The Instigator
RoyalSon
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
David_Debates
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Transubstantiation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 732 times Debate No: 97594
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

RoyalSon

Con

This is a reinstating of my debate with David_Debates on the Subject of Transubstantiation at his request.

David ran out of time and forfeited his round as a result. Wanting to ensure that the debate continues in the spirit of goodwill, I am giving him the opportunity to continue where we left off. The original version can be found at:

http://www.debate.org...



I shall copy and paste rounds from the original interaction. However, I will post his definition of transubstantiation which I accept as the definition that is implied throughout the debate.

I have also extended the turnaround time from 24 hours to 48 hours so as to accommodate my opponent's time limitations, as he struggled to meet the deadline for his rebuttal on Round 3 previously. The Maximum Characters has also been extended to 10,000 characters, as my opponent somehow thought that I wanted him to keep his posts brief so as not to bore the readers. This was factually incorrect as people will discover by reading the original interaction at http://www.debate.org...

NOTE TO MY OPPONENT:

Please copy/paste your original opening statement. I will then post my original first rebuttal after which you can post your rebuttal. From there we will proceed. Any desire to accept my offer regarding your opening statement can be done after those steps if you so choose. Thank you.

Soli Deo Gloria.


I will refer to David as Pro from now on. He will refer to me as Con.

===============================================
------------ CON: ROUND 1 - CHALLENGE/ACCEPTANCE ------------

I will argue that the Catholic Doctrine of transubstantiation is not a true doctrine.

First round is for acceptance of the debate only.
===============================================

===============================================

------------PRO: ROUND 1 - CHALLENGE/ACCEPTANCE -------------

I gladly accept this challenge, provided I am able to define, seeing that I am Pro.

1) Transubstantiation: the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration, only the appearances of bread and wine still remaining.

I also assume we are accepting the Bible, in its entirety, as a credible and valid source.

Best of luck to my opponent.

===============================================


------------ CON: ROUND 2 - OPENING STATEMENT ------------

===============================================

I. Transubstantiation cannot be demonstrated to be true rationally.

A. Transubstantiation is built upon the foundation of Substance Theory, a platonic concept that everything exists in a dichotomy of accidents and substance. Accidents refer to what appears to be so. Substance refers to what something actually is.

B. Substance theory undermines epistemological certainty and thus puts the Catholic in a dilemma regarding interpretation.
1. A Catholic cannot know if the Scripture they read actually matches in substance with what they read or hear (accidents).
2. A Catholic cannot know if Church Tradition matches in substance what they read or hear (accidents).
3. A Catholic cannot know if patristic writings, papal bulls, or ecumenical decrees match in substance with what they read or hear (accidents).

C. My opponent cannot therefore appeal to verses in the bible, or quotations from the church fathers, ecumenical councils, papal decrees or other ecclesiastical literature which can only be shown via accidents.

D. The only way for my opponent to be able to provide substantial evidence in the debate, is to abandon the Catholic presupposition of substance theory, which would in turn render transubstantiation an invalid doctrine.

E. Catholic doctrine teaches that the accidents remain as bread and wine, yet there is no verse in the gospels that teach that the appearance was different to the substance after the words of consecration.

F. Transubstantiation violates the law of identity.
1. As the Catholic Catechism states - the sacrifice is of unbloody blood.
2. Since the term bloody derives from the substance in question, namely blood - the attribute would denote a self-contradictory term.
3. Bloodiness cannot be defined irrespectively of the substance of blood.

G. The doctrine presupposes the idea that either (a) the accident remaining does not attach itself to the new substance or (b) that it does.
1. If the accident attaches itself to the substance, then the blood is physical as the attribute of physicality is attached to the substance. Since it is physical it cannot be said to be non-physical.
2. If the accident does not attach itself to the substance, then there is (i) A substance without an accident and (ii) An accident without a substance. That would violate the necessary substance/accidents dichotomy presupposed in substance theory which serves as the foundation of transubstantiation, thus proving it to be invalid.
3. Under both 1 and 2, the sacrifice at the mass cannot be said to be a re-presentation of the same sacrifice at calvary, since 1 would be with a physical blood that is not bloody and 2 would be an impossibility.

II. Transubstantiation cannot be demonstrated to be true scripturally.

A. It is not taught in the Gospels.
1. In Matthew 26:29 the cup is referred to as "this fruit of the vine" after the words of consecration.
2. If the Lord"s Supper is a re-presentation of the sacrifice, then there are two Christs. The Christ who is consecrating, and the Christ that is being offered up.
3. Just two verses later, a metaphorical device is used as an interpretation of prophecy, namely that the believers will be scattered as "Sheep of the flock"
4. Jesus refers to the death metaphorically as a cup a further 8 verses later.
5. John 6 is not referring to transubstantiation.

B. It is not taught in the Acts of the Apostles
1. When speaking of the Church"s breaking bread and eating, flesh is not mentioned even once.
2. When speaking of the drinking of blood it always spoken of as a forbiddance. Acts 15:20, 15:29, 21:25.

C. It is not taught in the Epistles
1. 1 Corinthians 11:27 says that the believers are eating bread.
2. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 demonstrate that the believers share one loaf, proving that it has not transubstantiated to be actual flesh.

III. "When my opponent attempts to prepare a rebuttal to my points, it will be by assuming that what is heard matches the substance of my arguments. But how can it be guaranteed that is the case, anymore than bread could be flesh or wine could be blood?"
David_Debates

Pro

Original Opening Statement:

First off, I'll present my argument for transubstantiation in this round. Afterwards, I'll rebut my opponent's arguments in Round 3.

