Part I, Chapter III: Transubstantiation, or the Operative Cause of the Real Presence

Chapter III: Transubstantiation, or the Operative Cause of the Real Presence

We have seen how Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist. The question arises: What causes His presence? The answer is: Transubstantiation.

We shall first explain the nature of Transubstantiation and the history of the term in Catholic theology (§1), and then prove the dogmatic teaching of the Church in regard to this mystery from Scripture and Tradition (§2).

§1. Definition of Transubstantiation

To arrive at a correct idea of the nature of Transubstantiation, we must first examine the underlying notions of change and conversion.

1. Conversion

A change (mutatio, ἀλλοίωσις — motus, κίνησις) is a transition from one state to another. Conversion (conversio, μεταβολή) is something more than that. It is a “transition of one thing into another thing in some aspect of being.”¹

a) In a mere change, one of the two extremes may be expressed negatively. Conversion, on the other hand, requires two positive extremes, each of which must be related to the other as thing to thing, and they must have so intimate a connexion with each other that the last extreme (terminus ad quem) begins to exist only as the first (terminus a quo) ceases.

If a change affects the substance of a thing (as in the metabolic processes of the human body) it is called substantial; if merely its accidents (as when water turns into ice, or a block of marble is fashioned into a statue), it is called accidental. If a change falls within the ordinary laws of human experience, it is natural; if it transcends these laws, as e.g. the conversion of water into wine wrought by our Saviour at Cana, it is supernatural.

b) Conversion, being a “transition of one thing into another thing in some aspect of being,” requires two objects: that which is changed (terminus a quo) and that into which it is changed (terminus ad quem). It further requires an intrinsic connexion between the disappearance of the one and the appearance of the other, and generally also a third element, known as the commune tertium, which, even after the conversion has taken place, unites the two extremes with each other.

α) Every conversion must have two extremes, for a thing cannot be converted into itself. What is sometimes called “reconversion” is, generally speaking, either a mere change in the sense of a return to a previously existing state (as in the regular alternation of day and night) or a true conversion with two distinct extremes (as in some chemical processes).

β) In every conversion there must be an intrinsic connexion between the disappearance of the one extreme and the appearance of the other, because a conversion is effected not by two independent and unconnected acts, but by one and the same act which causes the terminus a quo to cease to exist and calls the terminus ad quem into being, in such a way that the one is the cause of the other. This intrinsic connexion may be either physical or moral.

γ) There is further required a common element that unites the two extremes (commune tertium). In every true conversion this condition must be fulfilled: “What was formerly A is now B.” The question immediately arises: Must this common element be something physical and real, as when food is converted into living tissue, or may it be a mere ens rationis? On this point Catholic theologians disagree. Suarez² and De Lugo³ insist that it must be a physical reality, whereas others hold with Pallavicini⁴ that the continued existence of the logical relations between the two terms is sufficient, because otherwise it would be difficult to see what physical reality could have been left behind as tertium commune, e.g. in the conversion by Moses of a rod into a serpent. Whilst this is true enough, Franzelin⁵ is undoubtedly right in saying, on the other hand, that the continued existence of a common physical reality is a conditio sine qua non of conversion in the complete sense of the term.

c) Two important questions here suggest themselves: (1) Must there be a relation of contrary opposition between the two extremes of a conversion? and (2) Must the last extreme have been previously non-existent?

(1) There need not necessarily be a relation of contrary opposition between the two extremes, because a conversion, properly speaking, is not effected by virtue of extremes that mutually exclude each other, as e.g. love excludes hate, heat excludes cold, etc., but merely requires two positive extremes, while in case of contrary opposition one extreme must always be negative, or at least privative.

(2) The second question amounts to this: Can an existing terminus a quo be converted into an existing terminus ad quem? This is not so easy to answer. In the miracle of Cana, for instance, was the wine necessarily a new creation, and was the water irrevocably gone? Indeed, if the act of conversion is not to be a mere process of substitution, as in sleight-of-hand performances, the terminus ad quem must unquestionably in some manner begin to exist just as the terminus a quo must in some manner really cease to exist. On this point all theologians are unanimous. The deeper question is: Does the production of the terminus ad quem require a new creation, strictly so called, or is the idea of conversion fully realized when a thing which already exists in substance merely acquires a new mode of being? A careful consideration will show that the last-mentioned requirement is quite sufficient, and that it is not necessary to postulate the previous non-existence of the terminus ad quem. Our Lord assures His disciples: “God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.”⁶ Were these children pre-existent? Assuming (a false though not impossible assumption) that the souls of men exist before they are infused into their bodies, would the idea of conversion be realized if an already existing soul, as terminus ad quem, were to enter into a corpse and animate it as its substantial form? In the resurrection, the long decayed bodies of the dead will be truly converted into bodies of the risen by their previously existing souls, just as at death they were truly converted into corpses by the departure of these souls. Hence the disappearance of the terminus a quo need not spell annihilation, nor is the appearance of the terminus ad quem necessarily equivalent to creation, but it is sufficient that the former extreme cease and the latter begin to exist merely in a certain respect (secundum quid).

