sign in sign up
<<
Home , Sacrament, Transignification, Transubstantiation

PRIESTS & PEOPLE—JUNE 1994 (vol 8 no without being disgusted by the cannibalism 6) 217–221 © 1994 The Tablet Publishing involved. The here is a kindly Company. All rights reserved. Used with deception which protects us from seeing what permission. we are really doing. If we could only peep behind the residual appearances we would Eucharistic Change discover human flesh and human . (There is a famous medieval legend about a being confirmed in his faith in the of the HERBERT McCABE OP eucharistic change when he saw the host bleed ...and so on.)

Let us begin with some misconceptions Now this is not the of about what the tradition says , at least as understood by St happens when bread and are consecrated. . First of all, for him, the The did not decree that change is of a completely different kind from Catholics should believe in transubstantiation: the change of bread and wine into another kind it just calls it a most appropriate (aptissime) of stuff (which he would call a ‘substantial’ way of talking about the , change); and secondly the appearance of bread presumably leaving open whether there might and wine do not become the misleading not be other, perhaps even more appropriate appearances, the disguise, for the new stuff, so ways of talking. You could say that the as to make it palatable. They become the signs Council sanctioned and recommended this which reveal to us the new reality. In all theology whereas, for example, the Anglican God shows us what he does and Thirty-Nine Articles are rather less liberal: does what he shows us. In six of the they forbid it its ‘repugnant to the plain words sacraments he makes present and shows us by of scripture’. It is likely, however, that the signs the power of to save us; in the authors of that document did not quite central of the Eucharist he makes understand the meaning of that doctrine and present Christ himself and shows him to us by fairly certain that a whole lot of Catholics do signs which indicate what he is, the unity of not either. his faithful in charity. ‘For he is our peace who has made us one.’ Perhaps we could start with a caricature of the doctrine which I think would be taken for Aristotle the real thing by a great many , whether they accept or reject it. The caricature St Thomas talks of transubstantiation in goes like this: at the , the bread language borrowed from Aristotle: he speaks and wine change into a different kind of of substance and accidents. If you tell substance, flesh and blood, in fact the flesh and somebody what sort of thing something is (a ; but this is disguised from us horse, an electron, etc.) you are telling him of by the fact that to all appearances the bread its substance. If you are giving him further and wine are unchanged. This is so that we can information (where it is, how high it is, how eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ intelligent it is etc.) you are telling him its

McCabe / Eucharistic Change / ThS 543 Theology / Collection of Readings, 1 accidental characteristics. It is important to an incarnation, does not make sense within the Aristotelian that a thing may lose some limits of the Aristotelean world-view. St accidental characteristic (it may move, shrink, Thomas uses Aristotle’s language, but it grow more stupid etc.) without ceasing to be breaks down in speaking of the Eucharist. It the same identical thing; whereas if it should does not break down because there is some lose its substance, its essential character, it more accurate language in which the whole perishes, ceases to be this thing and turns into thing can be explained. It breaks down because something else (as when the horse dies, it is no it is language. We are dealing here with longer a horse but has changed into a corpse). something that transcends our concepts and This seems a fairly common-sense account at can only be spoken of by stretching language least of the organic world in which it is usually to breaking point: we are dealing here with fairly easy to agree on what sorts of things mystery. there are (horses, onions, human beings) and not too difficult to observe them beginning to Those who wish to replace talk of exist (being born or whatever) and ceasing to transubstantiation by talk of exist (dying). It differs considerably from our are quite reasonably claiming that in our modern physicist’s way of talking but it seems culture we are more familiar with talk of bizarre to claim that it is unintelligible to us. meanings than of substances, and meaning Amongst the accidental characteristics of seems the obvious category in which to speak things around us are their appearances: size, of sacramental signs and ; for one thing colour, taste etc., by which usually we we are less likely to imagine that the recognise them for what they are. Unlike St turns on a specially mysterious chemical Thomas, Trent speaks not of accidents but of process. appearances (species), saying that to all appearances the consecrated elements are still There is much in this so long as it does not bread and wine and no investigation of ours sound like ‘Really it is only a change of could tell us anything different, but we know meaning’ (for the meaning in question has a by faith that what they are is no longer bread special profundity about it) and so long as it is and wine but the sacramental presence of the not taken to be saying that the bread and wine, body and blood of Christ. while remaining what they were, are ‘deemed’ (by the , or even by the individual believer) to be the focus of the presence of Mystery Christ to us in his bodily humanity (For this sounds too much like ‘deeming’ a piece of It is important to recognise that, in using stage furniture to be the Castle of Dunsinane). Aristotelean language, St Thomas is not giving On the other hand to say that it is God who an ‘Aristotelean’ explanation of the Eucharist. does the deeming would take us straight back He uses it because it was the common to something like transubstantiation, for if God philosophical currency of the time; but he uses deems something to happen it happen, it to give an account of something that simply and come about in the created world (for could not happen according to Aristotle. nothing can happen in the eternal immutable Transubstantiation, like creation or Godhead). Moreover not even God could deem