1) The Bible clearly states that Transubstantiation is true.

- Paul's Eucharistic teachings in 1 Corithians clearly state the peramiters of transubstantiation.
"For this is what I received from the Lord and in turn passed on to you: That on the same night as he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, and thanked God for it, and broke it, and he said, 'This is my body which is for you; do this as a memorial of me.' In the same way he took the cup after supper and said, 'This cup is a new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.' Until the Lord comes, therefore, every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming his death. And so anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be behaving unworthily toward the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup, because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the body is eating and drinking his own condemnation" (1 Cor. 11:23-29).

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."

In the previous chapter of Corithians, Paul also tells us of what the bread and wine become.
"The blessing-cup that we bless is a communion with the blood of Christ, and the bread that we break is communion with the body of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:16).

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.

- Jesus himself tells us in the Gospels of communion in the Last Supper.
"And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many" (Mark 14:22-24).

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26:26-28).

Jesus is very clear when he states that the bread is his body, and the wine is his blood. This is not a figure of speech, analogy, etc., instead, it is instruction to his disiples.

2) Transubstanisation makes logical sense.

My opponent has not told me whether or not he accepts the Bible, in its entirety, to be true. However, I assume he stipulates to this, as he has used Bible verses in an attempt to prove his contentions, showing that he is willing to use it as a source. With this in mind, I'll present a logical argument for the doctrine of transubstanisation.

a) The Bible is true (stipulated by Con).

b) The doctrine of transubstanisation is included in the Bible (Argument 1).

c) Therefore, the doctrine of transubstanisation is true.

This is an AAA-1 logical sylogysm. Provided I am able to prove my two premises (a and b), the conclusion must be accepted as true, and you must vote Pro.

Con, your rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
RoyalSon

Con

I would like to thank my opponent Pro, for his opening statement. 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.

I thank Pro and look forward to his response.
David_Debates

Pro

Con has given a brief statement of his presuppositions. I'll go ahead and do the same.

I am a Catholic Christian who believes in Divine inspiration and that one must use both the Bible and the Church to form doctrine. I believe that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man, who came to earth knowing of his purpose to die on the cross, and did so voluntarily. I believe that if one believes this, they will be saved from mortal sin that separates us from God, and be secured salvation in Heaven with God. Apart from belief in Jesus Christ's birth, crucifixion, and resurrection, they may not be saved.

Rebuttal of Con's opening statement:

1) Philosophical argument of Accidents and Substance.

I'll define these two terms, as to not confuse the readers:
a) Substance: the element without which the object would not exist which exists independently from its properties.
b) Accident: (as used in philosophy) An attribute which may or may not belong to a subject, without affecting its essence.

A) Transubstantiation is based upon substance theory.

I agree.

B) Substance theory undermines epistemological certainty and thus puts the Catholic in a dilemma regarding interpretation.

Con fails to mention that substance is not very difficult to determine. I'll give an example:

If someone looks out of his window at a ski lodge and state that "Snow is white," he would be attempting to define snow's accidents, that an attribute (color) is present in a substance (snow). However, if he is to walk along a path, and find some yellow snow, he would come to the conclusion that snow is yellow. The substance remains the same, but the accidents have changed. This is simply one example of how substance is separate from accidents.

However, we don't see the same scenario in the Bible. In the Bible (as I'd assume Con would stipulate to), the substance of the Bible are truly reflected in the accidents (the words). They are an absolute, certain truth. After all, as Con stated in his rebuttal, Divine inspiration exists as to eliminate this inconsistency between accidents and substance. God essentially intervened to make sure that the words of the Bible (accidents) matched the meaning behind them (substance). For this reason, Catholics can know that what is stated in the Bible matches the substance of them.

C) My opponent cannot therefore appeal to verses in the Bible, quotations from the church fathers, ecumenical councils, papal decrees or other ecclesiastical literature which can only be shown via accidents.

See above. Although we can only sense the accidents of the Bible, we can know the substance from Divine insperation.

D) The only way for my opponent to be able to provide substantial evidence in the debate, is to abandon the Catholic presupposition of substance theory, which would in turn render transubstantiation an invalid doctrine.

I won't be overturning substance theory in this debate, and I've shown how I can provide evidence from the Bible without overturning substance theory.

E) Catholic doctrine teaches that the accidents remain as bread and wine, yet there is no verse in the gospels that teach that the appearance was different to the substance after the words of consecration.

"While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many." (Mark 14:22-24)

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. If this is not enough, in John's Gospel, which you have affirmed to be true, confirms the transubstantiation in 5 different statements:

Jn 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

Jn 6:53 "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."

Jn 6:54 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life."

Jn 6:55 "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."

Jn 6:56 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

This is all in the Gospel, Con. Jesus seems to make it quite clear when he says that his flesh is "true food" and his blood is "true drink."

F) Transubstantiation violates the law of identity.

That would be true, if, of course, substance theory is incorrect. However, as I have demonstrated, the accidents of an object do not necessarily reflect its substance.

Note, I am not contradicting myself. The accidents and substance of the Bible line up because of Divine inspiration, something that both Con and I stipulate is true in the scriptures.

G) The doctrine presupposes the idea that either (a) the accident remaining does not attach itself to the new substance or (b) that it does.