In either extreme of a conversion theologians further distinguish a twofold term: the terminus totalis and the terminus formalis. If we call the thing itself which disappears or comes into existence, the terminus totalis, and the same thing in so far as it disappears or ceases to exist, the terminus formalis, it is manifest that the terminus formalis a quo must disappear in every true conversion; but it does not follow that the terminus totalis a quo must cease to exist entirely. All that is required is that it simply cease to exist in some respect (secundum quid). In matter of fact its place is taken by the terminus totalis ad quem. This need not, however, involve the terminus formalis ad quem, which may have existed previously.

2. Substantial Conversion

A substantial conversion (conversio substantialis, μετουσίωσις) is that species of change by which one substance becomes another substance.

This definition excludes all merely accidental conversions, whether natural or supernatural.

A substantial conversion is either total or partial, according as it affects the whole substance of a thing or only an essential part thereof. A conversio substantialis totalis, in the Aristotelian sense, is a transition of the entire substance of a material thing, both as to matter and form, into the substance of another. A conversio substantialis partialis is a transition of either the matter or the form of a composite thing into that of another. The former is called conversio materialis, the latter conversio formalis. Were my body, for example, suddenly converted into a new body, the soul remaining unchanged, this would be a conversio materialis. The conversio formalis effects a conversion of the substantial form only and leaves the protyle (materia prima) unchanged.

Both kinds of conversion are rightly called substantial because they affect the substance of things. The circumstance that they are merely partial must not lead us to confound them, or put them on the same level, with merely accidental conversions, which change only the external form of material things (e.g. the metamorphosis of insects, the transfiguration of Christ on Mount Thabor).

Transubstantiation differs from all other species of substantial conversion in this, that the substance is converted into another substance, while the accidents remain unchanged. Thus, if wood were miraculously converted into iron and the substance of the latter remained hidden under the appearance of the former, we should have a true transubstantiation.

3. Transubstantiation

The change that takes place in the Eucharist is precisely such a conversion of one substance into another. The Council of Trent defines “that by the consecration of the bread and of the wine a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood; which conversion is by the Holy Catholic Church suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.”⁷

a) In the Holy Eucharist, therefore, we have a true conversion.

There are, first, the two extremes of bread and wine as the terminus a quo, and the Body and Blood of Christ as the terminus ad quem. There is, secondly, an intimate connexion between the cessation of the one extreme and the appearance of the other, in that both events result not from two independent processes (as e.g. annihilation and creation), but from one single act. At the words of consecration the substance of the bread and wine vanishes to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ. Lastly, there is a commune tertium in the unchanged appearances of the terminus a quo. Christ in assuming a new mode of being, retains these appearances, in order to enable us to partake of His Body and Blood. The terminus totalis a quo is not annihilated, because the appearances of bread and wine continue. What disappears is the substance of bread and wine, which constitutes the terminus formalis a quo. Nor can the terminus totalis ad quem be said to be newly created, because the Body and Blood of Christ, and in fact the whole Christ, as terminus formalis ad quem, pre-exist both in His Divinity (from all eternity), and in His Humanity (since the Incarnation). What begins to exist anew in the terminus ad quem is not our Lord as such, but merely a sacramental mode of being, in other words, the “Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ.”

b) The Tridentine Council defines that “the total substance of the bread and of the wine is converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of our Lord,” and hence Transubstantiation is a conversio substantialis totalis, as explained above.⁸

This fact raises Transubstantiation far above all other species of conversion, and, in conjunction with certain other qualities yet to be mentioned, places it in a category of its own.

α) All other conversions with which we are familiar are merely partial, affecting either the matter or the form. Transubstantiation alone affects both matter and form, i.e. the total substance of the Eucharistic elements.

β) In no other kind of conversion do the accidents remain as commune tertium, whereas in the Eucharist, after Transubstantiation, the true Body and Blood of Christ exist under the appearances of bread and wine in such a manner that the relation of inherence is entirely suspended and the Eucharistic Christ is not degraded to the level of a subiectum inhaesionis for the accidents of bread and wine.

