Dissertation I. On the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

(St. Thomas, III, qq. 75-77; Contra Gentiles, book 4, chapters 62-67.)

I. The truth of the real presence of Christ. In the Most Holy Eucharist Christ is truly, really, and substantially present. This is of faith from the Council of Trent solemnly declaring: "If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist there are contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure, or power, let him be anathema."¹ "The Council," says St. Alphonsus, "says truly, so that it may exclude a figurative presence; for figure is opposed to truth; really, to repel an imaginary presence, apprehended by faith, which the Sacramentarians admitted; substantially, so that it may remove the opinion of Calvin, who asserted that the Eucharist does not contain the body, but only the power of Jesus Christ, who communicates Himself to us" (Opera dogmatica, vol. I, p. 555, ed. Walter).

¹ Session 13, canon 1.

II. The manner in which Christ is made present. Christ is made present in the Most Holy Eucharist through transubstantiation; concerning this I note:

1. The proposition stated is of faith from the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of bread into the body and of the whole substance of wine into the blood, the species of bread and wine alone remaining, which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema."¹

2. Transubstantiation, according to the cited words of Trent, is: "The conversion of the whole substance of bread into the body and of the whole substance of wine into the blood of Christ, the species of bread and wine alone remaining." It is said:

a) Conversion; therefore consubstantiation is excluded, which admits a simple conjunction, and impanation, which admits the hypostatic union of the body and blood of Christ with bread and wine.

b) Conversion... of the substance of bread and wine. Therefore it is distinguished from accidental transformation, in which the same substance remains and only receives, for example, a new figure, as if a stone is transformed into a statue.

c) Conversion of the whole substance. Hence it is distinguished from substantial transformation, in which there is not a conversion of the whole substance, namely while the matter of the prior substance remains, as if daily foods pass into the substance of our body.

Transubstantiation regards a double term, namely the term from which and the term into which; or the term which passes away, namely bread and wine, and the term which succeeds, namely the body and blood of Christ. Now:

It is disputed first how the term from which, or the substance of bread and wine, passes away. Some judge that it is annihilated. Others, such as St. Thomas (III, q. 75, a. 3) and St. Alphonsus (Opera dogmatica, vol. I, p. 562, ed. Walter), teach that it ceases through a true and simple conversion, because in annihilation, which is reduction to nothing, the concept of conversion into another thing is not verified.

It is disputed besides how the term into which, or the body and blood of Christ, succeeds. Some, such as the Scotists, think that this is done by way of adduction, insofar, namely, as God in the consecration effects with respect to the body of Christ, without local motion, what local motion effects in the natural order; that is, God gives to the body of Christ non-distance from this space and from these accidents of bread and wine. Others, among whom are several Thomists, teach that this is done through production, or reproduction, of the body and blood of Christ, and this not simply, but by way of conversion from the substance of bread and wine; this opinion better corresponds to the concept of the conversion of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Others² say that transubstantiation is a simple action by which God immediately changes whatever entity is in the substance of bread into that which is entity in the substance of the body of Christ; yet in such a way that the body of Christ is in no way changed, but the whole change takes place in the bread, whose substance passes away while the dimensions remain. According to this explanation, Christ suffers nothing in the consecration, receives nothing, but becomes present where He was not before, not locally but sacramentally, from this alone, that by force of the conversion He is now really contained under the dimensions of bread, under which the substance of bread was previously contained.³

d) The species of bread and wine alone remaining. Concerning the species, note:

1. The species of bread and wine have objective reality; this is "the perpetual and constant doctrine of the Catholic Church,"⁴ and therefore at least theologically certain.

2. The species inhere in no substance as a subject, but are sustained divinely.

I said, in no substance: neither in the substance of bread and wine, since it has passed away; nor in the body of Christ, which in the sacrament is entirely glorious and exists supernaturally.

I said, are sustained divinely: understand this so that God immediately sustains only the quantity, but accidents distinct from quantity inhere in the quantity as in a subject (St. Thomas, III, q. 77, a. 2).

Corollary. From the Eucharistic species a new substance is generated. This is explained in different ways by different authors. According to some, to set forth the principal opinion, in the last instant of corruption matter is produced by God, from which a new form is educed (St. Thomas, III, q. 77, a. 5). But it is disputed whether the said production is done by way of creation or by way of conversion of quantity into matter. And thus it is also explained how the species can nourish (St. Thomas, III, q. 77, a. 6).

¹ Session 13, canon 2.

² Thus Billot.

³ Tanquerey, n. 406.

⁴ Roman Catechism, part 2, On the Eucharist, n. 44.

III. The manner in which Christ is present is circumscribed in these terms:

1. The whole Christ is present under each Eucharistic species. This is of faith from the Council of Trent.¹

By force of the words, under the species of bread only the body becomes present, and under the species of wine only the blood. By force of natural connection and concomitance, under the species of bread the blood and soul exist, and under the species of wine the body and soul exist.

2. The whole Christ is contained under each part of the species both before and after division. That the whole Christ is contained under each part after division is of faith from the Council of Trent.² With respect to presence under each part before division, it is theologically certain.

¹ Session 13, canon 3.

² Session 13, canon 3.

IV. The time during which Christ is present. Christ is present in the manner which we have stated from the moment of consecration until the essential alteration of the species; and this is had when the species are so altered that, if the substance of bread and wine had persisted, this substance according to common estimation would have ceased to persist. Moreover:

1. Authors do not agree when the species are corrupted. Von Olfers judges that the species of bread is changed already in the mouth itself; yet Capellmann-Bergmann¹ rejects this entirely. Nevertheless even for the sake of security the species should not be kept long in the mouth, namely so that Christ is certainly eaten and the grace of the sacrament is certainly conferred (St. Alphonsus, VI, 226; n. 171). With respect to corruption in the stomach, some assign half an hour, others a much longer time, especially for the infirm; and it is certain that the matter depends on the condition of the stomach. With attention to all these things, I say:

a) Because of doubt about the presence of the species, it is illicit to provoke vomiting or to wash the stomach within two to three hours after the reception of the Eucharist, especially since these things are ordinarily not done except because of illness.

b) Whatever may be true about the duration of the presence, it is permitted to anyone to eat after he has spent a reasonable time in thanksgiving, because the sacraments must be ministered and received in a human manner (cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 80, a. 8, ad 6; St. Alphonsus, VI, 283).

2. If unconsecrated wine is mixed in a small quantity with consecrated wine, Christ remains present. If another liquid is mixed with consecrated wine, the matter depends both on the quantity and on the quality of the other liquid. If unconsecrated wine is mixed in a greater quantity with consecrated wine, it is disputed whether the presence of Christ endures. Some affirm this, because, as modern chemists teach, the molecules of the consecrated species retain their individuation. Others with St. Thomas (III, q. 77, a. 8) deny it, because the consecrated species, at least according to common estimation, do not remain the same numerically, but receive a new individuation from the greater quantity.

Note. When flesh or blood appears in the Most Holy Eucharist, it is not the flesh or blood of Christ. Apparitions of this kind are explained either from this, that species are formed by God in the eyes of those seeing, and thus it happens as if flesh or blood were truly seen; or from this, that a miraculous figure is formed which represents the flesh or blood of Christ. Hence to such figures, which are called relics of the Most Holy Blood, only relative worship is rendered (St. Thomas, III, q. 76, a. 8).

¹ Cf. Von Olfers, Pastoral-Medizin, p. 44 and following; Capellmann-Bergmann, op. cit., p. 270 and following; ibid., p. 271.