Transubstantiation is defendable because it appeals to
human reason while still keeping the double miracle of the Eucharist in tact. Thomas
Aquinas, though he did not invent the term transubstantiation, is the one who
greatly expounded on the virtues of this term and used Aristotelian philosophy
to explain the changes that happen to the bread and wine and the changes that
do not happen. This is further defendable because of the Incarnation. For
centuries leading up to Aquinas, the Church used Platonism as its primary mode
of explaining Church teachings philosophically. While Platonism does not reject
the Incarnation, it is a philosophy that is more akin to explaining the visible
world as an illusion. Aristotelian philosophy is different in this respect
because it says the visible world is real. In this case, transubstantiation is seen
as a fulfillment of the Incarnation on an even more tangible level.
In the late eleventh century, there were several
eucharistic controversies in the Western Church. Among the most famous, though,
was Berengar of Tours’ formulation that the bread and wine at Mass did not
become the Body and Blood of Christ, but was merely a “symbolic” change. After
being reprimanded in 1159 and 1179, he finally capitulated and said he believed
what the Church taught on this teaching. Though he was never excommunicated,
only taking two oaths of fidelity, his writings on the Eucharist caused the
Church to question its teachings and approach them in a more logical manner.
This was indicative of the shift from a more symbolic (in the truest sense of
the word) philosophy of religious teachings to the need for a more academic and
logical explanation. In the mid-thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican
friar and professor of theology at the University of Paris, began to speak of
the Eucharist using, not Platonic philosophy, as was the norm, but Aristotelian
philosophy.
Aquinas used Aristotle’s ideas of accidents and
substances. Accidents were the physical appearances of bread and wine, and
substances, the invisible essence of the bread and wine. Aquinas claimed that
through the words of Consecration pronounced by a priest with his proper
intention, and bread and wine, the bread and wine were truly transformed into
the Body and Blood of Christ. The accidents, the appearance of bread and wine
remained, while the substance of the bread and wine were changed into the Body
and Blood. Until this time, there had not been any systematic or academic
approach to the Eucharist that was satisfactory to all sides. Even though the
Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 used language similar to transubstantiation, it
was Aquinas who opened up a new way of looking at the Eucharist that was never
done before in the history of the Eucharist.
This metaphysical explanation of the Sacrament appeals to
the Church in the West most especially because of the importance placed on the
Incarnation of Christ. While the Churches in the East do hold that the bread
and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, they never felt the need to
explain it in depth because of the mysterious nature of their religious ethos.
This is partly due to their emphasis on the place of Easter in their liturgical
rites. The West also believes in the Resurrection, obviously, but its
liturgical life is centered on Christmas. This complementary dichotomy is an
example of two worldviews: Platonism in the East and Aristotelian philosophy in
the West. The East views the earth as a reflection of the real world of God,
heaven. The liturgy in the East is more of a tearing apart of the veil between
heaven and earth so that the priest can mediate the reality of heaven from God
to the people, taking the people’s prayers to God. In the West, though this is
not an alien concept, sees the liturgy more of a participation in Divine
realities manifested through visible signs and symbols. Each liturgical ethos
is non-contradictory and represents the two different strands of philosophy in
the Church.
Because of this, though, Aristotelian philosophy places
more emphasis on the visible and real manifestation of Divine realities in our
reality. Aristotle was a student of Plato for over twenty years, but rejected
his teacher’s concepts of our visible reality participating, but not equaling,
the eternal, divine realities of heaven. Plato’s use of the forms stipulates
that man is a part of the earth, but merely participates in a diluted and
therefore imperfect manifestation of the really real. For Aristotle, however,
he believed that the earth in all its manifestations was the real world and
therefore all creation was good because it was a direct participation in the
divine. This reflects the Incarnation quite well because Christ became man and
saved all creation, especially man, through His Passion, Death, Resurrection,
and Ascension into heaven. Therefore all material of the earth can be seen as a
full participation in the divine reality of the Holy Trinity, living in the
love of the Trinity as it is manifested in nature.
Transubstantiation is a defendable argument because of
Aquinas’ use of Aristotelian philosophy to explain the double miracle of the
Eucharist, the changing of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.
The bread and wine, which man has received from the goodness of God, is offered
back to God as a spotless victim. This spotless victim is Jesus Christ, the
Incarnate Logos of the Father. The bread and wine are thus changed into Christ’s
Body and Blood as a gift from God to man and man reciprocates by offering
things of this earth where God can manifest Himself through the goodness of His
creation. Transubstantiation makes sense because it explains how God is able to
use any means to make Himself known to man. Even though the bread and wine are
the Body and Blood of Christ substantially, accidently the bread and wine
remain to speak to the anthropological need to communicating with the Creator
through means man is able to comprehend. It is then that transubstantiation is
defendable because it elevates visible creation to the heights of God.