I'll choose B. Why? Because we aren't sacrificing Jesus again, we are doing it remembrance of what he has done. Note his words:
"This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19b)

Not only that, but your logic does not follow. According to the definition of substance, a substance is different from it's properties, thus rendering your argument invalid.

II. Transubstantiation cannot be demonstrated to be true scripturally.

I'd refer you to my opening statement and this rebuttal, where I give several verses and passages that clearly demonstrate transubstantiation to be true.

III. "When my opponent attempts to prepare a rebuttal to my points, it will be by assuming that what is heard matches the substance of my arguments. But how can it be guaranteed that is the case, anymore than bread could be flesh or wine could be blood?"

First off, why is this in quotation marks? Did you quote this from someone else? If so, could you credit him/her?

Second of all, of course interpretation is necessary when talking in everyday conversation, or on this debate website. Although interpretation isn't always accurate (as no one can read minds), we still use it because it is usually correct when we take the words into context. Here is an example:

Suppose I tell someone, "I need some change." In a grocery store, someone would interpret this to mean that I am a few cents short to make my purchase. However, at a political rally, someone would interpret this to mean that I am eager to see social reform. Of course, I could be talking about political change in the grocery store, or money at the political rally, but interpretation is usually right.

This shows my BoP. I need not prove beyond any doubt that my interpretation is true, I must simply prove that it is more likely true than not. If I can show that my interpretation is more likely true than not, than it would be illogical to pick Con's interpretation, as it is more likely false.

I would like to once again re-iterate my logical syllogism.

a) The Bible is true (stipulated by Con).

b) The doctrine of transubstantiation is included in the Bible (Argument 1).

c) Therefore, the doctrine of transubstantiation is true.

If I am able to show that (a) and (b) are more likely true than not, then you must vote Pro.

I await Con's response.
Debate Round No. 2
RoyalSon

Con

Thank you, Pro for presenting your presuppositions and rebuttal. I shall continue my response here.

PRO SAID: "Con fails to mention that substance is not very difficult to determine. I'll give an example: If someone looks out of his window at a ski lodge and state that "Snow is white," he would be attempting to define snow's accidents, that an attribute (color) is present in a substance (snow). However, if he is to walk along a path, and find some yellow snow, he would come to the conclusion that snow is yellow. The substance remains the same, but the accidents have changed. This is simply one example of how substance is separate from accidents."

MY RESPONSE: Pro’s analogy fails because it confuses the categories. Pro assumes that one can see that snow is snow even if it is yellow, however Pro never explained how he would be able to determine that what he saw outside of his lodge was indeed snow. I am going to hazard a guess that Pro would use his physical senses to determine that the substance was indeed snow – Pro’s analogy only implied visual perception, but I will take his analogy further. Let us suppose Pro went outside and picked up a lump and held it in his hands and observed the coldness and texture of the snow. Let’s go even to the extreme of placing it under the microscope and observing the structure of the molecules which indicate that it is snow. Is that enough? Certainly not. Under the doctrine of transubstantiation, what looks like wine, smells like wine, tastes like wine and even has the molecular compound structure of wine as observed under a microscope, it is not wine but blood. Therefore, Pro’s analogy fails. Likewise, he cannot be guaranteed that what he observes of the printed ink on the manuscript parchments matches the substance. If one were to grant Pro’s analogy, whereby observance would be enough to determine the substance, then we can conclude on this failed criteria, that the substance doesn’t change because all observation points to the wine remaining as wine. Such a criteria disproves Pro’s entire thesis.

PRO SAID: “See above. Although we can only sense the accidents of the Bible, we can know the substance from Divine insperation.”


MY RESPONSE: Pro’s criteria of appeal to Divine inspiration fails since the Eucharist itself is said to be divinely inspired, even containing the very Divinity of Christ Himself, yet the substance and accidents differ.

PRO SAID: “I won't be overturning substance theory in this debate, and I've shown how I can provide evidence from the Bible without overturning substance theory.”


MY RESPONSE: My opponent was confused around the nature of accidents and substance. I do not think he is in a position to confidently assert epistemological soundness when his analogy failed quite emphatically.

PRO QUOTED: Mark 14:22-24 once again.

MY RESPONSE:
Again this does not show a change in substance or a difference between accidents and substance. My opponent can’t just quote verses without demonstrating the thesis.

PRO SAID: “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. If this is not enough, in John's Gospel, which you have affirmed to be true, confirms the transubstantiation in 5 different statements:”


MY RESPONSE: Pro is reading something into the text which simply isn’t there. The word, “substance” does not appear in any of the texts quoted. The word, “accidents” isn’t there either. Nor does it allude to the accidents of the elements after the words have been spoken.

PRO QUOTED: John 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

MY RESPONSE: In this verses Jesus says He is the living bread. There are a multitude of problems with my opponent appealing to this verse:

  1. Applying the same hyper-literalism to this verse that my opponent applies to Mark 14:22-24 would mean that the substance of Jesus is actually bread and that his flesh is substantially bread.
  2. Catholics do not believe that partaking of the flesh of Christ gives someone eternal life.
  3. The context of this verse actually defines that eating is simply believing in Christ.
  4. Upon digestion, the substance dissipates and the presence of Christ is lost. This is taught in the Roman Catholic Catechism, paragraph 1377 which states, “The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.” According to Alphonsus Ligouri , "Thus the priest may, in a certain manner, be called the creator of his Creator, since by saying the words of consecration, he creates, as it were, Jesus in the Sacrament, by giving Him a Sacramental existence, and produces Him as a victim to be offered to the eternal Father."