γ) In every merely natural conversion the change takes place gradually, in proportion as the subject becomes disposed or fit to receive its new form, whereas the Transubstantiation of bread and wine in the Eucharist is effected in an instant.

These considerations show that Transubstantiation is a supernatural and altogether miraculous process, which must remain a mystery to the human mind.⁹

c) The term “Transubstantiation,” applied to this unique conversion, is very appropriate, as it etymologically includes the notion of a total and substantial change and excludes that of a merely accidental conversion. For while the substance of bread and wine is converted into the Body and Blood of Christ, the accidents remain unchanged.

The word “Transubstantiation” was unknown to the ancient Fathers, but it is so accurately descriptive of the conversion that takes place in the Holy Eucharist, and forms so powerful a bulwark of the true faith against heresies, that the Church has adopted it into her theological terminology. Hildebert of Tours (about 1097),¹⁰ a vigorous opponent of Berengarius,¹¹ seems to have been the first writer to employ the word. His example was followed by Stephen of Autun (d. 1139), Gaufred (1188), Peter of Blois (d. about 1200), Alanus of Lille (d. 1203), and others, and by several ecumenical councils, notably the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215)¹² and that of Lyons (1274). It was finally stamped with official approval at Trent. Suarez is therefore right in saying that to reject this term as “inappropriate or barbarous” would be foolhardy and offensive, and would incur the suspicion of heresy.¹³

The Greek schismatic Church adopted the equivalent term μετουσίωσις (in the sense of μεταβολὴ οὐσιώδης) into her official terminology in 1643.¹⁴

4. The Dogmatic Bearing of Transubstantiation

Transubstantiation virtually includes the Real Presence, because the substantial conversion which takes place in the Eucharist results in the Body and Blood of Christ. But it would not be true to say, conversely, that Transubstantiation is contained in the dogma of the Real Presence.

The dogma of Transubstantiation comprises three separate and distinct heads of doctrine, to wit: (1) that Christ is really and truly present under the appearances of bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist; (2) that, though the accidents of bread and wine continue, the respective substances no longer exist; and (3) that both these changes are produced by virtue of a substantial conversion.

Taken in the order in which we have enumerated them, these doctrines postulate and presuppose one another. Not so, however, if the order be inverted. One might believe in the Real Presence without admitting that the substances of bread and wine are totally absent, while, conversely, if one believed in the latter doctrine, one could not consistently deny the former. Again, one might hold the dogma of the Real Presence, yet deny that the bread and wine which have undergone a true transubstantiation are entirely absent after the consecration.

Transubstantiation furnishes a sure criterion for discerning erroneous teachings with regard to the Holy Eucharist. Take, e.g., Consubstantiation. Luther held that the bread and wine remain bread and wine, though after the consecration the real Flesh and Blood of Christ co-exist in and with the natural elements, just as an iron bar still remains an iron bar, though a new element, heat, has come to co-exist in and with it.¹⁵ This theory is clearly incompatible with Transubstantiation because it implies the continued presence of the substances of bread and wine. Equally incompatible with the dogma as held by the Church, is the isolated view of Durandus (d. 1332) that the substantial form of the bread alone undergoes conversion, while the primary matter (materia prima, ὕλη πρώτη) remains unchanged.¹⁶ Being a conversion of the total substance, Transubstantiation involves the conversion of the matter of the bread as well as of its form, thus obviating the absurd corollary of Durandus that the Body of Christ experiences a material increase at each consecration.¹⁷

The dogma of Transubstantiation is likewise incompatible with the theory that the Real Presence involves a hypostatic union between the substance of the bread and the God-man. This theory was attributed by Bellarmine and Vasquez to Abbot Rupert of Deutz (d. 1135), but it probably originated among the adherents of Berengarius in the eleventh century. Osiander advocated it in the sixteenth century under the name of “Impanation” (impanatio, ἐναρτίσμος, Deus panis factus). The substantial conversion that takes place in the Holy Eucharist cannot be a hypostatic union for the simple reason that a process which would convert God into a created substance could not be called by that term without completely changing its meaning. In a somewhat modified form the Impanation theory was held by John of Paris at the beginning of the fourteenth century. This writer taught that there is a hypostatic union between the substance of the bread and the God-man, but that it affects immediately only the Body of Christ, so that it would be correct to say, by virtue of the communication of idioms, “This bread is the Body of Christ,” but false to say, “God is bread,” inasmuch as God enters into a hypostatic union with the substance of the bread only in a mediate manner, i.e. through the instrumentality of His Body. But it is manifestly absurd to assume that an impersonal substance like bread can be hypostatically supported by the Body of Christ. The Impanation theory in all its forms furthermore errs in assuming the continued existence of the bread in the Holy Eucharist. As a matter of fact the total substance of the bread is converted into the Body of Christ, and consequently, there is no substance left with which the God-man could enter into a hypostatic union.¹⁸

