|"The Disputation over the Holy Sacrament" by Raphael|
“In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant, that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God.” (Council of Trent, Session 13, “Decree concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist”, chapter 1)
This alone is the one difference between Christ’s body in heaven and Christ’s body in the Eucharist is a difference of the mode of existence – not a difference of substance or reality, nor less a difference of identity (for there is only one Christ and he has only one body). The Church teaches that our Savior is present in heaven “according to the natural mode of existing”, while he is present in the Eucharist by another “manner of existing”, that is “under the species of those visible things” of bread and wine. As we consider this teaching from the Council of Trent, we will recognize why it may not be helpful to speak of our Savior as being “physically present” in the Eucharist.
I offer this reflection as the first part of a four part series on the Eucharist, in preparation for the solemn Feast of Corpus Christi.
The natural and the sacramental modes of existing
When the Council of Trent speaks of Christ present in heaven “according to the natural mode of existing”, the Latin wording is quite clear: iuxta modum existendi naturalem. Slightly less clear is the other “manner of existing” which “we can scarcely express in words” – though we do recognize that, by this other mode, Christ is “sacramentally present to us in his own substance”. Hence, we may call this manner, by which Christ is substantially present in the Eucharistic species, a “sacramental” mode of existing.
The key point here is that Christ is not present in the Eucharist according to the same mode by which he is present in heaven. The difference does not lie in what is present – for the very same body is present in the Eucharist as is present in heaven as was born of the Virgin: Ave verum corpus, natum ex Maria Virgine (Hail, true body; born from the Virgin Mary). The difference can only lie in the way or manner in which the true body of Christ is present – in heaven, our Savior is present “in his proper species”, while in the Eucharist he is present “as in a sacrament”.
At this point, it is good to note that the Church has never stated (nor, I am sure, will she ever state) that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. He is really, truly, substantially, and sacramentally present. He is even “corporally present” in his “physical reality”. But we do not say that our Savior is physically present, as he is not present “in the manner in which bodies are in a place” (Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei 46). As we consider these two modes or manners of presence, we will recognize that there is good reason why the Church has refrained from adopting a notion of “physical presence”.
The truth between (and above) two heresies
Paschasius Radbertus (d. ca. 860) fell into heresy by maintaining the complete identity of the sacramental body with the historical body of Christ. Now, of course, it is true that the Eucharist is the body of our Lord and, since he has only one body, the sacramental body must indeed be the very same body which he assumed from Mary and which he offered on the Cross; however, Radbertus went too far in his assertion and failed to recognize that this one self-same body may be present in different modes. Thus, if we were to follow Radbertus’ theory to its logical conclusion, we would be forced to believe that each portion of the Eucharist was only a piece of Christ’s body – since, if the Eucharist were to be understood entirely in physical terms, it is clear that the size of the Host is not equal to the size of our Savior’s body. Moreover, we would end up concluding that our Savior’s presence in the Eucharist is a daily occurrence of the miracle of bi-location. Finally, it would seem that those who consumed the body of Christ would do violence to his members by chewing and swallowing a physical body. For these and other reasons, Radbertus’ opinion cannot be accepted by a Catholic.
On the other hand, Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088) went to the other extreme and denied the substantial nature of the Real Presence of Christ. He understood the Eucharist to be merely a symbol or figure of the body and blood of our Savior.
In between these two extremes, the truth comes forth as a summit which rises over and above the heresies. Ratramnus of Corbie (d. after 868) established the foundations of what would come to be the accepted doctrine. While not denying the Real Presence, Ratramnus emphasized the different manner in which the body of Christ is present in the Eucharist from that by which he is present in heaven. Indeed, he went so far as to apply to the Eucharist words such as similitudo, imago, and pignus (“likeness”, “image”, and “symbol”).