    Created by a priest and destroyed by digestion...



  5. The Roman Catholic Catechism, paragraph 1389 states: “The Church obliges the faithful to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season. But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily.” As per point 5 above, Christ would remain in the person’s body until digestion is completed in an estimated time of fifteen minutes. Fifteen minutes out of a whole year certainly does not indicate the eternal life that this verse speaks of.

  6. Contrasting the Roman Catholic and Protestant positions, it is certainly more in line with Christ’s teaching that if we believe in Christ, we have eternal life. We would not be believers once a year, but it endures throughout our entire Christian life and the eternal life we receive is not received for 15 minutes and then lost again until the next week or dare we say next year.

  1. No accidents/substance distinction mentioned. No changing of one substance into another.

PRO QUOTED: John 6:53 "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."


MY RESPONSE: This verse illustrates the inconsistent position of the Catholic Church. For if it were to truly take it as literal as it claims to, then it would make the partaking of both emblems obligatory at the Mass.

However, the Council of Trent stated in Canon I, “
If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema”. In Canon II, Trent stated, “if any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be anathema.”


Ironically, Jesus is the one who spoke these very words. Using this as a proof-text for transubstantiation would place Jesus under the anathema of the Council of Trent.


No accidents/substance distinction mentioned. No changing of one substance into another.



PRO QUOTED: John 6:54 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life."

MY RESPONSE: As above, the Catholic Church does not actually believe this. Fifteen minutes of life is hardly eternal. No accidents/substance distinction mentioned. No changing of one substance into another.


PRO QUOTED: John 6:55 "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."

MY RESPONSE: See John 15:1. Is Jesus a plant now? No accidents/substance distinction mentioned. No changing of one substance into another.

PRO QUOTED: John 6:56 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

MY RESPONSE:
The Roman Catholic Church does NOT believe that Christ remains in that person. After approximately fifteen minutes, the presence is lost.

Again, No accidents/substance distinction mentioned. No changing of one substance into another.

PRO SAID: This is all in the Gospel, Con. Jesus seems to make it quite clear when he says that his flesh is "true food" and his blood is "true drink."

MY RESPONSE: The same gospel says the He is the “true vine” in chapter 15 verse 1. Is he a literal plant? Likewise food and drink are shadows of Christ as per Colossians 2:16-17. Since they are shadows, of him, when he refers to himself in those terms, it must be metaphorically as a reality cannot literally be its shadow.


PRO QUOTED ME: “F) Transubstantiation violates the law of identity.


AND SAID: “That would be true, if, of course, substance theory is incorrect. However, as I have demonstrated, the accidents of an object do not necessarily reflect its substance.
Note, I am not contradicting myself. The accidents and substance of the Bible line up because of Divine inspiration, something that both Con and I stipulate is true in the scriptures.”

MY RESPONSE: My opponent has confused the issue of the law of identity with the dichotomy of accidents and substance and thus missed the point completely. I challenge my opponent to explain how blood can be without blood. Does my opponent also believe truthless truth exists?


PRO SAID: “First off, why is this in quotation marks? Did you quote this from someone else? If so, could you credit him/her?”

MY RESPONSE: They were my own words. It was a simple formatting typo on my part. What you will notice however, is that I’ve been crediting you each time I’ve quoted you. I’ve noticed that this has not been entirely reciprocated on your part, but I won’t make a big deal of it.


I look forward to my opponent’s response.

David_Debates

Pro

I will now revert back to my opening statement, and defend it against Con's rebuttal in round 3.

1) 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.

Con is correct here. I (and all humans for that matter), being someone who senses through taste, touch, sight, hearing, and smell can have no more knowledge whether or not something's substance matches its accidents than basic guesswork. However, I can understand and comprehend God's word which, as Con has stipulated, is true as a result of Divine intervention. Thus, we are able to show that we can trust the words of Jesus, the words of the Bible, to match the substance of the words. Not only that, but substance in words is much different than substance in something like bread or wine.

2) Firstly, the parameters of transubstantiation are not specified in this passage of scripture. There is no reference to accidents/appearance vs substance.

Do the words substance and accidents appear in this passage? No.
But the words that do appear in this passage state that those who eat and drink without discerning Jesus' body and blood are committing a sin. "For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves." (1 Corinthians 11:29)

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.

Con is confused here. Although Paul uses the word bread in this passage, he then calls it the body. Paul isn't contradicting himself here, he's stating that it is bread and wine, and after Jesus consecrates it, it becomes "his body" and "the blood of the new covenant."

3) 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.

The exact quote here is "For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves." (1 Corinthians 11:29) The verb attached to body of Christ is eating.

4) 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.

Con is correct here, I meant to quote 1 Corinthians 10:16.
However, Con's argument does not make sense. Con argues that one cannot have fellowship in, as this verse states, "the blood of Christ" and "the body of Christ." This is exactly what he calls us to do in Gospel. "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19)

5) 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].

Of course people speak metaphorically. I do it all the time. The difference is that Jesus goes far and beyond to make it clear what he means by the statement that the bread "is his body," and the wine "is his blood," by stating it in five different ways in John 6:51-56.

Jn 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

Jn 6:53 "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."

Jn 6:54 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life."

Jn 6:55 "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."

Jn 6:56 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

6) 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.

Excuse me, but I am unable to give a rebuttal to this topic. I have run out of time and it is midnight. Next rebuttal, I'll make sure to include a rebuttal to this very point.

7) 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.