§2. Transubstantiation Proved from Holy Scripture and Tradition

1. Various Heretical Errors vs. the Teaching of the Church

On three different occasions the Church found it necessary to define her teaching in regard to Transubstantiation — first against Berengarius; second, against Martin Luther; and third, against the Jansenistic Council of Pistoia.

a) Berengarius of Tours,¹⁹ who flourished towards the middle of the eleventh century, denied the dogma of Transubstantiation and probably also that of the Real Presence. His famous treatise De Sacra Coena contains the following passage: “Panis consecratus in altari amisit vilitatem, amisit inefficaciam, non amisit naturae proprietatem.” Among his adherents there was much confusion. While they were unanimous in denying Transubstantiation, they differed widely in other respects. Some held that the Eucharist merely contains an image of the Body of Christ; others believed in a sort of “Impanation.” Others, again, more nearly approaching the Catholic doctrine, admitted a partial conversion of the bread and wine, while still others maintained that the Body and Blood of our Lord are really and truly present in the Eucharist, but become reconverted into bread and wine when received by the wicked.²⁰

Luther, adhering to belief in the Real Presence, rejected Transubstantiation as “a sophistic subtlety” and taught in its place what is known as “Consubstantiation.”²¹ In their endeavor to explain how two substances are able to co-exist in the same place, the Lutherans split into two camps. Osiander revived “Impanation,”²² whereas Luther himself, to escape the difficulties urged against his position, had recourse to the famous theory of “Ubiquitarianism.”²³

The Jansenistic Council of Pistoia (1786) advised the clergy to confine themselves in their preaching to the dogma of the Real Presence and to ignore Transubstantiation as a “scholastic quibble.”²⁴

The unbending opposition of the Church to all these vagaries shows that she considers the doctrine of Transubstantiation intimately bound up with that of the Real Presence.

We have already mentioned the profession of faith to which Berengarius was compelled to subscribe at the Roman Council of 1097. The Council of Trent defined against Luther and his followers: “If anyone saith that, in the sacred and holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood — the species only of the bread and wine remaining — which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.”²⁵

The abortive attempt of the Synod of Pistoia to misrepresent the dogma thus solemnly proclaimed by the Church, was condemned by Pope Pius VI in his Bull “Auctorem Fidei,” A.D. 1794.²⁶

The Tridentine definition states the Catholic belief in Transubstantiation so clearly that nothing remains for us to do but to show that the dogma has a solid basis in Scripture and Tradition.

2. The Teaching of Sacred Scripture

The doctrine of Transubstantiation is virtually contained in the words by which our Lord instituted the Blessed Sacrament: “This is my Body,” etc. In the mouth of Him who is Truth itself these words cannot possibly be false. When the God-man said of the bread, “This is my Body,” the bread forthwith became really and truly His Body; which can only mean that, when He had spoken, the substance of the bread was gone and there was present the Body of Christ under the outward appearance of bread.

Scotus, Durandus, Paludanus, Pierre d’Ailly, and a few other Scholastic writers contend that the words of institution alone, taken literally and without regard to their traditional interpretation, do not strictly prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Vasquez²⁷ declares that, since the Tridentine definition, this view is no longer tenable. The most that can be said is that Transubstantiation cannot be as conclusively deduced from the words of institution as the dogma of the Real Presence. Though the manner in which the presence of the Body of Christ is effected in the Holy Eucharist may be logically deduced, it is not perhaps strictly demonstrable from the sacred text. The interpretation of that text by the Fathers, as officially confirmed by the Church, remains the only conclusive argument. Nevertheless, it is perfectly proper to conclude from the words of institution that if the bread is no longer present after the consecration, it must have become the Body of Christ by a substantial conversion.²⁸

