One of the first questions asked of me from my reformed brethren when they hear about my conversion to Catholicism is about the Eucharist. “So, do you really believe that the bread and wine is actually Jesus’ body and blood?” Interestingly, the reformed faith essentially defines the Lord’s Supper in negative terms. They don’t just define what it is, they define what it is not. According to the Westminster Confession of Faith (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/) - whose catechism I had to memorize as a child btw – the Lord’s supper is NOT:
A sacrifice
To include adoration of the elements
Transubstantiation or consubstantiation
To be taken to those not able to attend the service
Able to take away sin
In fact transubstantiation is said to be repugnant to Scripture, common sense, and reason. That’s really what I want to talk about. As far as Scripture goes, I think a cursory reading of John 6 is all that is needed (if Jesus is speaking symbolically about his body being eaten then he must have been referring to his crucifixion symbolically also – you can’t have it both ways!) “My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” But this is not really what the reformers argue with, they argue that no matter how much is seems that Jesus is speaking literally he can’t be because it defies reason. But does it? I was taught that transubstantiation was impossible because Jesus is in heaven (with his human body, remember) and he can’t be in more than one place at one time. He can’t be in heaven, at the right hand of God, and on the altar at the same time.
When I have questioned other Catholics about this philosophical dilemma, I invariably get the same answer – “that’s ridiculous, of course Jesus can be in more than one place at one time, he is God!”
I was happy to find that Thomas Aquinas doesn’t dismiss the question at all, in fact he agrees with me – Jesus cannot be in more than one place at the same time. He deals with this apparent dilemma in his Summa Theologica. Some years later at the Council of Trent the matter was put to rest when the Church officially took Aquinas’ position on the Eucharist. In fact in the document of Trent is mentioned this “problem” of Jesus being in two places at once. The council members didn’t say, “hey, the prots are being stupid, of course Jesus can be in two places at once.” They acknowledged the seeming contradiction and impossibility of his human body being in more than one place at once and said that the problem was solved by Aquinas’ explanation of Jesus being “sacramentally” present as well as “substantially” present, but not present in such a way as would be repugnant to his natural mode of existing. So, what in the world does that mean?
To dialogue with Aquinas you need some definitions, so let’s start there. He uses words that are not that familiar to most of us: substance, accidents, place, conversion, etc. Now, I’m no expert and I’m sure that there is fault to be found in the way that I understand these terms, but give me a break, okay?
Substance – this is basically the essence of something. Take my desk for instance.
Accidents – this is what something is made up of. Take my desk again – wood and metal screws. In the natural world, under natural causes, my desk can’t really be my desk anymore if you take away the wood and metal screws. But think outside the box for a minute. Separate in your mind my desk (substance) from wood and metal (accidents). The “deskness” of my desk can be thought of apart from what it’s made of. This is the substance of my desk.
Conversion – we usually think of this as change (and usually in a spiritual sense), but Scholastically speaking conversion is different than change. Conversion is more than change. Conversion is the complete transition from one thing to another. For example when Jesus converted the water into wine – water was completely transformed into wine. One thing made totally into another thing (don’t you just love how scientific my terminology is?). Both it’s substance and it’s accidents were converted (there is no ‘creation’ involved because the elements already exist). And this is where Transubstantiation starts to get sticky, because we can imagine total conversion – water becomes wine. We get that it doesn’t happen naturally, but supernaturally, yet it’s still an easy thing to grasp. But in transubstantiation the substance of bread and wine are converted into the substance of Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity, but the accidents are not so converted. The accidents of bread remain (wheat and water), but the substance has changed. “Bread” is gone, but wheat and water remain. “Jesus” is now substantially present (his accidents are also present in a certain manner of speaking because of the natural combo of these things – but honestly, this is soooo over my head that I’m not going there other than just to state that it is so). Again, this doesn’t happen naturally, but supernaturally. God supernaturally converts the substance of bread into the substance of Jesus, but allows the accidents of wheat and water to remain (divorced from their substance).
Place is another tricky definition. Matter can’t exist in more than one place at the same time. My desk can’t be in my bedroom and also in my living room. So how can Jesus (whose glorified human body is made up of matter – and don’t discount the importance of this – Jesus’ body must be a true body in all aspects or the Church’s definitions of his human nature become mixed up with previous heresies) be at the right hand of the Father in heaven (which Scripture tells us he is) and on the altar at the same time? Aquinas tells us in the answer to objection 3 in question 75, article 1 (I can’t explain this in any other way but to quote him)
Reply to Objection 3. Christ’s body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place, which by its dimensions is commensurate with the place; but in a special manner which is proper to this sacrament. Hence we say that Christ’s body is upon many altars, not as in different places, but “sacramentally”: and thereby we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ’s body is here after a fashion proper to this sacrament, as stated above.
I unfortunately can’t find a clearer definition of what he means here by “sacramentally” present. The Council of Trent uses the same terminology:
CHAPTER I
THE REAL PRESENCE OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IN THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
First of all, the holy council teaches and openly and plainly professes that after the consecration of bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is truly, really and substantially contained in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist under the appearance of those sensible things. For there is no repugnance in this that our Savior sits always at the right hand of the Father in heaven[3] according to the natural mode of existing, and yet is in many other places sacramentally present to us in His own substance by a manner of existence which, though we can scarcely express in words, yet with our understanding illumined by faith, we can conceive and ought most firmly to believe ispossible to God.[4]
Soooo, Jesus is present in substance under the accidents of wheat and water, but not in a way that violates his very real, very true human nature. I’ll never completely understand what this means, but I’m glad that the Church took the time to reason it out for me – just one of aspects that I love about my mother – the Church. She never tells that I’m overthinking an issue, or that I lack faith. She entertains my questions, takes me seriously, and does the best she can to answer in a way that encompasses both faith and reason. I love my mama!