Jesus says that this wine becomes "the blood of the new covenant." Does this answer your question, Con?

8) 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.

As I have shown, Jesus clearly intended to tell us that the bread and wine become his body and blood, as seen in both the Gospels and Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.

I await Con's next argument.
Debate Round No. 3
RoyalSon

Con

Thank you, Pro for your response.

PRO CONCEDED: That I was correct with regards to sense faculties being limited in that they can only know the accidents of a thing and not its substance. However, Pro argued that he can comprehend God’s word because of “Divine intervention”.

MY RESPONSE: I appreciate the concession on my opponent’s part to his being limited to sensing the accidents of a thing only. However, he needs to be consistent. You cannot perceive the substance of the “Divine Eucharist” through your senses, nor can you perceive what the “Divine Scripture” is actually teaching, because it could be completely different just as bread is from wine. The appeal to the Divine is arbitrary and refuted by the very example of the Eucharist itself.

Pro stated that the substance of bread and wine is much different to the substance of words, but such a statement contradicts his earlier concession that he is unable to perceive what substance actually is.

PRO CONCEDED: That the words accidents and substance do not appear in 1 Corinthians 11:29 and drew attention once again to eating and drinking without discerning the body and blood. As I have already pointed out, the eating refers to the nearest antecedent of the verb eating back in verse 28 which is bread, not flesh. Since transubstantiation holds that there would be no bread to eat, the doctrine is flatly refuted by this verse.

PRO SAID:
Con is confused here. Although Paul uses the word bread in this passage, he then calls it the body. Paul isn't contradicting himself here, he's stating that it is bread and wine, and after Jesus consecrates it, it becomes "his body" and "the blood of the new covenant."”

MY RESPONSE: Pro’s accusation of my being confused is false. Paul never states that the bread and wine become the body and blood. Let’s read:

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.


Three times in this portion it connects eating with bread: eat this bread, eat the bread, eat of the bread. When we get to verse 29 does it say eat the body? No, it says judge the body. Should we interpret these verses literally or metaphorically, Pro? If you say literally, then there is the literal eating of bread, and the literal judging of the body. If you say metaphorically, then there is the metaphorical eating of the bread and the metaphorical judging of the body. Notice also that the eating and drinking proclaim his death until he comes. Transubstantiation teaches that Christ comes before the eating and drinking takes place. Your interpretation does not work.

PRO SAID: The exact quote here is "For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves." (1 Corinthians 11:29) The verb attached to body of Christ is eating.”

MY RESPONSE: Pro is incorrect. Verses 26 – 28 clearly state eating the bread and drinking the wine. By the time we get to verse 29 it does not apply the verb eat and drink to the body of Christ. It is the verb discern which is used. Pro is ignoring the direct statements of eating bread three times in the verses preceding. If Pro appealed to verse 29 as eating the body (which it does not do), he would now be accepting the Lutheran position of Consubstantiation which is different from Transubstantiation!

PRO SAID:
Con is correct here, I meant to quote 1 Corinthians 10:16. However, Con's argument does not make sense. Con argues that one cannot have fellowship in, as this verse states, "the blood of Christ" and "the body of Christ." This is exactly what he calls us to do in Gospel. "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19)

MY RESPONSE:
Pro has misquoted me. I didn’t argue that “one cannot have fellowship in the blood of Christ.” I stated transubstantiation denies the possibility of such fellowship. The reason is because under transubstantiation, what doesn’t exist (the wine) cannot fellowship or communicate to us the blood of Christ. In order for wine to fellowship something to us, it would have to actually exist.

PRO SAID: Of course people speak metaphorically. I do it all the time. The difference is that Jesus goes far and beyond to make it clear what he means by the statement that the bread "is his body," and the wine "is his blood," by stating it in five different ways in John 6:51-56.”

And again quoted John 6:51,53-56

I have already responded to and refuted Pro’s misapplication of all five of these verses. He is welcome to review this.

PRO DEFERRED: My argument pertaining to the timing of the demonstrative word with respect to the elements to his next response.

MY RESPONSE: I look forward to your attempt to reconcile the dilemma.

PRO QUOTED ME: “7) 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.”

AND SAID: “Jesus says that this wine becomes "the blood of the new covenant." Does this answer your question, Con?”


MY RESPONSE: “Not only does it not answer my question since it does not tell me whether you think the blood of the new covenant was pre or post-resurrection, but you likewise did not address the catch 22 that I inferred.”

PRO SAID: “As I have shown, Jesus clearly intended to tell us that the bread and wine become his body and blood, as seen in both the Gospels and Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.”

MY RESPONSE: I reject such a claim and remain totally unconvinced by your interpretation of these verses for the reasons I have given.


Reviewing the debate thus far, my opponent has given no reason at all to consider the doctrine of transubstantiation as likely. My opponent has said that he doesn’t need to show that this is certainly true but only that it is more likely to be true than my position. Not only is my opponent’s position less likely than my own, it is an impossibility when analysing the layers of opposition to this doctrine:

Layer 1: The Problem of Epistemology – Transubstantiation limits one’s knowledge to that of accidents only. My opponent conceded to this yet appealed to divine scripture being different but gave no justification when confronted with his own belief in the Divine Eucharist which exhibits such disparity. What is likewise interesting is that my opponent has assumed the entire course of this debate that the substance of my arguments match the accidents of what he reads. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume my opponent does not believe my writing to be divinely inspired. So how can he be certain of what he’s reading and responding to?