The Calvinists, therefore, are consistent in rejecting the Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation as unscriptural. Had Christ intended to assert that His Body co-exists with the substance of the bread, He would surely have employed some such expression as, “This bread is my Body,” or, “This bread contains my Body,” or, “In this bread is (inest, ἔνεστιν) my Body,” or, “Here is my Body.” In matter of fact, however, He employed the indefinite phrase τοῦτο, instead of the definite οὗτος (i.e., ὁ ἄρτος) ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου — thereby clearly indicating that what He held in His hands after the consecration was no longer bread but His own Body. The copula ἐστίν between τοῦτο and σῶμά μου manifestly expresses the identity of the two. Had our Lord desired to make bread merely the sacramental receptacle of His Body, as the Lutherans allege, it would have been necessary for Him to state this expressly, for neither in the nature of the case nor according to common parlance can a piece of bread become the receptacle of a human body. On the other hand, the synecdoche is plain in the case of the Chalice: “This is my Blood,” i.e., the contents of the Chalice are my Blood, and hence no longer wine.

3. The Teaching of Tradition

The Fathers inculcated the dogma of Transubstantiation conjointly with that of the Real Presence, though complete clearness on the subject was not attained until the fourth century.

a) Hence the Patristic argument for the Real Presence also proves the dogma of Transubstantiation.²⁹

The belief of the early Greek Fathers in Transubstantiation is apparent from the terms they employ in speaking of the conversion of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord. Here are some of them: μεταβάλλειν (Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret), μεταστοιχειοῦν, i.e. transelementare (Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom), μεταποιεῖν, i.e. transferre (Cyril of Alexandria, John of Damascus), μεταρρυθμίζειν (Chrysostom), etc.³⁰ Indirectly the Fathers express their belief in Transubstantiation whenever they deny, as they often do, that the bread and the wine continue to exist as independent substances after the consecration, or affirm that the terminus ad quem of the conversion that takes place in the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ. Thus St. Cyril of Jerusalem says: Μεταβάλλεται καὶ οὐκέτι ἄρτος. St. Ambrose: “Species elementorum mutatur.” Cyril of Alexandria declares that the bread is changed into the true Body of Christ; Chrysostom, that it becomes His crucified Body; Ambrose, that it is converted into the Body born of the Virgin Mary.

Dr. Pusey, who denied the cogency of the Patristic argument for Transubstantiation,³¹ was victoriously refuted by Cardinal Franzelin.³²

b) The argument from the Fathers is strikingly confirmed by the ancient liturgies, which date in substance from the Apostolic age.

The so-called Liturgy of St. Chrysostom contains this beautiful prayer: “Send down Thy Spirit upon us and these Thy gifts [i.e. the Eucharistic elements], make this bread into the precious Body of Thy Christ. (Deacon: Amen). But that which is in the Chalice make into the precious Blood of Thy Christ (Deacon: Amen), converting it (μεταβαλών) through Thy Holy Spirit (Deacon thrice: Amen). … The Lamb of God, the Son of the Father, is broken and divided — broken but not diminished, everlastingly eaten but not annihilated, sanctifying those who partake thereof.”³³ The following invocation is from the Liturgy of St. Basil: “Make this bread into the precious Body of our Lord and God and Redeemer Jesus Christ, and this chalice into the Blood of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, which was shed for the life of the world.”³⁴ In the Armenian Liturgy we read: “Consecrate this bread and wine into the true Body and the true Blood of our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ, changing (permutans) it through Thy Holy Spirit.”³⁵ The Mass formularies of the Western Church are equally expressive. The ancient Gothic liturgy says: “This is the Lamb of God, which, being sacrificed, never dies, but, though slaughtered, lives everlastingly. … May the Paraclete descend, that we may partake of the sacrificial gift in heavenly conversion, and that, after the consecration of the fruit [bread] into the Body, and of the chalice into the Blood, it may conduce to our salvation.” An ancient Gallican Missal contains the following prayer: “May the fulness of Thy Majesty, O Lord, … descend upon this bread and upon this chalice, and may [it] become unto us the legitimate Eucharist in the transformation of the Body and Blood of the Lord.”³⁶

4. Theological Controversies

Since by Transubstantiation Christ is not created, but simply made present in the sacramental species, the question arises: How do the Body and Blood of our Lord enter into the accidents of bread and wine? This speculative problem presents some difficulties.

The Thomists hold that Christ becomes present in the sacramental species per productionem, the Scotists say that He enters into them per adductionem, while a third school of theologians, headed by Lessius, describes the manner of His entering into the species as replicatio aequivalens productioni.³⁷ While these theories cannot fully clear up what must of its very nature remain an unfathomable mystery, they are apt at least to throw some light upon the problem, and hence we shall briefly rehearse them.

