Answering William Lane Craig's objections to transubstantiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter YosefYosep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YosefYosep

Guest
In a transcript of Craig, he mentions how transubstantiation is ultimately an illogical position. Does anyone have some answers to his objections below?

“Now this occasions a question: when the communicant takes the blood and the body of Christ and eats them and digests them, why isn’t the body and blood of Christ sort of eaten up after a while? Is there a sort of infinite body and blood? Remember we are talking about the human nature of Christ, not the divine nature. In his divine nature, the second person of the Trinity is immaterial. He doesn’t have a body. So we are talking about the human[6] nature of Christ. So as communicants eat the body of Jesus and drink his blood, one might ask, “Why isn’t it all consumed? Why isn’t he eaten up?” And I asked this question once of a Fordham University philosopher who is a priest, and he said, “You don’t consume the substance in the Lord’s Supper. You only eat the accidents.” And it was like the veil fell from my eyes. I suddenly understood. When the communicant takes the elements in, he doesn’t really consume or digest the body and blood of Christ. He only consumes the accidents. And that is why it is not used up. That puts a somewhat different spin on transubstantiation. I remember one Catholic girl saying to me once that she liked the doctrine of transubstantiation because it made her feel so close to Christ, that she was actually eating his flesh and drinking his blood. It was such an intimate union. Well, that is not really true on the classic doctrine. She is really only consuming the accidents of the bread and the wine, not the substance of the Lord’s body and blood.”

Read more: reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s12-5#ixzz46foKx1y1
 
Umm, that transcript has it exactly the wrong way round. The consecrated host has the substance of the body and blood of Christ, but the accidents of bread. So it’s the substance of Christ which we receive, not the accidents.
 
Either the priest didn’t know his theology or Craig misunderstood him.

In any case, Craig is trying to be too cerebral about. The Eucharist is a miracle that never runs out of its substance because it is a miracle that it has substance (the Body and Blood). He seems to be reasoning like a biologist rather than a Christian. Craig should read Justin Martyrs’ explanation of the Eucharist, and resign himself to the fact that the Eucharist existed from the first days of the Church.

According to one source:

St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.

Justin Martyr said:

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

Also from THE DIDACHE

The Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is a manuscript which was used by 2nd century bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced it making this document relatively easy to date.

“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”.
 
It is true that physically we eat only the accidents, and that we consume the Body and Blood only in a spiritual manner. The Body and Blood are, nevertheless, truly present within us during Holy Communion. And this partaking is not less real than ordinary eating, nor in any way inferior, but infinitely greater: because the Food is not assimilated to us, but we are assimilated to the Food, which is God Incarnate.
 
Ad_Orientem said:
It is true that physically we eat only the accidents, and that we consume the Body and Blood only in a spiritual manner. The Body and Blood are, nevertheless, truly present within us during Holy Communion. And this partaking is not less real than ordinary eating, nor in any way inferior, but infinitely greater: because the Food is not assimilated to us, but we are assimilated to the Food, which is God Incarnate.
Click to expand...
You got that wrong! We DO receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Risen Christ, and NOT only the “accidents.” Jesus is there under the “appearance” of bread and wine. God Bless, Memaw
 
Memaw said:
You got that wrong! We DO receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Risen Christ, and NOT only the “accidents.” Jesus is there under the “appearance” of bread and wine. God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
I believe he is referring to the species of bread and wine. Digestion destroys those species. The substance of Christ does not remain when the accidents are gone. Digestion destroys the accidents. As a result, Jesus is not digested, only the species of bread and wine are digested.

William Lane Craig’s argument is wrong for several reasons, but one of them is that Jesus is present in the Eucharist substantially and not by extension. I’m not using the phrase “by extension” in the usual way there, I’m using it in its philosophical meaning, which can be grasped from how it is used in regard to angels. Philosophers say that angels have location but not extension. Their presence in a particular place does not “take up” that space. Jesus’s presence in the Eucharist is similar. As a result of this dividing the species into parts does not divide Jesus. Digesting the species does not consume His flesh either, but He is substantially present in the person’s body.
 
I always get a kick out of guys trying to disprove Catholic Theology. There position is always your position has to be wrong, because I am right. They spend their lives trying to prove the are right. Up unti the point they figure out they are wrong…ie Scott Hahn, Jeff Cavins, CA staff who used to be Protestants…
 
It sounds like either the Fordham University priest didn’t understand his faith or Dr Craig misunderstood him. I’m hoping the latter.