Layer 2: The Problem of Inconsistency – My opponent infers that “true food” must render the meaning as literal, yet rejects the notion that Jesus is a plant, calling Himself the true vine.

Layer 3: The Problem of false attribution. Despite my opponent’s repeated claims that the gospels and epistles of Paul say the bread and wine become the flesh and blood. No such word “become” is to be found.

Layer 4: The Problem of false analogy – My opponent stated that the distinction between substance and accidents can be known. His analogy failed because it appealed to the senses to conclude the substance of snow. But if that is the case, then his entire these fails because one can likewise appeal to the senses to determine that what is consumed is bread and wine, not flesh and blood. Yet my opponent has conceded that he cannot know substances. Of course he made the exception of scripture, but Layer 1 refutes this arbitrary criteria.

Layer 5: The Problem of sin – The book of Acts forbids believers to drink blood.
Layer 6: The Problem of Blasphemy – A priest is said to be the creator of the creator.

Layer 7: The Problem of mutability and mortality – Upon digestion the substances are destroyed. This violates God’s immutable and immortal nature.
Layer 8: The Problem of being non-literally literal – Jesus calling Himself the living bread, saying that one must both eat and drink yet the Catholic Church forbade the wine.

Layer 9: The Problem of timing – “This” referring to bread cannot then refer to flesh because the bread is destroyed.
Layer 10: The Problem of nature – If the elements in the eucharist are “pre-resurrection” then they cannot be omnipresent. If the elements are “post-resurrection” then they are not the same sacrifice.

Layer 11: The problem of null-definition – Using such a dichotomy renders things as indistinguishable from one another in terms of explanation. What essentially is bread? What essentially is flesh?

Layer 12: The problem of false worship – One would have to be God, discerning the intent of the priest which if improper leaves the elements unchanged. Worship of them thus by clergy and laity alike is idolatry.

Layer 13: The problem of diminishing terms – Jesus says that whoever eats and drinks of him has eternal life. Yet this life is destroyed after 15 minutes of eating.

Layer 14: The problem of the undermined dichotomy – Since the substance is destroyed upon digestion, it negates the substance accidents dichotomy because the accidents exist without a hosting substance. This is absurd as saying “yellow nothingness”.

Layer 15: The problem of multiple Christs – Christ would have been offering up a second Christ as bread and at third Christ as wine.

Layer 16: The problem of reburial – Leftover “species” are poured back into the earth, which would be burying Christ again.

More could be given, but this shall suffice.

I look forward to Pro’s response.

David_Debates

Pro

Rebuttals:

6) 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.

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. Instead, since transubstantiation occurs only with the assistance of God (who exists out of time), the transubstantiation must also occur out of time. In essence, there is a seamless transition from bread to body, from wine to blood.

1) Pro’s analogy fails because it confuses the categories.

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.

I am going to hazard a guess that Pro would use his physical senses to determine that the substance was indeed snow – Pro’s analogy only implied visual perception...

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.

Under the doctrine of transubstantiation, what looks like wine, smells like wine, tastes like wine and even has the molecular compound structure of wine as observed under a microscope, it is not wine but blood.

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.

2) Pro’s criteria of appeal to Divine inspiration fails since the Eucharist itself is said to be divinely inspired, even containing the very Divinity of Christ Himself, yet the substance and accidents differ.

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?

3) My opponent was confused around the nature of accidents and substance. I do not think he is in a position to confidently assert epistemological soundness when his analogy failed quite emphatically.

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.

4) Again this does not show a change in substance or a difference between accidents and substance. My opponent can’t just quote verses without demonstrating the thesis.

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."

5) Pro is reading something into the text which simply isn’t there. The word, “substance” does not appear in any of the texts quoted. The word, “accidents” isn’t there either. Nor does it allude to the accidents of the elements after the words have been spoken.

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.

6)
  1. Applying the same hyper-literalism to this verse that my opponent applies to Mark 14:22-24 would mean that the substance of Jesus is actually bread and that his flesh is substantially bread.
This is not hyper-literalism. I'll give my explanation.

In other verses in John, we see Jesus calling himself a "door" and a "vine." We can clearly see that these are meant to be taken metaphorically. Nowhere do we see any of his followers stating "How is he made of wood?" or, "How is he a plant?"

Comparing this to this passage, we see Jesus stating that his flesh must be eaten. This time, however, the congregation of his followers are genuinely confused. We see their response in the very next verse: "Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:52) Jesus then clears it up immediately by stating his flesh is "true food" and his blood is "true drink." He does not leave us up to interpretation here.
  1. Catholics do not believe that partaking of the flesh of Christ gives someone eternal life.
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?
  1. The context of this verse actually defines that eating is simply believing in Christ.
But presuppositions are required for this eating to mean anything. See above.
  1. Upon digestion, the substance dissipates and the presence of Christ is lost. This is taught in the Roman Catholic Catechism, paragraph 1377. According to Alphonsus Ligouri , "Thus the priest may, in a certain manner, be called the creator of his Creator, since by saying the words of consecration, he creates, as it were, Jesus in the Sacrament, by giving Him a Sacramental existence, and produces Him as a victim to be offered to the eternal Father."
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.
  1. The Roman Catholic Catechism, paragraph 1389
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.
  1. Contrasting the Roman Catholic and Protestant positions, it is certainly more in line with Christ’s teaching that if we believe in Christ, we have eternal life. We would not be believers once a year, but it endures throughout our entire Christian life and the eternal life we receive is not received for 15 minutes and then lost again until the next week or dare we say next year.
As we have seen before, in order to partake in communion legitimately, according to the Roman Catholic doctrine, one would need to believe in Christ. After all, to not believe in Christ and claim to eat his body is self-contradictory, right, Con? Paul states that those who eat and drink "without recognizing the body is eating and drinking his own condemnation." Thus, if one does not believe in Christ is not recognizing the body while eating and drinking.

