Sect. 258TransubstantiationTransubstantiation

The Church teaches not only the fact that our Lord is really and truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, but also the way in which He is present. By the words of consecration the whole substance of bread is changed into our Lord’s body, and the whole substance of wine is changed into His blood, the appearances (species) of bread and wine alone remaining. Although the name “Transubstantiation,” which is given to this change, is not older than the eleventh century, the notion itself was clearly taught by the Fathers. Protestants, who object to the introduction of the word, walk in the footsteps of the Arians, who objected to the term ὁμοούσιος, and of the Nestorians, who objected to the term Θεοτόκος. Transubstantiation is no more philosophical than these, and is just as much contained in Scripture. It is founded on the familiar distinction between a substance and its accidents or phenomena. When our Lord changed water into wine, the substance of the water was changed into the substance of wine, and the taste, smell, appearance, etc., of water, gave place to the taste, smell, etc., of wine. In the Blessed Sacrament the substantial change takes place without any accidental change. For such a distinct kind of change there should be a distinct name, and none fitter could be invented than transubstantiation. That the notion conveyed by this word is contained in Holy Scripture, all the Schoolmen agree. Some, however (e.g. Scotus), have held that it could not be proved from Scripture alone. We need hardly say that Scotus was a firm believer in the doctrine itself. But the Council of Trent favours the opposite view: “Forasmuch as Christ our Redeemer declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore hath it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread,” etc. (sess. xiii. c. 4).

I. The words of institution, “This is My body,” are equivalent to two propositions: (1) “This which I hold in My hand, which is now here before you, is My body;” and (2) “This which I hold in My hand, which is now before you, is no longer bread.” If bread were still present, our Lord could not say, “This is My body;” but only, “Here, or in this, is My body.” To make the words of institution true, it is necessary that they should effect what they signify. That is to say, when our Lord pronounced the words, what He held in His hands must have ceased to be bread, and must have become His body. And as no change took place in the accidents or appearances, the change must have been that which is called transubstantiation.

We have seen that the proper rule for the interpretation of the Scriptures is the teaching of the Church (Book I. part i. ch. 3). If we examine the writings of the Fathers, we see that not only do they teach the doctrine of transubstantiation, but they base their belief in it on the words of institution. Hence we rightly hold that the doctrine can be proved from Scripture, at least with the help of the legitimate means of interpretation.

II. We have already shown that the Fathers teach that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of our Lord. We noticed that no difficulty could be urged against the Real Presence, from the fact that the Blessed Sacrament was sometimes called bread, even after the consecration. But the Fathers insist that it is not bread, but only seems to be such; that we are not to believe it to be what our senses tell us; that instead of the bread which was present our Lord’s body is laid upon the altar.

“What seems bread is not bread, though it seems so to the taste, but Christ’s body; what seems wine is not wine, even though the taste will have it so, but Christ’s blood” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. iv. 9).

“The Lord Jesus Himself cries out: ‘This is My body.’ Before the benediction of heavenly words another species (nature) is named; after the consecration (His) body is signified (i.e. is said to be no longer bread, but His body). He Himself declares it His own blood. Before the consecration it is called another thing; after consecration it is called blood. And thou sayest, ‘Amen;’ that is, it is true” (St. Ambrose, De Myster., ix.).

“From that moment when He took bread and called it His body, it was not bread, but His body” (St. James of Sarug, Serm. 66, De Passione Domini).

“It (the bread) is changed by a wonderful operation, though to us it appears bread.… Bread, indeed, it appears to us, but flesh in reality it is (ἄρτος μὲν ἡμῖν φαὶνεται, σὰρξ δὲ τω ὄντι ἔστι)” (Theophylact, In Matt. xxvi. 26).

The Fathers say that the Blessed Sacrament is not common bread. This would not by itself prove their belief in transubstantiation. They take care, however, to say that what was common bread becomes “the bread of life;’ “the living bread which came down from heaven,” “the bread that we break;” “the bread which Christ said was His flesh;” that it is not common bread, but “the body of Christ.” E.g. “We do not receive these things as common bread and common drink, but … the food … is both flesh and blood of that same incarnate Jesus” (St. Justin; see above, p. 410). “Wherefore do not contemplate the bread and wine as bare (elements), for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, Christ’s body and blood” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. Myst., iv. 6).

They say that the bread itself is changed into our Lord’s body. “The bread itself and wine are changed into the body and blood of God” (St. John Damascene; see above, p. 413).

“He Himself therefore having declared and said concerning the bread, ‘This is My body,’ who shall dare to doubt henceforward? And He Himself having settled and said, ‘This is My blood,’ who shall ever doubt, saying, ‘This is not His blood’? He once, at Cana of Galilee, changed (μεταβέβληκεν) water into wine, which is akin to blood, and is He undeserving of belief when He changed wine into blood?” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., iv. 2.) This comparison shows that Cyril held that the substance of bread and wine were changed. (Cf. St. Ambrose and St. Chrysostom, quoted in the foregoing section.)

When the Fathers speak of our Lord’s body and blood as being in bread and wine, they do not mean that the substance of bread and wine remains, out they refer either to that but of which the sacrament is made (e.g. “He consecrated His blood in wine,” Tertullian), or to the appearances under which our Lord is present.

III. When the heresy of Berengarius arose in the eleventh century, the whole Church explicitly professed the doctrine of transubstantiation. The Fourth Lateran Council, held in 1215, defined that “the body and blood (of Christ) are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the appearances (sub speciebus) of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into the body, and the wine into the blood, by the power of God.” The Second Council of Lyons (1274), in the profession of Faith proposed to Michael Palæologus, and accepted by him on behalf of the Eastern Church, says, “The said Roman Church believeth and teacheth that in the sacrament the bread is truly transubstantiated (ἀληθῶς μετουσιοῦται) into the body, and the wine into the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.” The Council of Trent, therefore, only renewed more solemnly and clearly what had long before been defined, and had been explicitly believed by the faithful.

Cor. The Council of Trent has defined that in the Eucharist “the whole Christ is contained under each species (i.e. under the appearances of bread or wine), and under every part of each species when separated” (sess. xiii. can. 3). These two points do not present any difficulty when transubstantiation has once been admitted.

1. Our Lord Himself uses the expression, “He that eateth Me,” thereby showing that he who eats receives the whole Christ So, too, St. Paul, “Whosoever shall eat of this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” It is also clear that the words, “This is My body,” make our Lord’s body to be present, as it actually is, i.e. as a living body containing the blood.

2. As to the other point, Our Lord’s conduct at the Last Supper proves that He is present at least under every portion of the consecrated wine, for every Apostle that drank received Him. The constant and universal practice of breaking the consecrated bread is a proof of belief in this doctrine. It is also theologically certain, though not of Faith, that our Lord is whole and entire in each part even before separation.

Scholion. We need not here enter into the philosophical or scientific bearings of transubstantiation. We may observe that the doctrine is inconsistent only with idealism, and that it is not bound up with any ultra-realistic theories. The Council of Trent, when defining the change of substance, studiously avoids the use of the term “accident,” the usual scholastic correlative of substance, and speaks of “species” (εἶδος), appearances, or phenomena. It is commonly held, however, that these are not merely subjective impressions, but have some sort of corresponding reality. See Franzelin, thes. xi. and xvi.; Dalgairns, part i. chap. 2, and note F.