McCabe / Eucharistic Change / ThS 543 Sacramental Theology / Collection of Readings, 2 something both to be and not be bread and Heseltine wearing one he would presumably be wine — except in different senses; and that either joking or lying. takes us back to where we were before we talked of ‘deeming’. There is, then, a lot of difference between the appearance which simply shows you a A guiding principle in our thinking about thing and signs which are part of telling you this matter must surely be that anything which something about it. I labour this point because seems to take the scandal or mystery out of it is an important part of St Thomas’s teaching the Eucharist must be wrong, whether it be on the Eucharist that the accidents of bread couched in terms of substance or of meaning. and wine cease to be the appearances of bread and wine, but this is not because they become the misleading appearances of something else. Signs and appearances They cease to function as appearances at all, they have become signs, sacramental signs If we are to understand what the notion of through which what is signified is made real. transubstantiation is saying, or trying to say, we need to reflect on the difference between Before the consecration the appearances the way appearances tell us something and the were there because the bread was there, they way in which signs tell us something. It is only were just the appearances of the bread. After in a metaphorical sense that, in English, we can the consecration it is the other way round, the say, for example, ‘The smell of bitter almonds is sacramentally there because tells you that it is cyanide’; but, of course, what were the appearances of bread (and are smelling of bitter almonds is not part of telling now sacramental signs), are there. So with you anything. It is simply a physical reality unconsecrated bread the accidents can remain and it is you who tell yourself it is due to (and vary) so long as the bread still exists: how cyanide because you have read enough very bizarre if they were to stay on (like the detective stories to know this. Cheshire cat’s grin) when what they are accidents of is not there. But after the It is not literally true that ‘appearances are consecration the body of Christ is deceptive’; they are just there; it is people sacramentally present just so long as the signs who may use them to deceive you, or you may are there. The important consequence of this is deceive yourself by jumping to conclusions. that these signs are not the appearances of On the other hand signs, conventional signs, Christ’s body: they are no longer the like words, for example or flags, are part of appearances of anything. The colour and shape language and as such they are part of telling. of the host is not the colour and shape of (We even have a special name for deceiving by Christ’s body, the location of the host, its the use of conventional signs: we call it lying.) being on the does not mean that Christ’s When Bruce Kent, let us say, wears a CND body is located on the altar; the fact that the badge he is saying something, and something host is moved about, say in , does that is true, a statement that might be not mean that Christ’s body is being moved translated as ‘I believe in unilateral nuclear about. When we do things to the host, such as disarmament’. In the unlikely event of Michael eating it, we are not doing anything to Christ’s

