This Sunday is the Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ, the second of the two so-called “theological feasts” that occur immediately after the Easter season. Like last Sunday, this Sunday is dedicated to reflection on a central belief in Catholicism; in this case, it is the belief in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Today’s feast was prescribed by the Council of Trent along with belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation.  

In 2019, the Pew Research Center published survey results that indicate that a majority of Catholics don’t believe that Eucharist is the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ. I trust and respect the work done by the Pew Research Center, but I have reason to doubt the usefulness of what is undoubtedly accurate research. 

The Pew Research Center’s survey results indicate that some Catholics accept the doctrine of transubstantiation, and some Catholics reject it. The survey did not, however, test whether survey participants understood accurately the doctrine of transubstantiation. I suspect that most of those who accept the doctrine as well as most of those who reject it misunderstand the doctrine thoroughly. I must add that the widespread misunderstanding of the doctrine of transubstantiation is largely unavoidable for people today.

(If you’re not exhilarated by abstract thought, click here to skip past it.)

The word “transubstantiation” has been in common usage in Catholic Sacramental theology since the ninth century, but various theologians have formulated various definitions of its meaning. The meaning of the word as it was used by the Council of Trent was composed by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. Thomas’ theology of transubstantiation was treated with great suspicion during his lifetime but eventually came to be accepted as an accurate theological description of how the bread and wine consecrated during Eucharistic Liturgy can be called legitimately the Body and Blood of Christ. 

The early controversy surrounding Thomas’ theology of transubstantiation was the result of his use of Aristotelian philosophy of substance and accident. For Aristotle, the word “substance” referred to the intelligible content of a thing; today, we might call this the “cognition” or “idea” that results from perceiving an individual thing. For Aristotle, the word “accident” referred to the variable qualities that are not essential to the concept of a thing; today, we call these “physical attributes” or “physical properties.” 

Thomas’ definition of transubstantiation, as adopted by the Council of Trent, says that the consecration of bread and wine during the Eucharistic Liturgy causes the intelligible content (that is, the cognition, idea, meaning, or understanding) of bread and wine to become the intelligible content of the person of Jesus the Christ. As well as affirming intelligible change in the Eucharistic species, Thomas’ definition rejects the possibility of physical change in the Eucharistic species. Consecration, then, changes what human intellect perceives about the bread and wine offered in the Eucharistic sacrifice, but it does not change the physical properties of bread and wine. 

If you’re struggling to make sense of the above, think of Thomas’ hymn “Tantum ergo.” The fifth and sixth lines of the hymn say that “Faith suffices for what the senses cannot grasp.” That is to say that we know through faith what we cannot know through sense perception, namely, that the bread and wine offered in the Eucharistic Liturgy become really and locally the presence of the Crucified and Risen Savior while remaining physically bread and wine. 

As I said above, I suspect that most of those who claim belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation as well as most of those who reject belief in the doctrine do so on the basis of a misunderstanding. The Catholic Church’s teaching about Eucharist is that Eucharist is the Sacramental presence of Jesus’ Body and Blood but not the physical presence of Jesus’ Body and Blood.  

The cause of this misunderstanding is obvious. In Thomas’ theology of transubstantiation, the word “substance” refers to something that is intangible whereas today, the word “substance” refers only to tangible things. For Thomas, a “substance” is the meaning the intellect abstracts from the sense data presented to the mind. Today, a “substance” is some form of material. Thomas used the word “substance” to denote the comprehension produced by intellect. We use the word “substance” to denote the material composition of a thing. When Thomas used the word, he was referring to ideas; when we use the word, we refer to the physical composition of a thing. For example, an Aristotelian “substance” is the idea that forms in our minds when we see an office chair. Twenty-first century substances are the wood, leather, and steel components that comprise the chair. 

The doctrine of transubstantiation that we reflect on this Sunday says that when we look at the bread and wine consecrated during Mass our eyes see bread and wine while our minds, aided by the virtue of faith, perceive the real and local presence of the Body and Blood of Christ. This is what the Church teaches, but I’m unconvinced that this is what most Catholics believe, regardless of what they say they believe (or don’t) about Eucharist. 

