William Lane Craig Explains Catholic's transubstantiation

[Robyn_p]

maybe craig is just incomplete. maybe the substance of Christ consumes us.

peace
steve

From the transcript it didn’t sound like that’s what he meant to say. I’d like to think that, but it seems unlikely.

 

[Qwikness]

Just to summarize thisreasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s12-6"] second lecture and some points Craig makes to his audience. Nothing contentious except some discussion questions below the list.

• there is another very important facet of their doctrine that needs to be emphasized and that is the doctrine of the Eucharist (or the Mass) as a sacrifice…
• in the West the view of the Eucharist as a rite of thanksgiving began to give way to the belief that this was a propitiatory or expiatory sacrifice offered to God.
• the sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory; that is to say, it satisfies the demands of God’s wrath and justice.
• I pointed out before how that makes the Eucharist so important to Catholics. It is the fount and apex of the Christian life.

He seems to emphasize the importance of the Mass and the Eucharist by mentioning it(them) “the fount and apex of the Christian life.” as if this is taking focus away from Jesus and supplanting it with the Bread And Wine.

He emphasizes the term “propitiatory.” It seems he is encouraging his audience to question whether the Mass was necessary to re-present, continuously the one and only sacrifice on Calvary. in fact this question is raised and he answers…

Discussion Question: I find this fascinating because if you look at what Christ said on the cross, he died on the cross for our sins and he said, “It is finished.” Yet what I am hearing is that every time they take the Eucharist it is a way of gaining redemption and sacrifice again – it is continual. Doesn’t that fly in the face somewhat of Scripture when Christ paid the price?

Answer: I think what you said is spoken like a good Protestant. Protestants would find this to be very disturbing, I think. It is a new offering of that sacrifice that Christ has made. It is not as though this is a new sacrifice. For example, in the Old Testament there would be bulls and goats and other things that would be offered anew. This is not a new sacrifice. But it is a continual offering to God of sacrifices. So in a sense, sacrifices continue to go on and continue to be presented to God for sin.

He explains the Real Presence wasn’t believed in the West until the Third Century. So he implies an innovation and not a consistent belief.

Discussion Question from his lecture: Were any of these ideas completely new as a response to the Protestants? Or was it simply ideas that were already part of Catholicism and they developed them in a different way?

Answer: Right. This has a long history. I talked a little bit about that last time. I also mentioned that it was in the third century that this view began to develop in the West. So this is not something brand new but Trent is helpful in that it represents a very clear statement of Catholic doctrine

reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s12-6

 

[Qwikness]

One person makes the following statement that WLC confirms. Is it an accurate analogy?

Followup: So, in my opinion, it is kind of like pulling up to a gas station and getting your tank filled. This is what you are doing. It is a continuous striving for salvation.

Answer: Yes, I like the analogy. If you don’t fill up your tank, you are going to run empty and your Christian life is going to bottom out and come to a halt maybe. So it is vital to be connected to the means of grace and to be constantly getting refueled. Yes.

 

[Faith1960]

Craig simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about and should NEVER speak for the Catholic Church. I believe he is doing this on purpose. The more confusing junk they can throw out there about the Catholic Church, the less creditable it looks, at least to them. God Bless, Memaw

I like him, and his apologetics have helped me a few times; I just don’t expect him to agree with us about this subject since he isn’t Catholic.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Yeah, it’s really odd that he would say that. Craig’s not an ignorant guy, it would only take a quick search on the Internet to find out what Catholics actually believe about the Eucharist. It’s not that hard. At worst he’s being dishonest, at best just plain lazy.

In either case I’m disappointed in him here. He knows better.

I think he is playing to his audience. If he told them the truth they would accuse him of being Catholic and saying the Baptists are wrong.

 

[Remember_Me]

Maybe I missed something, but I never heard this theory about transubstantiation. There are Catholics who don’t take the Eucharist literally, and I don’t know what trouble that will cause for them. Well, this is interesting yet confusing!

 

[Qwikness]

I think he is playing to his audience. If he told them the truth they would accuse him of being Catholic and saying the Baptists are wrong.