McCabe / Eucharistic Change / ThS 543 Sacramental Theology / Collection of Readings, 3 body. What we are doing is completing the Aristotle gives us an interesting analysis of significance of the signs. For bread and wine coming into existence by substantial change, are meant to be eaten and drunk, to be our but had no notion of creation. St Thomas, food; and food, eating and drinking together is, however, believing in creation, believed in a even in our secular lives, a sign expressing new and different kind of bringing into friendship and unity. This is why chose existence. He thought there was a kind of cause it to be the sign which would tell us of the real which did not merely give a new form to the sacramental presence of his body given for us matter of already existing perishable things, and his blood poured out for us — the body of but simply brought things into being when Christ which is more deeply our food our there was nothing there before. The creative ‘bread and wine I than is the bread act of God does not just deal in the forms of and wine with which we began. things — making one kind of thing into an individual of another kind with a different form, it gives sheer existence to the whole Believing in creation thing. Causes within nature give things the form by which they have existence; God gives I have said that St Thomas uses things existence itself. God is the reason why Aristotelean language to propound what there is a world of natural causality; and every Aristotle would have found unintelligible; natural cause can only give existence because it because, of course, the whole biblical teaching is an instrument of the creator, the source of all of creation, the incarnation and Christ’s existence. humanity as the sacrament of God’s love for us, and the sacraments of the Church are Now it is this depth of divine causality utterly outside his ken. For Aristotle when that (without using any natural causes) is going bread becomes human flesh (as when you eat on, says St Thomas, in the eucharistic it) it is because a ‘substantial change’ (cf. consecration. The bread does not turn into the ‘chemical change’) has taken place. This means body by acquiring a new form in its matter; the that matter which at one time had the whole existence of the bread becomes the of bread now has the form of existence of the living body of Christ. The flesh. It is by such changes that old things body is not made out of the bread, as ashes are perish and new things come into existence — made out of paper by burning it (a chemical by being made out of some predecessor. change). Something has happened as Aristotle did not think that everything does profoundly different from chemical change as come into existence: he thought there were creation is. It is not that the bread has become imperishable beings that could never have a new kind of thing in this world: it now started to exist. Coming into existence belongs belongs to a new world. As far as this world is only to those inferior parts of the universe concerned, nothing seems to have happened, which have to be made out of a predecessor but in fact what we have is not part of this and which perish by being turned into a world, it is the Kingdom impinging on our successor. So, for him, the entire universe itself history and showing itself not by appearing in could not have come into existence — there the world but by signs speaking to this world. would be nothing for it to be made out of. So

McCabe / Eucharistic Change / ThS 543 Sacramental Theology / Collection of Readings, 4 we share in expression of our faith and love. In his bodily presence But nor is this happening an event within the parameters of our creaturely world, to be So what we have in the Eucharist is first a monitored by scientific or historical perfectly ordinary religious meal, investigation. It is the event, the advent, of symbolising our friendship and unity, then it grace; indeed the Eucharist with its satellite begins to belong to what is beyond our sacraments is the paradigm source of all grace; universe, beyond space and history. What was by it the Church participates in the divine life hitherto just a religious word spoken by by sharing in the grace of the one mediator people has become the Word spoken by God, between God and humankind, the man Christ the Word made flesh that dwells amongst us. Jesus.