7) This verse (John 6:53) illustrates the inconsistent position of the Catholic Church. For if it were to truly take it as literal as it claims to, then it would make the partaking of both emblems obligatory at the Mass.

However, the Council of Trent stated in Canon I, “If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema."

Wait, so this is a dispute on whether or not you are taking Communion when it has been consecrated or not. This is a completely different issue. This dispute is on those who claim they are following Christ's teachings by eating and drinking without the elements consecrated, they are committing a sin, as they are not Jesus' body and blood. This is not relevant to the subject at hand.

8) As above, the Catholic Church does not actually believe this. Fifteen minutes of life is hardly eternal. No accidents/substance distinction mentioned. No changing of one substance into another.

As above, the Catholic Church requires for one to believe in Jesus in order to partake in Communion. They even require one to take their first Penance before partaking in the Eucharist for the first time! Also, the life stated is life in Jesus' kingdom, i.e. Heaven.

9+10) The same gospel says the He is the “true vine” in chapter 15 verse 1. Is he a literal plant? Likewise food and drink are shadows of Christ as per Colossians 2:16-17. Since they are shadows, of him, when he refers to himself in those terms, it must be metaphorically as a reality cannot literally be its shadow.

I'll reiterate my previous argument on the same subject. See response to (6).

11) My opponent has confused the issue of the law of identity with the dichotomy of accidents and substance and thus missed the point completely. I challenge my opponent to explain how blood can be without blood. Does my opponent also believe truthless truth exists?

Truthless truth is self-deprecating. It is non-physical, however, and thus has no accidents or substance. It is irrelevant to the disscusion and a red herring from the issue of transubstantiation.

12) They were my own words. It was a simple formatting typo on my part. I’ve been crediting you each time I’ve quoted you. I’ve noticed that this has not been entirely reciprocated on your part, but I won’t make a big deal of it.

Sounds good, Con. By the way, I have credited you, all of your words are italicised. This is the way I format all of my debates, and all the previous rounds of this debate.

Unfortunately, I have reached the character limit. If some portions of your arguments are missing, I apologize. I have responded to the full argument.

Debate Round No. 4
RoyalSon

Con

Thank you, Pro. 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!

I invite all readers to vote Con.

David_Debates

Pro

I will present a closing argument. Unfortunately, there was no format for this debate, so I appoligize if my structure does not match Con's. To be clear, here is the format I used.

1) Acceptance
2) Opening Statement
3) Rebuttal of Con's Opening Statement
4) Defense against Con's rebuttal
5) Closing Arguments

I'll go over the arguments that have persisted through this entire debate, and show how they concusively prove substatiation to be more likely true than not, and therefore, why you must vote Pro.

1) Substance Theory

Con has practicaly danced around this topic this entire debate. What I would like the reader to realize, however, is that Con has not denied, nor has he even attempted to disprove, substance theory. You, the voter, may look through all of Con's arguments, and nowhere will you find Con attempting to disprove substance theory. Thus, we may conclude that there is a substance seperate from the accidents of an object, as substance theory was not disproven in this debate.

Instead, Con has attempted to show how substance theory can be used against transubstationation, with three different arguments:
1) Transubstatiation violates the law of identity (gives example as "unbloody blood").
2) Substance theory renders the Bible's interpretation faulty (we can only know accidents).
3) Transubstatiation violates substance theory itself (something cannot have no substance or no accidents).

My response to these arguments was quite clear.
1) This would be true, if substance theory is disproven. However, substance theory is not challenged in this debate, i.e. substance (blood) is seperate from the object's accidents (unbloody). Therefore, there can be something
2) I gave an analogy how substance is not nessesarily reflected in its accidents, showing that transubstatiation is possible. Then, I showed how the Bible can still be accepted as true through the doctrine of Divine Insperation, i.e. the Bible's accidents match its substance because God interviened to make sure the Bible's substance was reflected in its accidents accurately.
3) Con attempted to back me into a corner with a dilemma (either the accident is attached to the new substance or it is not). However, I then showed that this dilemma did not prove any of Con's points, instead, it meerly reiterated the definition of the already accepted definition of transubstantiation, i.e. that the bread and the wine's substance is replaced with Jesus' body and blood, yet the accidents remain the same.

Con then rebutted.
1) Con then changed the question. "I challenge my opponent to explain how blood (substance) can be without blood (substance)." The orginal question was whether or not there can be unbloody (accident) blood (substance), which, as I demonstated before, is possible. He then asks whether or not truthless truth exists.
2) Con misused and misinterpreted my analogy. He claimed that my analogy's purpose was to show how I can use my senses to detirmine substance, however, this is entirely false. He then attempted to use this faulty interpretation to prove his contention.that is unbloody (accidents) can still be blood (substance).
3) Con dropped this argument.

I then responded to Con's new arguments.
1) Truth is non-phisical, unlike bread, which is physical. Thus, Con's argument for "truthless truth" is a red herring, as it is non-phisical and thus does not fit under the peramiters of substance or accidents.
2) I cleared up my intention for my analogy, not to show how substance can be detirmined with phyisical senses (as this would be contradictory to the definition itself), but to show how accidents can change, without substance changing. I then reasoned that if accidents can change without substance changing, then one may assert that substance can change without accidents changing, i.e. transubstatiation.
3) This argument was dropped by Con.

