The Instigator
Mr.Infidel
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
WriterSelbe
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Eucharist Becomes the "Real Presence" the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Mr.Infidel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,165 times Debate No: 20448
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (6)

 

Mr.Infidel

Pro

Resolution

The Eucharist Becomes the "Real Presence" the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as the Catholic church teaches.

Clarification

Please note that I do not believe in Catholicism or Christianity. I do, however, believe that the Catholic's interpretation is correct according to the New Testament. This debate pre-assumes that Christianity in some form is correct.

We will be debating the doctrine of transubstantiation in which I am pro.

Structure
  1. Acceptance
  2. Opening arguments
  3. Rebuttals
  4. Rebuttals
  5. Closing

Good luck

:-)
WriterSelbe

Con

Seeing as the first round is for acceptance, I wish for a great debate and urge my opponent to dissect the resolution and fully define his terms for it in the next round so that I might debate it correctly.
Debate Round No. 1
Mr.Infidel

Pro

I thank my partner for accepting this debate and look forward to a lively debate. I wish to remind my partner and the readers that this debate pre-assums that Christianity is true.

Definitions

Transubstantiation is the teaching that the bread and wine literally becomes the flesh and blood of Christ. [1]

Verses in question

1 Cor 11:23-29 "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself." [2]


C1: The early church fathers understood the eucharist to be literal

1) St. St. Irenaeus of Lyons
There are three sources which confirm that St. Irenaeus understood a literalship of the eucharist. The first is his famous essay Against Heresies which he wrote in the year 180 C.E.

[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." [3]

2) Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr, Apology, I.66-67, 2nd century:

Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ

It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, ``Do this in memory of me, this is my body.' Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ``This is my blood', and he gave it to them alone. [4]

C2: The original listeners understood Jesus to be literal

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, yet have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living father has sent me, and I live by the Father: so he taht eateth me, even he shall live by this bread shall live forever....Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmered at it, he said unto them, Does this offend you?...From that time many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him." -John 6:53-65

This is an interesting anecdote that happened in Jesus' life. I wish to draw some observations from the passage:
  1. Many were offended
  2. Jesus said that "whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood has eternal life."
  3. Jesus did NOT correct those who walked away.
  4. Many people left the disciplehood of Jesus.
It is quite unusual that Jesus would not have corrected those who walked away. Why didn't Jesus respond something like "Hey, wait a minute! I'm just being figurative! Come back ya suckers!" Normally, Jesus DOES correct those who misunderstand him--yet not in this case which should cause us to stop and wonder if Jesus is indeed literal.

I look forward to your reply. Good luck :-)

Source

1. http://christianity.about.com...;

2. See also Mt 26:26-28; Lk 22:15-20; and Jn 6:51-56

3. St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D. Quoted http://www.therealpresence.org...;

4. Justin Martyr, Apology, I.66-67, 2nd century. Quoted: http://www.columbia.edu...;
WriterSelbe

Con

I thank my opponent for his response. I am familiar with the term transubstantiation, though what will be debated here is whether or not it is the real presence. Therefore, real presence being within quotations makes the debate topic a bit more questionable.

Because my opponent offers scriptural evidence, I could simply offer a Protestant quote from the Bible providing that the Eucharist is not the real presence of Christ and only a figurative sense. However, debating one religion against another is impractical. Thus, the only way my opponent can win is by offering scientific evidence stating that there is real human blood in the wine at Mass and that the bread truly becomes the flesh of a human. Then, my opponent must provide scientific evidence proving that the bread and wine have become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ particularly.

I with-hold any other arguments until my opponent succeeds in offering the evidence I call for.
Debate Round No. 2
Mr.Infidel

Pro

My partner does not refute anything of what I say. Likewise, my partner completely ignores round 1 "This debate pre-assumes that Christianity in some form is correct." Hence, the syllogism is as follows:

(1) If Christianity is correct, then transubstantiation is correct.
(2) Christianity is correct (as pre-assumed by round 1).
(3) Therefore, transubstantiation is correct.

We know p1 is true because Christianity teaches it to be true as my partner concedes.

Please vote affirmative.

WriterSelbe

Con

Firstly, I would like to state that simply changing the resolution within the debate in the way that my opponent did cannot be done. The resolution did not state: "Pre-assuming Christianity is correct, the Eucharist becomes the 'real presence' of Christ," and even if it had, Christianity only pertains to religions believing in Christ, not transubstantiation. Thus, I could simply refute by citing Scriptural Protestant beliefs. Because debating one religion's text against another is impractical, we cannot look to Biblical evidence or religious evidence. So, my opponent must provide factual evidence, and seeing as he did not, I am already winning this debate.

Again, adding a tag to the resolution mid-round proves nothing. In fact, it completely muddles the debate and makes it more difficult for the two of us.

And the syllogism, as any religiously educated person would notice, is entirely wrong. Comparing Protestant beliefs to Catholic beliefs disproves my opponent, and both are Christian religions.

My opponent neglects to provide factual evidence, so we can assume he has none. Because he has acquired the burden of providing evidence and hasn't, I am currently winning this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
Mr.Infidel

Pro

  1. If Christianity teaches transubstantiation, then transubstantiation is true.
  2. Christianity teaches transubstantiation.
  3. Therefore, transubstantiation is true.

My partner yet again shows that he has no understanding of how this debate works. By accepting this debate, he has conceded that Christianity is correct. If my partner wishes to argue from a protesant perspective, then he certainly can.

Please vote affirmative as my arguments still stand.