Fortunately for believers and non-believers alike, there is an easy way to gain access to what the Church teaches about Eucharist; the easy access is gained by reading and understanding the prayers and rituals of the Eucharistic Liturgy. 

Catholic Sacraments are self-explanatory, that is, the rituals and prayers associated with the Sacraments provide a clear and full explanation of what the Sacraments mean. The Eucharistic Liturgy, for example, says that the bread and wine offered in the Liturgy are gifts to God from God’s People in memory of Jesus’ Sacrifice on the Cross; these gifts are made holy by God’s loving-kindness and given back to God’s People for their sanctification. Additionally, reception of Eucharistic entails an obligation to imitate Jesus’ self-sacrifice for the world. 

There’s an old, overly sentimental story that provides a simple illustration of the meaning of Eucharist. In that old chestnut of a story, a man died and was greeted immediately by an angel. The man asked to be shown to heaven, but the angel said that first, the man was to receive a tour of hell, as he would never see it again. 

The angel led the man into a beautiful, spacious banquet hall. The banquet tables were laid with the finest food and drink, but the countless dinner guests were the most unhappy people the man had ever seen. The cause of their unhappiness was that the cutlery was six feet long. The dinner guests could easily reach the food with the oversize cutlery, but they couldn’t reach their own mouths. Consequently, like King Tantalus in the ancient Greek myth, they were consigned to an eternity of seeing what they wanted most but seeing it forever out of their reach. 

Then, the angel led the man to heaven. Heaven was exactly like hell in every way but one. Heaven was a beautiful, spacious banquet hall laid with the finest food and drink as well as six-foot-long cutlery. The only apparent difference was that all the people were happy, content, and celebrating uninterruptedly.  

The man was confused and asked the angel what this meant. The angel directed the man’s attention to the dinner guests’ actions; they were using their oversized cutlery to feed one another. Consequently, they were satisfied eternally. 

You’re probably familiar with that sappy story. You might have heard it used as a metaphor for Eucharist. Like me, you might imagine using six-foot-long teaspoons to throw massive amounts of mashed potatoes around the banquet hall. I propose, however, that the story can provide faithful insight into the meaning and experience of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Body and Blood. 

Most people who believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as well as most who do not believe in real presence would probably agree that human nature is lacking sufficient merit to receive the real presence of Jesus, either sacramentally or otherwise. Fortunately, Jesus circumvented the issue of human worthiness by commanding us to take and receive the Eucharist. (Mk 14:22) We celebrate and receive Eucharist because we are commanded to do it and not because we deserve to do it. 

As human nature is not worthy of communion with God, Eucharist is like the sumptuous banquet in the weepy story: easily visible but forever out of reach in every way but one. Those who follow the Lord’s command to celebrate Eucharist in his memory are instructed in that celebration to imitate Jesus’ actions of being wholly faithful to God and showing mercy without reserve. Those who fulfill that instruction of wholehearted faith and untiring mercy are made worthy, by God’s Grace, of communion with God; these find everlasting happiness, not because of their own goodness but because of their faithful imitation of Jesus’ goodness. 

Eucharist, like all Sacraments, is self-explanatory. When we bring bread and wine to the Altar in the Offertory Procession, we offer ourselves, humble and insignificant though we are. When we memorialize the Lord’s Supper, we are instructed to imitate Jesus’ selflessness for the world. When we receive the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion, we renew our baptismal pledge to be the presence of Christ for the world by sharing with others the mercy we have received from God. 

Understanding and receiving the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is a matter of seeing the eternal banquet of Divine goodness spread before us and sharing with others, just like the heavenly dinner guests did in that silly, old story. The various controversies and misunderstandings about the Eucharist over the centuries are probably more the result of lack of action than lack of understanding. If you want a clear, faithful, and redeeming understanding of Eucharist, you have only to “do what the Lord has told us to do.” (Ex 24:3)