According to the Thomistic view,³⁸ when the bread is converted into the Body of Christ, there is reproduced the same Body which was born of the Virgin Mary and now sitteth at the right hand of the Father. St. Thomas’ own teaching is not entirely clear on this point. He says that the change which causes Christ’s Body to be present in the Holy Eucharist “has something in common with creation and with natural transmutation,”³⁹ and speaks of the Body as “beginning to be anew” in the Blessed Sacrament.⁴⁰ This is quite in keeping with certain expressions found in the ancient liturgies and Patristic writings, e.g. that the Body of Christ is made or produced out of bread,⁴¹ etc. In matter of fact, Transubstantiation, being a true substantial conversion, creates as well as destroys,⁴² and its effect is such that the only reason why it does not actually create the Body of our Lord is that that Body already exists.

It is objected that to assume such repeated creations would jeopardize the numerical identity of the Eucharistic with the heavenly Body of Christ. To this the Thomists reply: The process involved in Transubstantiation is not a new production in the sense of creation, but rather a reproduction of the Body born of the Virgin Mary.⁴³

It is further objected that if Transubstantiation involved a positive production, it would entail an equally positive annihilation of the sacred Body when the species cease to exist. This is met by Billuart with the remark: “The Body of Christ does not become annihilated, for it exists elsewhere; it simply ceases to exist under this particular species.”⁴⁴

A third objection is: If Transubstantiation involved a positive production, the process of conversion would affect not only the substance of the bread, which is destroyed, but likewise the substance of the sacred Body, which is produced — an assumption repugnant to the doctrine of the impassibility of the glorified Body of Christ. The Thomistic answer to this difficulty may be summarized as follows: The immutable Body of Christ, though it is reproduced many times over in the Holy Eucharist, retains its full identity as a substance; the change is purely accidental, as it affects only the mode of being.

These and other difficulties to which the Thomistic view is subject have led the Scotists to devise their famous theory of “adduction,” which, with various modifications, was adopted by Bellarmine, Vasquez,⁴⁵ De Lugo,⁴⁶ Becanus, Pesch, and other prominent theologians. In saying that the Body of Christ becomes present in the Eucharistic species per adductionem, these writers do not mean to assert that the glorified Body is locally moved from Heaven upon the altar.⁴⁷ It is quite possible to conceive of that Body as being present in many different places without being moved about in space. The theory of “adduction” is briefly explained by Bellarmine as follows: “The Body of our Lord exists before the conversion; not, however, under the species of bread. The conversion, therefore, does not cause it simply to begin to exist, but to begin to exist under the appearance of bread. Hence we call this conversion adductio, not because through it the Body of Christ leaves its place in Heaven, or is brought hither from Heaven by local motion, but solely because by this process the Body, which previously existed in Heaven only, now also exists under the appearance of bread — not merely by simple presence or co-existence, but by a certain union, such as that which obtained between the substance of the bread and its accidents, inherence excepted.”⁴⁸

Critical Appreciation of These Theories. The elements of truth contained in these two theories can be combined into a third, which seems to us more satisfactory.

Undeniably there is some sort of adductio involved in Transubstantiation. This is evident from the fact that the Body of Christ begins to exist in a place where it previously did not exist. This mysterious beginning is popularly called a “coming down” or “bringing down” from Heaven, which expression may be accepted if purged of its local connotations. But Transubstantiation, by its very definition,⁴⁹ not only destroys one substance; it also produces another, and therefore manifestly involves more than a mere adductio, namely, a sort of productio or reproductio in the Thomistic sense.⁵⁰ Not that the glorified Body of Christ is subjected to a substantial change; but by virtue of the consecration it enters upon a new mode of existence (esse sacramentale), which, though perfectly real, involves no more than an accidental change. Nevertheless, the power inherent in the words of consecration is so great that, if the substance of the Eucharistic Body did not already exist, those words would as surely call it into being, as the “fiat” of the Almighty created the universe. In this sense the reproductio of the Body of our Lord in the Eucharist is conceivable as a merely virtual productio, which in respect of the multiplication of the real presences of one and the same Body may also be termed, in the phraseology of Lessius, a replicatio aequivalens productioni.⁵¹

Readings: J. M. Piccirelli, S.J., Disquisitio Dogmatica, Critica, Scholastica, Polemica de Catholico Intellectu Dogmatis Transsubstantiationis, Naples 1912. — D. Coghlan, De SS. Eucharistia, pp. 132 sqq., Dublin 1913.

