In tracing the history of the Church, we find that whenever the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was challenged, the Church has turned to the dogma of Transubstantiation as a bulwark. Our present age, in which a crisis of unbelief has arisen, also needs to be reminded of the powerful explanatory power attached to this doctrine. For it offers an explanation of how Our Lord comes to be present on the altar that accords with reason all while showing the impossibility of positions contrary to the true doctrine. In our very practical age, this explanation has fallen into disuse and even mockery and so it is important for Catholics to be able to put forth a reasonable explanation.
The Church has long preferred this explanation because it so simply accords with experience. It was first introduced in 1215, was reaffirmed during the Council of Trent and defended as dogma by Pope Pius VI (1786) when the Synod of Pistoja wished to dismiss it as a “purely scholastic question.” In short, Transubstantiation is no mere speculation, but instead belongs to the deposit of faith. It is the belief that a Sacramental miracle occurs on the altar when the substances of the bread and wine is turned into the substances of Christ’s Body and Blood.
Philosophical Foundation
Lacking the philosophical language of our predecessors, this requires some explanation. First, we define a substance as a distinct individual thing that exists independently of other things. Each substance carries with it non-essential properties that we call accidents. These include things like texture, taste, and color. These accidents depend upon the substance themselves for existence. A piece of bread is an individual substance that has the nature of bread and does not depend on anything other individual thing for existence. Taste does not exist independently of the thing it is the taste of so that the taste of the bread depends on the piece of bread for its existence. Likewise, two pieces of bread may taste differently, but still be bread.
Given all that exists does so either as substance or accident, then we can say there are two types of change—substantial and accidental. A substantial change is one in which a thing is transformed into another things. The most obvious example of a substantial change is nutrition. A piece of bread is eaten and become a muscle cell (for example) in the body of the animal that eats it. Bread and muscle cells are of completely different kinds and thus a substantial change has occurred. An accidental change is one in which only the accidents attached to a particular substance change. The leaves of an oak tree may turn green to yellow, but in so doing the oak tree remains the specific oak tree that it was prior to the change. The substance did not change, but the accidents did.
We should notice one last thing before returning to the Eucharist and that is that any change always requires some subject that is changed. Put another way, in order to speak properly of change we must have something that remains constant throughout the change. Change may be the transformation from one being to another, but it is never a change from being to non-being back to being. That would not be change, but annihilation coupled with creation. For accidental change, the subject is obviously the substance itself. The leaves of the oak tree change from green to yellow, but the oak tree remains. Even a substantial change, in which one thing becomes another, has a principle of continuity which we call primary matter. This principle is a little complicated to briefly explain, but we can view is as the matter that undergoes the change from one type to another when it is taken up by a new form. Take for example the fact that the matter of the bread is taken up by the body and becomes the matter of the muscle cell.
The Doctrine Itself
With this foundation in place, we can now set our sights on the altar and ask what this can tell us what happens to the bread and wine. We are left with three alternatives—an accidental change, a substantial change or no change at all (i.e. a symbol). We will examine each one in light of all that we have said.
First there is an accidental change. An accidental chance would mean that the substance of the bread of wine would not change, but only their accidents. Christ’s Body and Blood would be attached to the bread and wine. This would mean that they would leave His heavenly abode and come to the altar. The problem with this view is that He would be limited in His presence to one place at a time. It would imply an accidental change not just in the bread and wine, but in Christ Himself as He moves from place to place. Those familiar with Luther’s view will recognize this as consubstantiation and it proves why it is necessarily false.
With the elimination of an accidental change we can turn to a substantial change which would mean that the substances of the bread and wine are transformed into the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood. This initially has appeal because it does not require any accidental change in Christ Himself and thus allows for the ubiquity of His presence on the many altars simultaneously. This is possible because unlike a natural substantial change the bread and wine are changed not into some new forms, but already existing ones of Christ’s Body and Blood. Thus there is no change in Christ’s members but in the bread and wine.
It is not an annihilation and then creation, but a true change. The subject of change are, miraculously, the accidents of bread and wine. They remain on both sides of the change. As St. Thomas puts it, “whereas in natural transmutation the matter of the one receives the form of the other, the previous form being laid aside. Secondly, they have this in common, that on both sides something remains the same; whereas this does not happen in creation: yet differently; for the same matter or subject remains in natural transmutation; whereas in this sacrament the same accidents remain.” (ST q.75, art. 8). It is this miraculous change that we call Transubstantiation.
This suspension of the accidents, leads to no evidence of change that is discernible to the senses. Any attempt to empirically prove that the change has occurred would ultimately fall flat because they can only measure the accidents. This is why some confuse it for symbol. This is also why ultimately the recently conducted Pew survey that found that 70% of Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence represents first and foremost a crisis in faith. It is only the ears, attuned to the words of Christ, that can discern this change. Reason can eliminate the possibility of consubstantiation but only faith can prove that it is really Christ present.