Con then rebutted.
1) Con attempted to argue that my "concession" that truthless truth is self-depricating means that unbloody blood is also self-depricating. He then completely ignores my argument upon that truth is non-phisical, while blood is phisical, meaning substance theory can be applied to blood, but not to truth. Therefore, Con has failed to sufficiently rebutt this topic.
2) Con then attempted to "point out contradictions" in my argument. It is thus nessesary I address the 7 he mentions here.

Side note, these are the points Con makes, not his quotes.

Contradiction 1: Instantanious implies at a point in time.

As I have demonstrated, if the transubstatiation were to take place in time, one could slow it down and turn it into a gradual process, which violates transubstatiation.
Instead, the switch of substances must take place outside of time. Of course, the switch is made after the words are spoken, but the switch is made outside of time, making it instatanious.

Contradiction 2: How do you know the substance hasn't changed when dye is applied to it?

Because the substance existed before the accident was applied. The accident (yellowness) existed only after the substance (snow) did. We know this to be true because we know, say, a desk exists before it is painted white. Also, we speak of accidents using substances that reflect the accidents, not the other way around. In order for me to describe whiteness, I must have expericened white things, I must talk about substances with the accident of whiteness.

Contradiction 3: A new substance is added: dye.

The substance is the dye. The substance is the snow. There cannot be two substances in the same object, this would render the object contradictiory (something cannot be two somethings). Instead, the dye does not cease to exist. Instead, the dye creates a new accident for the snow (yellowness). The dye does not affect the substance of the object it touches. Describing it shows my point: the object is "yellow snow," showing the new accident (yellow) has not affected the substance (snow).

Contradiction 4: You claim you don't know what happens to substances, yet claim accidents can change while substances don't.

Absolutely. This is no contradiction. See above.

Contradiction 5: You claimed that the purpose was (exact quote) "to show it's easy to tell the difference between accidents and substance."

Yes. The difference is one I can detirmine using my five senses (accidents), and one that I cannot using my empirical senses (substance). This is the difference between accidents and substance. Where is the contradition, Con?

Contradiction 6: Substances cannot have a certain smell or taste, and thus something cannot smell or taste like wine.

This statement, "tastes like chicken" is an example of above. This is the interpretation, from a philisophical standpoint. "From my experience with accidents, when I experience this substance's (the other meat) accidents, it tasted like the accidents attached to a substance (chicken) I had eaten before." Substances are nouns, and accidents are adjectives. You can sense adjectives, but not nouns. The only way to describe nouns is with adjectives. In the same way, the only way to describe adjectives is by attaching them to a noun (I know what tall means because I have seen an object that is described as tall).

Contradiction 7: You state that the Eucharist cannot be self-inspired, but then state that Jesus is present in the Eucharist, meaning he is present in Christ.

Yes. This isn't a contradiction. Christ is the same person as Jesus. This is like saying David is present in Mr. Modrovich. That is because I am David, and I am Mr. Modrovich. Those are just two of my names, two different ways to address me.

Con's "contradictions" are meerly mislabeled attempts at disproving my theory, which, I might add, have conclusively failed.

I can thus say that transubstation is possible under substance theory.

On to the second contention:

2) Logical Sylogysim

First Premise: The Bible is true.

Con has conceded this premise. "Pro then gave a syllogism, of which I only accept the first premise." (Round 2, Pro)

Second Premise: The docrine of Transubstatiation is found in the Bible.

I have quoted many verses. I'll list them below, as I am running out of word count.

-John 6:51-56
Five different ways that Jesus meant for the bread to become his body.

-Mark 14:22-24
Jesus clearly states that the bread "is his body" and the wine "is his blood."

-Matthew 26:26-28
Jesus tells us yet again that we are to eat what he calls "my body" and drink what he calls "my blood."

-1 Corinthians 11:23-29
Paul clearly lays out the doctrine of transubstantiation, and how eating and drinkng "without recongnizing the blood" is commiting a grevious sin.

-1 Corinthians 10:16
Paul tells us that the blessing of the cup is "communion with the blood of Christ" and the breaking of the bread is "communion with the body of Christ."

The only possible meaning of all of these passages is that the bread and wine after 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.

Thus, we can affirm the second premise of the sylogysm.

Conclusion: The doctrine of transubstatiation is true.

This sylogysm is an AAA-1 sylogysm, one that Con would accept to be valid, I assume. "Thus, the specific syllogisms that share any one of the 256 distinct syllogistic forms must either all be valid or all be invalid, no matter what their content happens to be. Every syllogism of the form AAA-1 is valid (1)."

Therefore, seeing that I have proven my contentions beyond a preponderance of the evidence, I urge the voters to choose Pro, as I have proven my case to be more likely true than not. Therefore, it is only logical that you vote Pro.

Thanks to Con for a stimulating and exiting debate! I look forward to what else you can acomplish on this site. Perhaps I shall see you again on the forums, or in another debate?

And thank you to any voters who take the time read our debate and create an RFD for strangers like us on the Internet!
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by David_Debates 1 year ago
David_Debates
Excuse me, it seems I forgot to include my source in my last round. Here it is, for the voters.
http://www.philosophypages.com...
No votes have been placed for this debate.