Chapter 35: The Dignity of Christ and the Substance of Bread
This argument, often proposed by the Schoolmen, seems light. They also argue that without Transubstantiation, two natures or bodily substances would be in one place. It is ironic that these men, who violate natural laws by claiming accidents hang without a subject, fear violating nature by having two substances in one place. When they affirm accidents remain, a body with quantity and place is hidden under accidents. Thus, they grant two quantities and bodies together, which our opinion avoids.
Chapter 35:
The Dignity of Christ and the Substance of Bread They said, moreover, that it does not accord with the dignity of Christ for His body to be joined to the substance of bread; which is a very vain assertion. It is not affirmed that the body of Christ and the nature of bread make one subject, as the divine nature and human nature do in Christ.
Neither do we see what greater dignity there is in the accidents than in the bread, such that if the body of Christ is assigned to them, it might not as well remain with the substance of bread.
Seeing that the divine nature is said to be even in hell without diminishing its worthiness, and that this body (as they judge) is delivered to be eaten truly and substantially even by the wicked, who are most impure and unworthy of it, why do they fear only in respect of dignity to join the body and blood of the Lord to bread and wine, especially when there must be a conjunction of the signification?
The Sacrifice in the Mass They also considered the sacrifice, saying that the body and blood of the Lord are offered in Masses. If this alteration is not made, we shall offer
nothing but the thing signified and shadowed. Cyprian answers this for us, stating to Coecilius in his 3rd Epistle, 2nd Book, that it is the Passion of the Lord which we offer. Who does not know that the Passion of Christ is not present in the hands of the sacrificer, as it is a past event? A memorial is made of it, and thanks are given to God for it. But all they pretend in this argument is a feigned device, imagining that the Son of God Himself is properly and truly offered by the priest to the Father. The error in this is significant, but this is not the place to declare it fully.
Understanding the Fathers Now we must show that the opinions of the Fathers, which seem to be against our purpose, do not actually contradict us. Before explaining them, I will present certain rules for understanding the Fathers, as they speak most loftily and earnestly on this matter of the Sacrament.
1. Signs and Things Signified: The holy Scripture often attributes what pertains to the signs to the things signified, and vice versa. The Fathers use the same manner, so one must discern whether they are discussing the signs or the things signified. Augustine to Boniface explains that in sacraments, names are changed.
2. Spiritual Food: If you consider what is spoken before and after, you will always find that the Fathers testify that this food is spiritual and not meat for the throat, belly, or teeth.
3. Carnal and Spiritual Communion: When the Fathers say we communicate with Christ carnally, they mean that our bodies are nourished in the Eucharist in a manner akin to how the Son of God took part in our flesh by His incarnation. We abide in Him and He in us through faith and the sacraments. This communion is spiritual, adding the spirit to our flesh, making it capable of immortality and
resurrection. Thus, our body is fed in the Eucharist by signs and renewed to everlasting life.
4. Consecration: Among the Fathers, consecration means dedicating something common to a holy use. There is no cause to assume transubstantiation when we encounter the term consecration in the Fathers. There is some alteration in that things are now sacraments, signifying by the Holy Spirit's power that we must offer and exhibit the body and blood of the Lord in mind and faith.
5. Capernaites' Misunderstanding: There is no difference in substance between us and the Capernaites, who thought they would eat the very body and flesh of Christ. The difference lies in the manner of eating; they thought it would be carnal, while we teach it is spiritual.
6. Language of the Fathers: When the Fathers say the body of Christ is contained in these mysteries, they mean it is betokened, shown, declared, and signified.
Figurative Language in Sacramental Theology When you hear the Fathers say that bread and wine are no more in the sacrament, understand this as concerning the faithful, who must not think of the bread or wine but lift their minds to the invisible things represented.
Thus, the phrase "Lift up your hearts" is used to direct the mind away from the signs to the things offered.
Scripture uses similar figures. Paul says, "Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood," yet acknowledges flesh and blood can grieve the soul. He means the primary contention is spiritual. Similarly, when Paul writes that in Christ there is neither male nor female, he does not mean these
distinctions are removed from the Church but that they do not affect regeneration, forgiveness of sins, and life everlasting.
The Fathers' statements about the nature of signs not remaining must be understood in the same way, not as a change in substance but as a direction for our faith and thoughts. Faith makes things present spiritually, not materially. Thus, the Apostle said Christ was crucified before the eyes of the Galatians and that Abraham saw the day of the Lord.
The Use of Figures by the Fathers Lastly, if you ask why the Fathers used such figures and strong language, we say it is to follow Scripture's phraseology and to deeply impress upon the minds of men that the signification of sacraments is not trivial. The things represented are given and imprinted in our minds by the Holy Spirit, leading to many gifts and graces, especially a secret and unspeakable union with Christ, making us truly one with Him.
The Consecration of Bread and the Argument Against Transubstantiation The first objection was from Irenaeus, who said that the earthly bread, being consecrated, is not common bread but has become the Eucharist. We willingly admit this, affirming that it is no longer common bread but holy and has become the Eucharist. However, what follows supports our position. He writes that the Eucharist consists of two things: heavenly and earthly, and does not mention the accidents of an earthly thing. He adds:
"Even so, our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are not corruptible, having the hope of the Resurrection." If such a change in our bodies is set forth by him, equal to the change of the bread (for he says: just as that bread is no longer common bread, so our bodies are no longer corruptible), what need
is there for Transubstantiation, seeing he makes these changes equal in both?
Testimonies of Early Church Fathers Next, Tertullian was cited, and he expounds on his own statement. He not only says: "The Lord, having received the bread, made it His body when He said, 'This is my body,'" but he added: "That is, a sign of my body." They also cited Origen, who wrote that the Lord confessed the bread to be His body. We do not deny this, but the contention is about the manner in which it becomes the body of the Lord. Origen himself elsewhere teaches that this bread is called the nourishing word of the soul and that we must not cling to the blood of the flesh but to the blood of the word.
Cyprian seems to speak more harshly, saying that this bread is changed not in shape but in nature. However, we must consider what he wrote to Coecilius, that with the wine, the blood of the Lord is shown, and if the wine ceases to be in the cup, it cannot appear that the blood of the Lord is there. When he speaks of changing, we agree, admitting a sacramental change. We confess that the nature and substance of bread and wine are changed into the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord. As the substance of bread nourishes, so does the body of Christ nourish our soul, fostering and renewing it. Both we and our adversaries agree that the form, or appearance, of bread is not changed, but the substance is. They claim a change by removing the nature of bread, while we affirm a sacramental change. Cyprian himself argues against our adversaries, for they remove the substance of bread, whereas we say it is changed into a sacrament of Christ's body.
The Nature of Sacramental Change