St. Thomas Aquinas follows very much in the line of Ratramnus (adding, however, a far more robust understanding of substance). The Angelic Doctor does not fear to refer to the Eucharist as a figure and symbol, yet he always maintains that the change effected by the words of consecration is a substantial one. Hence, locating the difference (between Christ’s proper or natural presence in heaven and the Lord’s sacramental presence in the Eucharist) not in substance or reality, but rather in mode of existence; the Catholic Church affirms the sacramental nature of the Eucharist, while likewise maintaining its existence as a substantial reality.
Dimensive quantity (quantitas dimensiva) and the Eucharist
All that has been said above can be explained most concisely by making a distinction in regards to what the theologians call “dimensive quantity”. Dimensive quantity is an accidental property (as opposed to a substantial one) and refers to the extension of a material being in a place. By dimensive quantity, material bodies are in a place and take up space – “dimensive” is related to the idea of “dimensions”, the physical locality and size of a body. However, as we shall see (by a helpful distinction), it is not necessarily the case that all bodies which possess dimensive quantity need necessarily be physically located in a place or take up space.
We will quote from Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, TAN Edition page 386): “Consequently, the quantitas dimensiva of the body and blood of Christ is not present in the manner peculiar to it (secundum modum proprium), that is, not in three dimensional filling of space, but in a manner of substance (per modum substantiae), that is, without actual extension. Cf. S. th. III 76,4. In order to make this mode of being present in the Blessed Sacrament more acceptable to human imagination, theologians distinguish between two formal operations of quantity, the inner extension, that is, the ability of the Body to spread out in three dimensions, and the outer extension, that is, the filling of space in point of fact. The relationship between them is as of cause and effect. While the former belongs to the nature of the body, and for this reason is inseparable from the body, the latter can be abrogated by a miraculous intervention of God. In the Sacrament Christ’s Body is present with the inner, but without the outer extension.”
In other words, the Real Presence in the Eucharist does include the accidental property of Christ’s body which is dimensive quantity. The body of Christ, present in the Eucharist, is substantially the same body which took up space while he was on earth and which now is physically and dimensionally extended in heaven. However, the body of Christ is present in the Eucharist according to a substantial mode which is sacramental – therefore, the physical extension of the Lord’s body is only an “inner extension” and is not expressed in “outer extension”. Thus, the Lords’ Real Presence does not take up space, nor is our Lord moved in the Sacrament, nor does his body suffer violence when the Sacrament is consumed – hence, while we must admit that the body of Christ is present in its “physical reality” (i.e. the inner dimensive extension), we ought not claim that this body is “physically present”.
Does transubstantiation effect a physical change?
In reaction to the Protestant heresy, many Catholics have lost the important distinction given by the Council of Trent according to which we are able to distinguish the difference between Christ’s presence in heaven and his presence in the Sacrament. Some Catholics will even start to speak of the Eucharist in highly physical terms, as though the presence of Christ were physical. Here, the real problem lies in the hidden presumption is that, unless a thing is physical, it is not real – hence, following this errant reasoning, it would seem that a sacrament is not really real, if there is no physical change.
A citation from Cardinal Ratzinger will suffice to correct this error: “But [the doctrine of transubstantiation] is not a statement of physics. It has never been asserted that, so to say, nature in a physical sense is being changed. The transformation reaches down to a more profound level. Tradition has it that this is a metaphysical process. Christ lays hold upon what is, from a purely physical viewpoint, bread and wine, in its inmost being, so that it is changed from within and Christ truly gives himself in them. […] [The Eucharist] is not a thing. I don’t receive a piece of Christ. That would indeed be an absurdity.” (God and the World, 408)
The future Pope speaks with extreme clarity: “From a purely physical viewpoint” the Eucharistic species is “bread and wine” because the change is not to be understood “in a physical sense”. However, on a more profound level (on the level of being and of essence, indeed the level of substance), transubstantiation is a radical change by which what was once bread and wine now has become the body and blood of our Savior.
[For more on this topic and how it relates to the sacrificial nature of the Mass, see an earlier article: How the Mass is a Sacrifice, and why so many deny this doctrine]