the text because it is not there. Your statement: “He calls them bread and wine, but then states that their substance is his body and his blood. ” fails to show the word “substance” because it isn’t there. You’ve jumped over to another point where Jesus speaks of needing to eat His flesh and drink His blood and then tried to import transubstantiation into there. As I’ve already said, Rome has stated that only eating was required. Why stop there? If you’re going to be literal, go the whole way and include drinking as mandatory. Secondly, even if one were to hold to a literal interpretation, which is impossible given the reasons already stated, it would still not prove transubstantiation. Lutherans hold to consubstantiation. Eastern Orthodox hold to real presence but do not go so far as to state that transubstantiation has occurred. They simply say it is a mystery. PRO ARGUES: 1. Jesus calling Himself a TRUE vine must be metaphorical because His followers don’t question Him. 2. By contrast the Jews argue when He speaks of eating His flesh. 3. He does not give them an alternative explanation. 4. He follows it up by calling His flesh true food. 1. Using the modifier “true” then does not make something literal. That negates point 4. All you have then is point 2 and 3 where the Jews argue and He doesn’t give an alternative explanation. We see that Jesus does not explain Himself to the crowd when He says that if they strike down the temple, He will raise it up in three days. It is the author of the gospel, not Jesus, who tells us that what He meant was His body. PRO ARGUES: Partaking in Communion requires for one to believe a) that Jesus died upon the cross for our sins, b) the Eucharist is truly Jesus' body and blood, and c) to submit him or herself fully to God. Is this not what is necessary for salvation? MY RESPONSE: You can talk about what partaking in communion requires a person to believe, but it doesn’t negate the fact that the eating and drinking itself do not result in eternal life from the Catholic Perspective. PRO SAID: “But presuppositions are required for this eating to mean anything. ” And the Catholic presupposition is that eating = eating literal flesh, and drink = drinking literal blood. After the time of digestion, this eternal life dissipates. PRO SAID: “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. ” MY RESPONSE: "One who creates is greater than that which is created. You cannot get around it. ” PRO ARGUED: “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. ” MY RESPONSE: Jesus says whoever eats and drinks HAS eternal life. The Greek word O56;χει is in the 3rd person singular present form of ^1;χω. That means it is speaking of a present condition, not merely a future expectation. JOHN 17:16 says that the believers are also not of this world. That doesn’t mean they are not presently on the earth. Luke 11:20 Shows that the Kingdom of God is already present on the Earth in Jesus Christ. PRO MISUNDERSTOOD: My argument about the Church withholding the cup from the Laity, showing that the Rome’s literal interpretation of John 6:53 is a myth. PRO CONCEDED: That truthless truth is self-deprecating, yet brushed it aside as irrelevant. It is certainly not irrelevant, because bloodless blood is self-deprecating also, which renders transubstantiation in violation of the law of identity. In conclusion, transubstantiation is built upon a theory my opponent concedes leads to ignorance of the reality of things. Yet he attempted to build his entire case on it. He did not disprove competing literal positions such as consubstantiation, used a failed analogy, multiple contradictions, fallacies and inconsistencies. Yet in spite of this, I thank my opponent for his willing participation in this debate. Christ has died, risen and is truly worthy of our remembrance and worship. Soli Deo Gloria! To God alone be the Glory!