We begin with a ceremony in a church and ‘The bread which we break, is it not a find ourselves in the Kingdom; no longer participation in the body of Christ’ Because simply talking or thinking about Christ but in there is one bread we who are many are one his bodily presence. body...’ Bread is not the name of a chemical substance, although certain such substances The change is so tremendous that it is quite have to be there for it to be bread. Bread is imperceptible. In fact, St Thomas says it is not stuff we eat, a particular stuff we eat, but still, a change (mutatio) at all, for such a change primarily, to call it bread is to speak of it as means a re-adjustment of our world — as what we have for meals. To be bread is to be when one thing is altered or changes into nourishment, to play a part in human life. something else: this clearly makes a Bread and wine in any circumstances are perceptible difference. But transubstantiation potentially symbols of human community, of is not a change, just as creation is not a change. being one. Now in the Eucharist this meaning What the bread has become is the body of is deepened and what was common bread Christ, which is to say the Kingdom itself — becomes the sign, the sacramental sign, the sign for Christ does not inhabit the Kingdom, he, in God’s language, proclaiming that our human his body, his human way of communicating community is a community in God’s life; what with other humans, is the Kingdom of God. It was our bread has become the bread of is by the union of his body and ours that we and it would now be sacrilegious to see it and belong to the Kingdom. Now the Kingdom, the treat it as ordinary bread. To say, as Trent glorified body of Christ, is not something that does, that in the consecrated host ‘the could be seen within our world as part of our substance of bread does not remain’ is not like world; if it is to be manifest amongst us it can saying that zinc or wool is not bread. If we only be by signs, by sacramental signs: and think the consecrated host is ordinary bread this is just what the Eucharist is. we are not making the same kind of mistake as we would if we thought a model of a slice of What happens in the Eucharist is not, of bread in fibreglass was ordinary bread. Our course, happening to Christ. He does not mistake lies in not recognising that it is so literally ‘come down’ on altar after altar. What much bread in the symbolic sense, as far as the happens occurs to the symbolic meal which human meaning of bread is concerned, that to

McCabe / Eucharistic Change / ThS 543 Sacramental Theology / Collection of Readings, 5 call it ordinary bread is to misdescribe it. In St Christ. It is, of course, miraculous that these Thomas’s language it would be to treat the signs, these appearances, should remain when appearances as accidents of bread when really they have ceased to be accidents. It is not a they are the divine sacramental signs of natural phenomenon like the apparent blue of Christ’s body. They belong to a new language. the sky. My comparison is not intended as an explanation of the , merely an attempt to show that it does not involve Miracle sheer contradiction. And this is the most that can be done with any miracle. To say that the appearances of the host are not in truth accidents of bread but only What happens, then, when we consecrate mistaken for such accidents by one lacking is that the body and blood of Christ become faith, may seem less odd if we notice other present as our food and drink to constitute our quite different contexts in which we make the sharing in the coming banquet of the Kingdom. same kind of mistake. Until fairly recently This happens not by any change in Christ nearly everybody thought that arching over us himself but by a miracle, comparable to is a large vault which is blue unless obscured creation, in which the whole existence of our by clouds. This is what Genesis calls ‘the bread and wine becomes the existence of vault of heaven’. Common speech retains this Christ. The bread which was present naturally picture and we ask ‘What colour is the sky?’ is converted not by any substantial change but But just as in the Eucharist we know better by by the creative power of God, into the body of having faith, so in this case we know better by Christ which is present not naturally but having physics. We know, when we think sacramentally. about it, that what is causing our sensation of blue is not that there is a blue object called the Instead, therefore, of the body of Christ sky. The sensation is not due to the reflection manifesting itself to us in his own accidents, in of blue light from a surface but to the his glory, it is manifested to us, not in any refraction of light so that we are only affected accidents at all but in sacramental signs. What by the blue end of the spectrum of white light. had been the appearances of bread and wine We over-hastily assume that the blue is an become, through this miracle, the signs in of the vault of heaven, but there is no which Christ shows himself, his presence to such thing. The blue of the sky is nothing so us. They become the language in which God nonsensical as an accident without anything to speaks to us and which we hear only in faith; be accident of (cf. the Cheshire cat’s grin), it is they become the Word of God, they become only what might easily be mistaken for an Christ, that Word made flesh and dwelling accident. Similarly the colour and shape of the amongst us. host are nothing so nonsensical as accidents which are not the accidents of anything; they are just what easily might be mistaken for accidents of something and would certainly be so mistaken if we did not have faith that they are no such thing, but signs of the presence of

McCabe / Eucharistic Change / ThS 543 Sacramental Theology / Collection of Readings, 6