As far as the question “why doesn’t His body get all eaten up.” He’s trying to say that Jesus physical nature isn’t divine, therefore isn’t subject to miracles or multiplication?

Well, last I checked, fish and bread weren’t Divine either. Yet when Jesus multiplied them, why didn’t the fish and loaves “get all eaten up” at some point? Was Jesus only able to multiply it a certain amount before it would “get all eaten up”? Can Jesus only multiply physical food a certain amount before the Dr Craig Law of Multiplication stops Him from multiplying the food any further? And anyways, why did Jesus bother doing this same miracle, over and over, of multiplying a single food item ad infinitum? Was it just a cheap parlor trick?

Nope. It was a symbol of the Eucharist. Christ can take one item of food and multiply it as much as He wants, without the original thing being multiplied being “eaten up.”

Also look at the end of Mark, where Jesus is walking along with the disciples. He appears to them UNDER A DIFFERENT FORM. His substance was there, but His physical form was different. Then He finally appeared to them, just before He consecrated the bread, and then disappeared into the bread. The disciples then said “He was made known to us in the breaking of the bread.”
 
KEP1983 said:
It sounds like either the Fordham University priest didn’t understand his faith or Dr Craig misunderstood him. I’m hoping the latter.

As far as the question “why doesn’t His body get all eaten up.” He’s trying to say that Jesus physical nature isn’t divine, therefore isn’t subject to miracles or multiplication?

Well, last I checked, fish and bread weren’t Divine either. Yet when Jesus multiplied them, why didn’t the fish and loaves “get all eaten up” at some point? Was Jesus only able to multiply it a certain amount before it would “get all eaten up”? Can Jesus only multiply physical food a certain amount before the Dr Craig Law of Multiplication stops Him from multiplying the food any further? And anyways, why did Jesus bother doing this same miracle, over and over, of multiplying a single food item ad infinitum? Was it just a cheap parlor trick?

Nope. It was a symbol of the Eucharist. Christ can take one item of food and multiply it as much as He wants, without the original thing being multiplied being “eaten up.”

Also look at the end of Mark, where Jesus is walking along with the disciples. He appears to them UNDER A DIFFERENT FORM. His substance was there, but His physical form was different. Then He finally appeared to them, just before He consecrated the bread, and then disappeared into the bread. The disciples then said “He was made known to us in the breaking of the bread.”
Click to expand...
I’m hesitant to accept this answer. If Jesus has to supply an infinite number of his body, then that would imply that his body does get “eaten up.” It would imply that Jesus’s body gets destroyed in the process of digestion, so he had to supply an infinite amount. Plus, having an infinite amount of Jesus bodies seems to fly in the face of Catholic teaching, where we believe there is only one God.
 
dmar198 said:
I believe he is referring to the species of bread and wine. Digestion destroys those species. The substance of Christ does not remain when the accidents are gone. Digestion destroys the accidents. As a result, Jesus is not digested, only the species of bread and wine are digested.

William Lane Craig’s argument is wrong for several reasons, but one of them is that Jesus is present in the Eucharist substantially and not by extension. I’m not using the phrase “by extension” in the usual way there, I’m using it in its philosophical meaning, which can be grasped from how it is used in regard to angels. Philosophers say that angels have location but not extension. Their presence in a particular place does not “take up” that space. Jesus’s presence in the Eucharist is similar. As a result of this dividing the species into parts does not divide Jesus. Digesting the species does not consume His flesh either, but He is substantially present in the person’s body.
Click to expand...
I’ve always had difficulty with understanding how Jesus is present substantially. Do you mind explaining this further?
 
YosefYosep said:
I’ve always had difficulty with understanding how Jesus is present substantially. Do you mind explaining this further?
Click to expand...
You don’t explain a miracle.

That’s trying to think on the same level as God thinks.

It’s as if you could be told how God created the universe.

Ain’t gonna happen. 🤷
 
Memaw said:
You got that wrong! We DO receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Risen Christ, and NOT only the “accidents.” Jesus is there under the “appearance” of bread and wine. God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
You’re right, I should have stated that differently; the phrase “in a spiritual manner” is too closely associated with a denial of the Real Presence. dmar198 gets the gist of what I meant: only the physical properties of bread and wine break down in our digestive system. Our Lord is there, too – indeed, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity – but not broken down. He is immortal.
 