Footnotes

1. “Conversio est transitus unius rei in aliam sub aliqua ratione entis.” ↩

2. Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 50, sect. 2, n. 16. ↩

3. De Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 7, sect. 1. ↩

4. Pallavicini, Curs. Theol., VI, 19, 257. ↩

5. Franzelin, De Eucharistia, thes. 13. ↩

6. Matth. III, 9. ↩

7. Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. 4: “Sancta haec Synodus declarat, per consecrationem panis et vini conversionem fieri totius substantiae panis in substantiam corporis Christi Domini nostri et totius substantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis eius, quae conversio convenienter et proprie a sancta catholica Ecclesia transsubstantiatio est appellata.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 877). ↩

8. See above, no. 2. ↩

9. Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, can. 2: ”… mirabilem illam et singularem conversionem.” ↩

10. Hildebert of Tours, Serm., 93: “verbum transsubstantiationis.” ↩

11. On Berengarius, see above, §2, no. 1. ↩

12. Cap. “Firmiter”: “transsubstantiatis pane in corpus et vino in sanguinem.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 430). ↩

13. Confessio Fidei Mich. Palaeologi: “Panis vere transsubstantiatur in corpus et vinum in sanguinem.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 465). Conc. Trid., Sess. XIII, cap. 4, can. 2. Suarez, De Euch., disp. 50, sect. 1: “Si quis vocem transsubstantiationis abiiceret ut ineptam et barbaram, in re ipsa non existimo esse haereticum, quia usus vocis per se non pertinet ad obiectum fidei, esset tamen valde temerarius, scandalosus et pias aures offenderet ac denique in externo foro esset vehementer de haeresi suspectus.” ↩

14. Cfr. Denifle, Luther und Luthertum in der ersten Entwicklung, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 614 sqq., Mayence 1906; Gillmann, “Zur Geschichte des Gebrauchs der Ausdrücke transsubstantiare und transsubstantiatio,” in the Mayence Katholik, 1908, II, pp. 417 sqq. ↩

15. Luther himself uses this illustration in a letter to Henry VIII. See also Herzog’s Realenzyklopädie der prot. Theologie, 2nd ed., Vol. XV, 829 (The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. III, p. 260). ↩

16. Durandus, Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 11, qu. 3. ↩

17. This corollary was espoused by Rosmini and condemned by the Church. (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1919). See Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne, May 1901; cfr. G. van Noort, De Sacramentis, Vol. I, 2nd ed., p. 276, Amsterdam 1910. ↩

18. Related to this theory is that of the well-known Jesuit Father Joseph Bayma (d. 1892 at Santa Clara, Cal.; see the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 360), censured by the Holy Office July 7, 1875 (“tolerari non posse.” Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1843 sqq.). Cfr. Franzelin, De Euch., thes. 15, scholion. On the dogmatic implications of Transubstantiation the student may profitably consult Heinrich-Gutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, Vol. IX, § 532. ↩

19. See above, §2, no. 1. ↩

20. Cfr. Hergenröther, Handbuch der allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte, Vol. II, 4th ed., p. 417, Freiburg 1904. ↩

21. See above, §1, no. 4. ↩

22. See above, §1, no. 4. ↩

23. The absurdity of the Impanation theory is effectively shown by Hurter, Compendium Theol. Dogmat., Vol. III, 12th ed., n. 440, Innsbruck 1909. On Luther’s “Ubiquitarianism” see Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 194 sqq. ↩

24. Cfr. Hergenröther, Kirchengeschichte, Vol. III, 4th ed., pp. 638 sqq., Freiburg 1909. ↩

25. Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, can. 2: “Si quis dixerit, in ss. Eucharistiae sacramento remanere substantiam panis et vini una cum corpore et sanguine Domini nostri Iesu Christi, negaveritque mirabilem illam et singularem conversionem totius substantiae panis in corpus et totius substantiae vini in sanguinem, manentibus dumtaxat speciebus panis et vini — quam quidem conversionem catholica Ecclesia aptissime transsubstantiationem appellat, anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 884). On the dogmatic bearing of this definition see above, §1, no. 4. ↩

26. “Quatenus per inconsultam istiusmodi suspiciosamque omissionem notitia subtrahitur tum articuli ad fidem pertinentis tum etiam vocis ab Ecclesia consecratae ad illius tuendam professionem adversus haereses, tenditque adeo ad eius oblivionem inducendam, quasi ageretur de quaestione mere scholastica: perniciosa, derogans expositioni veritatis catholicae circa dogma transsubstantiationis, favens haereticis.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1529). ↩