No. He doesn’t agree with the Catholic Church on the doctrine of justification followed by the sacraments.
reasonablefaith.org/what-about-catholicism

 

[mdcpensive1]

No. He doesn’t agree with the Catholic Church on the doctrine of justification followed by the sacraments.
reasonablefaith.org/what-about-catholicism

I’m not sure how justification ties in with transubstantiation but if he presented the Catholic position on transubstantiation as the truth I bet they would accuse him of being a Catholic. I don’t believe he would do that since he is not in communion with the Church and you have a non-Catholic audience is all I am saying. If he presented the truth he would be trying to evangelize them which I do not think he is doing. He seems to be just giving a lecture.

 

[Qwikness]

I’m not sure how justification ties in with transubstantiation but if he presented the Catholic position on transubstantiation as the truth I bet they would accuse him of being a Catholic. I don’t believe he would do that since he is not in communion with the Church and you have a non-Catholic audience is all I am saying. If he presented the truth he would be trying to evangelize them which I do not think he is doing. He seems to be just giving a lecture.

I thought you were saying he was covertly a Catholic. The justification was one item in the laundry list of reasons why he isn’t a Catholic.

 

[polytropos]

I am curious who the Fordham University philosophy professor and priest is. I suspect it would be Brian Davies OP.

Aquinas does not say that we consume only the accidents. He says: “I answer that, It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ’s flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord’s body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.” I am not sure how one could only consume the accidents of something, for accidents always inhere in a substance by definition.

 

[JimG]

I am curious who the Fordham University philosophy professor and priest is. I suspect it would be Brian Davies OP.

Aquinas does not say that we consume only the accidents. He says: “I answer that, It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ’s flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord’s body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.” I am not sure how one could only consume the accidents of something, for accidents always inhere in a substance by definition.

I would only note that in the case of transubstantiation, and only in the case of transubstantiation, the accidents (of bread and wine) do not inhere in any substance. They do not inhere in the substance of bread and wine because that substance is gone, replaced by the body and blood of Christ. They do not inhere in Christ because he has his own proper accidents. He does not take on as his own accidents those of bread and wine. He rather remains whole and entire under those appearances (of bread and wine.)

If we break the host in half or in quarters in smaller pieces, we do not thereby break Christ. We are incapable of causing him harm in the Eucharist. He is present whole and entire under the appearances of the smallest particle of the host.

 

[Qwikness]

Wow that was good. The next lecture has come out and here is the MP3. (about 40 minutes)
I’ll have to get the transcript and do the quotes later when it comes out.

The early part of this lecture deals with a review about Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation and then an introduction to the Reform view of the Lord’s Supper, Calvin vs. Zwingli. Which led into his view that followed Zwingli then he started hit Transubstantiation hard.

He says the Lord’s Supper is serious business and should not be taken without first examining one’s conscience as Paul says. He says it is just a symbol. Jesus corporal body is in heaven and it is the deity nature we receive. To combine the two would be to devalue what Christ did in his resurrection. (something like that). He picks on the Catholic position a lot here. Says John 6 has nothing to do with the Eucharist. He uses other examples in John to show symbolic examples where Jesus spoke. ex. about being born again to Nicodemus, the living water dialogue with the lady at the well maybe more.

But the good part was the Catholic present that speaks up at the end during the discussion. He couldn’t even go into all the points but does talk about how Iraneus, in AD 107, on his way to Martyrdom, calls out the heretics that does not believe in the Real Presence. And how in John 6, the great Teacher, Jesus, never corrects the followers walking away. And how at the Lord’s Supper, Jesus could have used lots and lots of other words to describe the symbolic word for “Is” when saying “This IS my body.” but didn’t he used the word “Is.” WLC pretty much said we’ll have to talk about that next week.

 

[Qwikness]

What about what Craig is saying about Cyprian saying that Eucharist is a symbol? How do you refute that?

 

[polytropos]

I would only note that in the case of transubstantiation, and only in the case of transubstantiation, the accidents (of bread and wine) do not inhere in any substance. They do not inhere in the substance of bread and wine because that substance is gone, replaced by the body and blood of Christ. They do not inhere in Christ because he has his own proper accidents. He does not take on as his own accidents those of bread and wine. He rather remains whole and entire under those appearances (of bread and wine.)