I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Craig but I think he has a blind spot regarding Catholicism. He’s forgetting that the last supper was pre-figured by the multiplication of loaves and fishes (John 6:1-14) Even after feeding 5,000 there were 12 baskets full of leftovers. Almost immediately afterwards John has the Bread of Life discourse. If Christ can multiply earthly bread he certainly can multiply his own body.
 
YosefYosep said:
In a transcript of Craig, he mentions how transubstantiation is ultimately an illogical position. Does anyone have some answers to his objections below?

“Now this occasions a question: when the communicant takes the blood and the body of Christ and eats them and digests them, why isn’t the body and blood of Christ sort of eaten up after a while? Is there a sort of infinite body and blood? Remember we are talking about the human nature of Christ, not the divine nature. In his divine nature, the second person of the Trinity is immaterial. He doesn’t have a body. So we are talking about the human[6] nature of Christ. So as communicants eat the body of Jesus and drink his blood, one might ask, “Why isn’t it all consumed? Why isn’t he eaten up?” And I asked this question once of a Fordham University philosopher who is a priest, and he said, “You don’t consume the substance in the Lord’s Supper. You only eat the accidents.” And it was like the veil fell from my eyes. I suddenly understood. When the communicant takes the elements in, he doesn’t really consume or digest the body and blood of Christ. He only consumes the accidents. And that is why it is not used up. That puts a somewhat different spin on transubstantiation. I remember one Catholic girl saying to me once that she liked the doctrine of transubstantiation because it made her feel so close to Christ, that she was actually eating his flesh and drinking his blood. It was such an intimate union. Well, that is not really true on the classic doctrine. She is really only consuming the accidents of the bread and the wine, not the substance of the Lord’s body and blood.”

Read more: reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s12-5#ixzz46foKx1y1
Click to expand...
This is an ancient objection which St. Thomas answers in “Reasons for our Faith against the Muslims, Greeks and Armenians”. The answer to this is that the bread and wine are converted into the Body and Blood of Christ, and this is then eaten. Hence it in no way follows that the Body of Christ would “run out”. I’ll try and give an example (without, of course, losing sight of the Mystery here): Imagine I have steel pipe that’s three feet long. Now imagine I weld an extra foot onto that pipe. If I then use up that extra foot, I’m not going to run out of the original three feet of pipe. So it is, in a way, with transubstantiation. The sacramental body of Christ is as it were that extra foot on the original three foot pipe (which corresponds to Christ’s body in heaven). Everytime, the Mass is celebrated, it’s like adding that extra foot of pipe onto the original, and then using that. Now the analogy is very imperfect, but the idea is there.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas
 
Latinitas said:
This is an ancient objection which St. Thomas answers in “Reasons for our Faith against the Muslims, Greeks and Armenians”. The answer to this is that the bread and wine are converted into the Body and Blood of Christ, and this is then eaten. Hence it in no way follows that the Body of Christ would “run out”. I’ll try and give an example (without, of course, losing sight of the Mystery here): Imagine I have steel pipe that’s three feet long. Now imagine I weld an extra foot onto that pipe. If I then use up that extra foot, I’m not going to run out of the original three feet of pipe. So it is, in a way, with transubstantiation. The sacramental body of Christ is as it were that extra foot on the original three foot pipe (which corresponds to Christ’s body in heaven). Everytime, the Mass is celebrated, it’s like adding that extra foot of pipe onto the original, and then using that. Now the analogy is very imperfect, but the idea is there.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas
Click to expand...
What do you have to say to Craig’s objection that we don’t actually eat the human nature of Christ, we only consume the accidents of the bread and wine? If we ate the human nature, Craig says, eventually it would “run out.”
 
YosefYosep said:
I’m hesitant to accept this answer. If Jesus has to supply an infinite number of his body, then that would imply that his body does get “eaten up.” It would imply that Jesus’s body gets destroyed in the process of digestion, so he had to supply an infinite amount. Plus, having an infinite amount of Jesus bodies seems to fly in the face of Catholic teaching, where we believe there is only one God.
Click to expand...
Due to our constant activity, we need a periodic supply of food to restore our forces and keep healthy. How does Craig imagine the glorious body of our Lord? Does he imagine that our Lord has to eat at least three times a day (divine food, of course) and that he has to go see an angelic physician from time to time for a check up. And that He has a divine office, from which He attends His duties; and a divine bed, where He rests at the heavenly nights.

