Transubstantiation

I appreciate the time taken to give an overview of your position regarding the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Before I press forward with my rebuttal, I wish to address a misunderstanding on my opponent’s part. Pro, you stated the following, “Sorry if my argument is shorter than normal, I have been told by Con to keep it short "as to not bore the readers," so I will conclude here. ” I wish to make it very clear that I did not explicitly or implicitly state that Pro needs to keep it short so as not to bore the readers. I would invite Pro to quote my words that gave such an impression. I do not believe they are to be found within my opening statement or invitation to debate. However, as an act of goodwill, I am happy to forfeit a round if Pro desires, so as to give him a chance to give a fuller opening statement as well as rebuttal. It is not my desire at all to make Pro feel uncomfortable. I encourage as much as possible for Pro to use the maximum allowed characters, as well the free round if he so desires. Pro, please do indicate whether or not you would like to have the free round at my willing expense. What the readers will notice when reading through my opening statement, is that I highlighted the limitations of my opponent’s position on transubstantiation. Namely, that holding transubstantiation to be true presupposes a necessary dichotomy of accidents and substance. Since the theory demonstrates that the accidents of a thing (e. g. appearance, smell, taste, etc does not depend upon the substance and can be different from it, just as wine is different from blood, so a page of scripture could be totally different in substance from what can be seen with the eye. The same would apply to documents from tradition, including papal bulls, encyclicals, papal decrees, etc. My opponent, in keeping with substance theory would not be in a position to mount a case from texts whose substance could be completely different. With that in mind, it should be clear to my opponent and our fellow readers, that I was not asking Pro to keep his presentation brief, but simply consistent to the presuppositions which he operates under. Having clarified the issue of brevity vs consistency, I would now like to briefly outline my own presuppositions for the benefit of my opponent, who can in turn nuance his responses according to my worldview. I am a non-denominational Christian who believes in the Divine inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. I believe that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Divine Trinity, God manifested in the flesh who came to the earth as a man, lived a human life and suffered upon the cross for the forgiveness of our sins and our redemption, and rose from the dead on the third day. I believe that the bible is the sole infallible rule of faith, and that apart from Christ, no man shall be saved. With the above-mentioned points as a preface of sorts, I now turn my attention to the points raised in my opponent’s Opening Statement. I pray that the Lord grants me to be accurate in my representation of materials covered and respectful in my conduct as 1 Peter 3:15 commands those who seek to give an answer for the faith. PRO SAID: “1) The Bible clearly states that Transubstantiation is true. ” MY RESPONSE: As I mentioned in my opening statement, at best, my opponent can only appeal to the accidents of scripture, and have no more certainty of the substance of scripture, than one could have of something being wine or blood simply by looking at it. Therefore, while both my opponent and I believe the bible to be true, it is the non-Catholic position that is consistent with an approach to appeal to what is written, since no distinction or separation of accidents and substance is presupposed. For the sake of the readers who would like to see some interaction with the materials raised by my opponent, I will entertain such appeals, but nevertheless call my opponent to consistency with substance theory that he holds to. PRO CONTINUED: “For that to be the case, it will be necessary to see - Paul's Eucharistic teachings in 1 Corithians clearly state the peramiters of transubstantiation. ” And then proceeded to quote from 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 MY RESPONSE: Firstly, the parameters of transubstantiation are not specified in this passage of scripture. There is no reference to accidents/appearance vs substance. Secondly, since transubstantiation holds to the termination of bread and wine’s existence following the words of consecration, there would be no “bread” to eat, only flesh, yet the passage in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 speaks of eating bread. Thirdly, if we ignore point 1 and 2, there is yet another problem – If Christ is being offered via transubstantiation, this Christ is being offered by another Christ, namely the one speaking with His disciples. That means there are two Christs. The problem is then compounded when the wine is offered, because you then have a third Christ, namely the Christ under the wine-like accidents. PRO SAID: ‘This leaves us without doubt that the substance of the bread and wine has changed, seen when Paul states that a person who "eats and drinks without recongnizing the body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. " ‘ MY RESPONSE: Interestingly, the verb attached to “body” is recognizing, while the verb attached to bread is eating. If my opponent truly wishes to be literal about this, he will concede that transubstantiation is not spoken of here, since transubstantiation teaches that there is no more bread left to eat. PRO SAID: ‘In the previous chapter of Corithians, Paul also tells us of what the bread and wine become. " And quotes 1 Corinthians 11:16. MY RESPONSE: I believe my opponent, Pro intended to say 1 Corinthians 10:16. Under the transubstantiation position, there is no fellowship. Because the bread that is broken is NOT the fellowship or communion. The bread is nothing because it no longer exists. PRO SAID: ‘The only possible meaning is that the bread and wine at the consecration become Christ's actual body and blood. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so. ‘ MY RESPONSE: That negates the function and use of metaphorical devices. For example, for someone to say: The boy was a ravenous wolf at the picnic does not mean that he was a literal wolf, but uses the term for effect, just as is the case with the Lord referring to the emblems metaphorically by saying this {bread} is my body]. This is strengthened by the fact that the sentence becomes grammatically impossible where the subject being bread at the time of speaking before completion is said to be bread and the body after the words of consecration are completed. In other words This (bread) is my body (flesh). Literally it would mean then that one substance is the same as another substance. That bread is equal to flesh. PRO SAID: “Jesus himself tells us in the Gospels of communion in the Last Supper. ” And then quotes Mark 14:22-24. MY RESPONSE: Again what is “this” referring to? It can’t be flesh because the consecration hadn’t been completed yet. It must be bread, because change had yet occurred. Yet what happens when the bread is destroyed? If would render the flesh as being equal to “nothing” since up to the completion of the words of consecration the bread is destroyed, i. e. the bread (which is nothing) is my body. PRO QUOTED: Matthew 26:26-28. MY RESPONSE: Which blood was shed? Jesus’ pre-resurrection carnal blood or post-resurrection glorified blood? The former cannot be present in multiple places and times. The latter was not shed on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. Pro then gave a syllogism, of which I only accept the first premise. The second premise has not been established and the conclusion therefore does not follow.