If we break the host in half or in quarters in smaller pieces, we do not thereby break Christ. We are incapable of causing him harm in the Eucharist. He is present whole and entire under the appearances of the smallest particle of the host.

Thank you. I will have to read more about the theology behind transubstantiation.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

What about what Craig is saying about Cyprian saying that Eucharist is a symbol? How do you refute that?

What does Craig say Cyprian said?

There is a symbolic aspect to any Sacrament. That is actually one of the arguments against Transubstantiation, in that if the bread and wine are literally the body and blood of Jesus, then what is the Sacramental sign of the Eucharist which signifies the underlying Truth? If we say it is the bread and wine, then we are accused of denying that it is the body and blood of Jesus, as it is no longer bread and wine. St. Augustine was very insistent on the Sacramental sign of all the Sacraments. I suspect that St. Cyprian was referring to the Sacramental sign (symbol) of the Eucharist, meaning the bread and wine. The Sacramental sign refers us back to Melchizedek the King and High Priest.

 

[Qwikness]

What does Craig say Cyprian said?

What does Craig say Cyprian says? That’s just it, he doesn’t quote him.
William Lane Craig:

But the church father Cyprian, at least, took these elements of the bread and the wine to be at best symbolic of the body and blood. They weren’t transformed into the body and blood of Christ. They were simply symbolic.

Soooo…does Cyprian say it is “at best symbolic?” I looked up a little about this and someone says Phillip Schaff claimed Cyrpian said it was symbolic but it was mischaracterized. Other than that, is there anything at all anywhere where Cyprian actually said “symbolic?”

I have a protestant budddy who introduced me to Craig. After listening to this I told him all the ECFs believed in the real presence. He followed Craig and said, “no, not all. Craig says Cyprian is an ECF that thinks its a symbol.” I don’t know enough about Cyprian but a quick, and I mean not thorough doesn’t support this. So, Anybody know anything about Cyprian because it seems one dissension upsets the apple cart.

 

[mdcpensive1]

I thought you were saying he was covertly a Catholic. The justification was one item in the laundry list of reasons why he isn’t a Catholic.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Soooo…does Cyprian say it is “at best symbolic?” I looked up a little about this and someone says Phillip Schaff claimed Cyrpian said it was symbolic but it was mischaracterized. Other than that, is there anything at all anywhere where Cyprian actually said “symbolic?”

No, I don’t think so. The fact is, St. Cyprian does not really say much about the Real Presence in the Eucharist, as this was not doubted in his time. But this website has some quotes from St. Cyprian to our point. What IS obvious is that St. Cyprian never says (unless Craig can furnish us with his supposed quote) anything about the Eucharist being merely symbolic; quite the contrary.

 

[Qwikness]

This is some quotes from Craig’s most recent lecture.
reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s12-7
William Lane Craig:

Therefore, it is simply an ordinance, not a sacrament.
This would be the view that would characterize typically Baptist churches. The Lord’s Supper is not a means of grace. It is an ordinance that we participate in on a regular basis in order to remember the Lord’s sacrifice, to examine ourselves, and to remember what he has done on our behalf.

William Lane Craig:

It seems to me that this is a doctrine [of transubstantiation] which does not enjoy plausible scriptural support. I think it is so evident that this is not taught by Jesus at the Last Supper in that when Jesus instituted the Last Supper – when he spoke the words of institution (“This is my body. This is my blood.”) – he was there physically with them. His body was in front of them. His blood was coursing through his veins. So, of course, this is not literal when he shows them the bread and hands them the cup and says, “This is my body; this is my blood.” That is, I think, just evident in the fact that he was corporeally present with them

William Lane Craig:

Galatians 4:25. Here Paul is using Sarah and Hagar as images of the two covenants – the old and the new covenant. In verse 23 he says,
“But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise. Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. “
Here he says Hagar is Mount Sinai, and moreover is the present Jerusalem. This is an image of the old covenant. Sarah represents the new covenant, the New Jerusalem. Again, obviously, it would be inept to take this in some sort of literal sense – that Hagar is a mountain in Arabia, or that she is a city in Judea. Rather, this is the use of images for these things.
So when Jesus says, “This is my body which is for you,” and gives them the bread, or, “This is the cup of the new covenant in my blood,” he is doing a symbolic presentation of a prophetic action. Very often in the Old Testament, the prophets would be asked by God to do some sort of an action that would symbolize or be an image of the message that they were proclaiming to Israel. I think that is what you have here in the Lord’s Supper – a symbolic, prophetic action which symbolizes the giving of Christ’s life.