27. Vasquez, Comment. in Sent., III, disp. 180, c. 5. ↩

28. Because the substance of the bread and wine does not remain in the Eucharist, some, deeming it impossible for the substance of the bread and wine to be changed into Christ’s Flesh and Blood, have maintained that by the consecration the substance of the bread and wine is either dissolved into the original matter, or that it is annihilated. St. Thomas briefly disproves both these assumptions in the Summa Theologica, 3a, qu. 75, art. 3. Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 75, art. 2. ↩

29. See above, Ch. I, §2. Cfr. Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, III, 20. ↩

30. The Latin Fathers usually prefer such simpler verbs as mutare (St. Ambrose), fieri (St. Augustine), etc. ↩

31. Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence as Contained in the Fathers, Oxford 1855. ↩

32. Franzelin, De Eucharistia, thes. 14, pp. 195 sqq., Rome 1887; cfr. also Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, pp. 25 sqq., St. Louis 1913. ↩

33. Goar, Euchologia, pp. 77, 81. ↩

34. Goar, op. cit., p. 169. ↩

35. Apud Daniel, Codex Liturg., IV, 465, Leipzig 1853: “Consecra hunc panem et vinum in verum corpus et verum sanguinem Domini et Redemptoris nostri Iesu Christi permutans Spiritu Sancto tuo.” ↩

36. Apud Mone, Lateinische und griechische Messen aus dem 2. bis 6. Jahrhundert, p. 24, Frankfort 1850: “Descendat, Domine, plenitudo maiestatis … super hunc panem et super hunc calicem et fiat nobis legitima Eucharistia in transformatione corporis et sanguinis Domini.” Many other similar extracts may be found in Renaudot, Lit. Orient., 2nd ed., Frankfort 1847; Assemani, Codex Liturg. Ecclesiae Universae, 13 vols., Rome 1749-66; Denzinger, Ritus Orient., 2 vols., Würzburg 1864. ↩

37. There is a fourth school of divines (Billot, De Sacram., Vol. I, 4th ed., pp. 312 sqq., 367 sqq., Rome 1907; N. Gihr, Die hl. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 446 sqq., Freiburg 1902, and others) who simply assert that Transubstantiation explains the whole problem and attempt no deeper solution. The Catechism of the Council of Trent is likewise very undecided in the matter (De Euch., qu. 37). ↩

38. This teaching is also espoused by Suarez (De Euchar., disp. 50, sect. 4), Tanner, Arriaga, Platel, Coninck, Franzelin, Sasse, De Augustinis, Tepe, et al. ↩

39. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 75, art. 8. ↩

40. “Incipit esse de novo.” (Ibid., art. 2). ↩

41. Fieri, effici, produci, creari, recreari, are some of the terms employed. ↩

42. See above, §1. ↩

43. Cfr. Billuart, De Euchar., diss. 1, art. 7: “Idem corpus, quod fuit primo productum ex Maria Virgine, reproducitur ex pane.” ↩

44. “Corpus Christi non cadit in nihilum, quum alibi existat, sed tantum desinit esse sub istis speciebus panis.” (Billuart, l.c.). ↩

45. Vasquez, Comment. in S. Th., III, disp. 181, c. 12-13. ↩

46. De Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 7, sect. 6. ↩

47. Cfr. Catech. Rom., P. 2, qu. 37: “At vero fieri non posse constat, ut corpus Christi in sacramento sit, quod ex uno in alium locum venerit; ita enim fieret, ut a caeli sedibus abesset, quoniam nihil movetur, nisi locum deserat, a quo movetur.” ↩

48. Bellarmine, De Euchar., III, 18: “Corpus Domini praeexistit ante conversionem, sed non sub speciebus panis; conversio igitur non facit, ut corpus Christi simpliciter esse incipiat, sed ut incipiat esse sub speciebus panis. Porro adductivam vocamus istam conversionem, non quia corpus Christi per hanc adductionem deserat suum locum in caelo vel quia per motum localem huc de caelo adducatur, sed solum quia per eam fit, ut corpus Christi, quod antea solum erat in caelo, iam etiam sit sub speciebus panis, et non solum sub illis sit per simplicem praesentiam vel coexistentiam, sed etiam per unionem quandam, qualis erat inter substantiam panis et accidentia panis, exceptа tamen inhaerentiа.” (Henno prefers the term “introductio.”) See also Pesch, Prael. Dogm., Vol. VI, 3rd ed., pp. 319 sqq. ↩

49. See above, §1. ↩

50. See above, §1, no. 2. ↩

51. Lessius, De Perfectionibus Divinis, XII, 16, 114 sqq. ↩