WriterSelbe

Con

Again, my opponent says that by accepting this debate on concedes Christianity is true, however the resolution does not state so. Also, even assuming that Christianity is true, that would mean that every denomination of Christianity is entirely correct, which would completely muddle the debate and make it useless. Protestantism:

The Protestant movement began to coalesce into several distinct branches in the mid-to-late 16th century. One of the central points of divergence was controversy over the Lord's Supper. Early Protestants rejected the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation, which teaches that the bread and wine used in the sacrificial rite of the Mass lose their natural substance by being transformed into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. They disagreed with one another concerning the presence of Christ and his body and blood in Holy Communion.

Saying that Christianity is correct is saying that transubstantiation is true and that transubstantiation is untrue. Even assuming Christianity is true, which you would have to prove or put in the resolution before the instigation of the debate, you prove nothing. The only way this debate can go in your favor is by you providing factual evidence that the bread becomes human flesh and the wine becomes human blood, then you must provide that the blood is that of Jesus Christ.

My opponent again only provides his faulty statement that he is right because this debate means acceptance that Christianity is correct. He refutes none of my arguments while I refute all of his, and he ignores the burden of evidence that he must provide. Thus, the only way this debate can go is to the negative.



http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
Mr.Infidel

Pro

My partner refutes NONE of my arguments and instead relies on an appeal to authority.

VOTE AFFIRMATIVE! I have shown SCRIPTURAL evidence and evidence that the early listeners UNDERSTOOD Jesus to be literal--my partner shown NONE of those.

WriterSelbe

Con

My opponent has wasted his final round and instead of having providing the evidence his burden calls for, he urged an affirmative vote. Thus, seeing as I have disproved him and he has neglected to provide the only evidence that could have lead to his winning the debate, I am winning. Early listeners believing it to be literal doesn't make it real. Believing unicorns are real doesn't make them real. What must be provided in order for consideration of the existence of unicorns is factual evidence, not providing of text out of a storybook that hasn't been proven true. My opponent needed facts, and he didn't provide them. My opponent went the whole debate refusing to lift his own burden, thus I have won.

Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
It appears that, as con predicted, I am seriously loosing this debate. Good job con!
Posted by Zbot 5 years ago
Zbot
I would like to see this debate topic given the due attention that it merits instead of stalling on technicalities! It's such an interesting topic...
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
I am sad Con did not even debate.

@Mr. Infidel,
I found both arguments to be very weak and easily refuted. I would say both early church fathers, DO hold more weight than the protestant movement easily.
But, I read those quotations and could easily walk away thinking they held the symbolism to be in high honor and not necessarily a "real mystical presence".

The second argument of the abstract from scripture, I think the reaction would have been equal if Jesus meant it literally or not. It is apparent they took it literally but this does not indicate either way to what Jesus meant by it.

Both of those arguments stand refuted to my mind. They could both be correct but there is no way to tell from the text themselves.

I would also point out for my spiritual life and discussions with God that:

1. God has not told me hurry get to a Priest and take communion with HIM!
2. Dark night of the soul in which many saints undergo indicate no special presence in the eucharist.
3. That even if at one time the ceremony did indeed invoke the real presence what is to ensure it would remain until today?
4. Finally, would it not be highly likely that if the real presence was invoked, a level of purity and holiness would be mandated by God for the invocation to actually take place? In other words, would it not require a holy and obedient Priest?

There are many questions that these arguments did not solve, though sadly Con never called them out.

Just some thoughts sir!
Posted by Flame 5 years ago
Flame
That sux, took my suggestion, but I wanted the debate. Would nice to give me credit for the title too.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Thanks. Gileandos, may I ask your opinion on this subject?
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
I am very interested in seeing the outcome.
I am curious to see how someone can argue the reality of a mystical presence.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Fame, done!
Posted by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
yes, I do mean transubstantiation
Posted by Zbot 5 years ago
Zbot
Do you mean correct in terms of their doctrine of transubstantiation?
Posted by Flame 5 years ago
Flame
Also, you might want to provide definitions before any acceptance for the debate. It would make sense if anyone who takes the debate would agree, disagree or suggest an addition. I might take it if you change the title to the one I suggested and providing the definitions.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Mr.InfidelWriterSelbeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Not even close. Con did not respond to any of Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 5 years ago
Buckethead31594
Mr.InfidelWriterSelbeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not refute Pro's arguments. It's unanimous.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Mr.InfidelWriterSelbeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Sad....Con did not understand that there are rules for a debate outside of the resolution and wasted the entire debate ignoring the rule : "This debate pre-assumes that Christianity in some form is correct" and thus her claim that Pro must offer scientific evidence is false. Moreover, simply providing a contrary verse from the Protestant creed is not sufficient; Con should have debated Pro simply on the verses of the scripture provided and note whether Christ's sayings is literal or not.
Vote Placed by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
Mr.InfidelWriterSelbeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not stay legitmate to the debate. Very saddened that none of Pro's affirmative arguments went refuted and merely said "protestants are right". Dissappointing.
Vote Placed by debateme 5 years ago
debateme
Mr.InfidelWriterSelbeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made arguments that Con, through poor conduct, ended up not refuting. Pro also was the only one who sourced correctly
Vote Placed by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
Mr.InfidelWriterSelbeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's tactics are in poor taste. Pro clearly stated, "We will be debating the doctrine of transubstantiation." This means it was a debate on whether or not the Bible teaches that transubstantiation is true. Conduct, argument and sources (since Con didn't see fit to actually site anything) to Pro.