While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
Matthew 26:26-28
Then he took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And in the same way he took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”
Luke 22:19-20
For some it is obvious that when Jesus says “this is my body,” the bread he gave to his disciples was indeed in every sense his body and, because Christ cannot be divided, also his blood and his soul and his divine nature. And that what was poured from the cup was substantially identical.
For others it is obvious that Jesus and his disciples would not for a moment have thought that the pieces of bread they were putting in their mouths were the person sitting or leaning at the table with them and would not have identified without remainder the wine poured out with the blood which at this moment was still pulsating through Christ’s veins.
The latter need not deny the change that takes place to the elements when we celebrate the Eucharist. It is possible to say that when we eat and drink at the Eucharist, what we eat and drink are essentially no longer mere bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Christ given for us, and to say so without adopting the specific doctrine of transubstantiation.
This doctrine of transubstantiation aligns with the intuitions of those whose identification of the bread with the body of Christ allows for no real (substantial) distinction between the blood pulsating through the veins of the body of Jesus as he pours from the cup and what is poured from the cup.
As understood here, the doctrine requires the belief that by the words of consecration pronounced by the priest the bread and wine are changed, as to their substance, into the real flesh and blood of Christ so that the bread and wine altogether cease to exist, except in appearance only.
(Some theologians of the 17th and 18th centuries, who did not believe in the existence of accidents separable from the substance, had argued that the elements no longer truly even had the texture and taste of bread and wine but that our subjective impressions were effected miraculously by God. But this was not received as compatible with the teaching of the Council of Trent which had enshrined the doctrine of transubstantiation.)
Theologians defending the doctrine regularly stress that the conversion of substance does not concern physical matter but the more fundamental, essential nature of the elements. For this reason use of the term “substance” when talking about this change (transubstantiation) could be considered unfortunate, given that common English usage of “substance” overlaps with Latin substantia (“being, essence, material”) precisely in that area (“material”) which is not in view here.
Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, edited in English by James Canon Bastible [Cork: Mercier Press, 1962]) calls transubstantiation unique because other conversions are either of accidents or substance. As an example for conversio accidentialis he speaks of a block of marble becoming a statue. But what does it mean to say that a statue is substantially still “a block of marble”? Is a statue not essentially (i.e., in being and essence substantially) different from a block of marble? Is not the only aspect with regard to which a block of marble and a statue are substantially the same their material?
Perhaps Ott has merely chosen an unfortunate illustration. After all, he knows that it is not sufficient to believe that transubstantiation is a change of the whole substance, matter and form, but also that one must here dissociate “matter” from “material” to avoid the notion that the elements received in the Eucharist have any of the physical aspects of the Body and Blood of Christ. (The physical aspects [accidents] of the Body and Blood of Christ are indeed taught to be present in the Sacrament but in the mode of a substance.)
Once the bread is broken and received, the faithful have not received a mere piece of the Body of Christ but the whole Body of Christ. (And while each morsel is the Body of Christ, none would want to say that more than one Body of Christ is present.)
Just as the soul is wholly present in the whole body and wholly present in every part of the body, and still is present only once in the whole body, so also the body of Christ is only once actually present in the whole form.
Ludwig Ott adds: “Potentially, however, Christ is capable of being present in a multifold manner. This multifold Presence occurs actually only after the separation of the previously united parts of the species.” (Fundamentals, 385) This also explains how the presence of Christ is understood in the Last Supper (see above). Christ was present once – but in a multifold manner.
The doctrine of transubstantiation relates to the belief that the Sacrament is essentially a substance which has been tied to material elements in an action rather than the liturgical action itself. The Real Presence of Christ is understood to be permanently tied to each species (bread and wine) from the moment of consecration until the species are dissolved.
When the species are corrupted, in place of the body and blood of Christ, those substances probably appear which correspond to the specific nature of the altered accidents. (Fundamentals, 387)
This appears to answer some of the queries that have been raised over the centuries. Yes, when a morsel falls to the ground after consecration and is eaten by a mouse, the mouse consumes the body (and blood and soul and divine nature) of Christ. No, when you go to the toilet after partaking of Holy Communion, you do not release the Body and Blood of Christ.