Our body is made up of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and many other elements, forming a diversity of compounds, a diversity of tissues and organs, interacting with each other as an organic system, in constant exchange with its surroundings. Does Craig imagine that the glorious body of our Lord is made up of spiritualized atomic elements, which obey spiritual physical laws, analogous to the “laws of nature”? Does he imagine that there must be a divine law of conservation of spiritualized matter, and spiritual energy, and spiritual momentum?

And if the body of our Lord can be destroyed, as you suggest, in the process of digestion, it would imply that its “spiritualized molecules” react with our digestive acids and are transformed with them into other compounds that will become assimilated in our organism, and others that will be rejected. So, the “spiritualized molecules” would exhibit chemical affinity with our mundane molecules and obey the common laws of reaction kinetics. In time, there would be in our body certain tissues (our hair, for example) that would be composed of a combination of mundane and spiritualized atomic elements. As a further consequence, if “spiritualized molecules” react with mundane molecules, the “spiritualized molecules” of a glorious body would react between themselves just as their mundane counterparts do in a “natural human body”, suffering composition and decomposition; and then the glorious body would be subject to aging and death, just like ours.

What are the “divine physical laws” to which, according to Craig, the glorious body of our Lord is subject? Did this Doctor say something about them? I guess the knowledge of those laws would be necessary to be able to conclude or predict something. I know nothing about those possible laws.
 
Why would Christ be used up? Does he not recall the multiplication of the loaves? Is there a number so great that it would have gone beyond Jesus’ multiplicative powet and he’d have been unable to feed them?

We are also not eatings strips of flesh or drops of blood. Each particle is Jesus’ living and glorified body, blood, soul and divinity in its fullness.

Jesus’ body doesn’t get destroyed. It joins with ours. We become one with him, so to speak, as a Church. As we eat it, the consecrated elements don’t remain Jesus throughout our digestive tract. He joins with us, giving hinself fully to us and for us, and we become partakers of the divine nature.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
Due to our constant activity, we need a periodic supply of food to restore our forces and keep healthy. How does Craig imagine the glorious body of our Lord? Does he imagine that our Lord has to eat at least three times a day (divine food, of course) and that he has to go see an angelic physician from time to time for a check up. And that He has a divine office, from which He attends His duties; and a divine bed, where He rests at the heavenly nights.

Our body is made up of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and many other elements, forming a diversity of compounds, a diversity of tissues and organs, interacting with each other as an organic system, in constant exchange with its surroundings. Does Craig imagine that the glorious body of our Lord is made up of spiritualized atomic elements, which obey spiritual physical laws, analogous to the “laws of nature”? Does he imagine that there must be a divine law of conservation of spiritualized matter, and spiritual energy, and spiritual momentum?

And if the body of our Lord can be destroyed, as you suggest, in the process of digestion, it would imply that its “spiritualized molecules” react with our digestive acids and are transformed with them into other compounds that will become assimilated in our organism, and others that will be rejected. So, the “spiritualized molecules” would exhibit chemical affinity with our mundane molecules and obey the common laws of reaction kinetics. In time, there would be in our body certain tissues (our hair, for example) that would be composed of a combination of mundane and spiritualized atomic elements. As a further consequence, if “spiritualized molecules” react with mundane molecules, the “spiritualized molecules” of a glorious body would react between themselves just as their mundane counterparts do in a “natural human body”, suffering composition and decomposition; and then the glorious body would be subject to aging and death, just like ours.

What are the “divine physical laws” to which, according to Craig, the glorious body of our Lord is subject? Did this Doctor say something about them? I guess the knowledge of those laws would be necessary to be able to conclude or predict something. I know nothing about those possible laws.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to get at Craig’s claim that Jesus’s human nature would eventually be “eaten up”?
 
Why or how could his human nature be used up? Is Craig claiming that there are limits on God or something? That’s all that such an objection boils down to.
 
If Christ is God the Son and God is infinite, how can God be “eaten up”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top