Give a detailed series of philosophical arguments against the Ratzinger–Nichols conception of transubstantiation in the Eucharist using arguments from phenomenology and Mulla Sadra, branching into a more general argument against the incarnation branching into an argument against the trinity. Use principles such as the immutability of God, the illogic of accidents or change to occur in Him or His essence (branching into a general argument against Him having quiddity), His limitlessness (be it temporal, physical, or spiritual; since God cannot be said to be in one place and be lacking in another) , and existentialism.

Question

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

The Ratzinger-Nichols conception of transubstantiation in the Eucharist posits a transformation of bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ, while retaining the external appearance of bread and wine. However, this concept poses several philosophical challenges that can be explored through the lens of phenomenology and the teachings of Mulla Sadra.

Firstly, from a phenomenological perspective, we understand the essence of an object to be inherent in its appearance and properties. The idea that the substance of bread and wine can change while its accidents remain the same is a contradiction in terms. It goes against the fundamental principle that a thing's essence is inseparable from its outward form. Mulla Sadra's concept of existentialism further complicates this, as he posits that existence is the essence of beings. Thus, to claim that the essence of bread and wine can change without altering their outward appearance is to defy the very nature of existence itself.

Furthermore, the notion of transubstantiation raises deeper questions about the nature of God. If God is immutable and unchanging, as many philosophical traditions argue, then how can He undergo a transformation in the Eucharist? The idea that God can alter His essence goes against His very nature as the unchanging and eternal being. Additionally, the concept of accidents or change occurring in God or His essence is illogical, as it implies limitations on His infinite nature.

This leads us to a more general argument against the incarnation of God in human form. If God is limitless in all aspects - be it temporal, physical, or spiritual - then the idea of Him taking on a finite, human form seems contradictory. It suggests a limitation on God's omnipotence and transcendence, which undermines the very notion of His divinity. The trinity, as another aspect of Christian theology, also poses problems within this framework. The concept of three distinct persons in one God challenges the idea of God's limitlessness, as it implies a division within the divine essence.

In conclusion, the Ratzinger-Nichols conception of transubstantiation in the Eucharist, as well as the broader Christian doctrines of the incarnation and trinity, present philosophical challenges that call into question the very nature of God and His attributes. By examining these concepts through the principles of phenomenology, Mulla Sadra's teachings, and the immutability and limitlessness of God, we can begin to unravel the complexities of these theological doctrines and their implications on our understanding of the divine.