 

[Qwikness]

Some more quotes from Craig’s most recent lecture.
reasonablefaith.org/defen…anscript/s12-7
William Lane Craig:

John 6 beginning in verse 35 and then we will pick up at 41-42 and then 48-51.
Notice here that Jesus isn’t talking about the Eucharist. The context here is not the Last Supper. This is a discourse that Jesus gives during the period of his ministry. The context is not the Last Supper. And we have many other examples in John of where Jesus uses symbols like “the bread of life;” symbols which his hearers misunderstood by taking them too literally. So, for example, look at John 3:3-4, Jesus’ discourse on the new birth. Speaking to Nicodemus,
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
Here Nicodemus’ literalism prevented an understanding of what Jesus was talking about – spiritual rebirth. He thought he was talking literally.

William Lane Craig:

Or, turn the page over to John 4:10-12. This is when Jesus meets the Samaritan woman at the city well:
Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” The woman said to him, “Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep; where do you get that living water?”
Again, she is interpreting what he is saying literally – “How can you draw from the well when you don’t have a bucket? Where are you going to get this living water” It was her literalism that prevented her from truly understanding what Jesus meant.

William Lane Craig:

Similarly in John 4:31-33:
Meanwhile the disciples besought him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.” But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” So the disciples said to one another, “Has any one brought him food?”
They thought he was talking literally again. They said, “Who brought this guy something to eat? We’re not aware that anybody has given him anything to eat.” Jesus is talking about a different kind of food – a spiritual sustenance.

William Lane Craig:

One more example. John 11:11-12.** It is interesting how these are in the Gospel of John, isn’t it?** This is before departing to Lazarus’ grave site:
Thus he spoke, and then he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep.” The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.”
No need to risk your life going to Bethany. If he is just asleep he’ll be fine. Then Jesus said, “He’s dead! I need to go and address the situation.”
So I think you can see that John frequently will use symbols to express deeper spiritual truths.

William Lane Craig:

Now, I think the difficulty in interpreting this as a kind of later retrojection of Eucharistic theology is the question, “Why isn’t the passage inserted into the Lord’s Supper?” Why here in the midst of Jesus’ ministry? Why not put it in the context of the Lord’s Supper? You might say, “But John already has a tradition of the Lord’s Supper and so doesn’t have room for it there.” Ah! That is not true. One of the funny things about the Gospel of John is that it has no Lord’s Supper narrative unlike the other three Gospels. The other three Gospels have the story of Jesus celebrating the Last Supper, giving the bread, blessing the cup – it is not in the Gospel of John. This could have been easily inserted there as a perfect expression of the Eucharist but it is not done so. That suggests that this isn’t to be interpreted in those terms.

William Lane Craig:

So I don’t think that there is good biblical evidence for thinking that in the Lord’s Supper the bread and the wine are literally transformed into the body and blood of the Lord. In fact, I want to here press an objection to this point of view. And that is that it confuses the resurrection body of Christ. It seems confused with respect to Christ’s resurrection body. Christ’s resurrection body is a physical, corporeal, humanoid organism that the disciples could see and touch and that has now departed from our spacetime universe but someday he will personally come again. We shouldn’t think of the resurrection body of Christ as some sort of immaterial, spiritual reality. This is to depreciate and fail to understand the physical, corporal nature of the resurrection of the dead, both in Jewish thinking and in early Christian theology. So when you really understand that the body of Christ is his resurrection body, I think you can see that this is obviously not being eaten and his blood drunk by Christians all around the world. For one thing, it wouldn’t be large enough to feed all the persons who are taking the Lord’s Supper at any time in the world. The resurrection body of Christ is a finite, physical, humanoid body, and to spiritualize it away is to fail to do justice to the doctrine of the resurrection.

William Lane Craig:

So I have difficulty with this doctrine, not only because of its lack of biblical support, but because I think it fundamentally runs up against the proper understanding of Christ’s resurrection body. So I am not persuaded that transubstantiation is a correct view.