.jpg)
Why the parade? It makes no sense to speak of the Eucharist as the source and summit of Christian life if we were reduce it to merely an expression of our personal faith. To grasp why everything flows from the Eucharist and how every action is directed to it, we should take a closer look at the concept of “Transubstantiation”.
Part of our challenge is Catholics have scant understanding of what it means.[1] Inadequate knowledge can have negative consequences and the worst would be the reduction of the Blessed Sacrament to merely a symbol. As a practitioner of this “liturgical craft” or a person plying the “religious trade”, and without judging, I can say that many Catholics treat the Eucharist like an exalted symbol. The problem is, no matter how esteemed or dignified, it remains a symbol, nonetheless.
So, if it is not a symbol, what is it then?
Catholic theology affirms that Christ is truly, really and substantially present in the Blessed Sacrament. What this means is that the Real Presence of Jesus is distinct from the other ways in which He is said to be present. It is true that He is present everywhere but the Real Presence is where we can say with conviction that what we receive on the tongue or what is placed on our palm is “God Himself” and not a symbol of Him.
Yes, the Consecrated Host may be a tiny piece but it contains not a part of Christ. Each fragment is entirely His Body and His Blood, His Soul and His Divinity. No less. At the Incarnation, He became present to us in time and space, for 33 years or thereabout. But after His Resurrection, His Presence could no longer be constrained by time and space.
How is that possible? Through the process of “Transubstantiation” and supported by “Apostolic Succession”. Without Apostolic Succession, there cannot be transubstantiation.
According to the Council of Trent, as quoted in the CCC, “by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change, the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.” (CCC 1376)
It is still a loaded concept. What is it?
To understand it we need two categories which are related to each other and they are substance and accident. These two philosophical categories are seldom used except that accident for us means something else. One cannot separate substance from accident because they are metaphysical (beyond the senses) categories rather than physical. There is no such thing as “pure substance” which one can identify. Substance answers the question “What” because it addresses the “whatness” of an entity. Examples are man, woman, cat, table.
We only know what a substance is by virtue of its accidents. This means accidents answers the question “How” because it addresses the “howness” of an entity. How do the descriptions make a thing what it is? In English grammar, accidents are analogous to “adjectives” because an adjective qualifies or demarcates a “noun” just like accidents define a substance.
Whenever change takes place, it is the “substance” that remains. This means that substance acts as the principle of unity for the various accidental[2] changes that it undergoes. For example, the fluid that you drink to quench your thirst. In terms of mechanics, the cup of thirst-quenching fluid undergoes changes by freezing, by liquifying, by boiling. The content of the cup can be frozen into ice or liquified into a solvent, and finally through boiling vapourised into steam. It is the same content in the cup that undergoes all these accidental changes.
Another way to conceive the relationship between substance and accident is to look at your school yearbooks from Std 1 to Form 6. Through the series of class photos, you are able to trace how a “subject” underwent changes through the years. Whatever the changes are, it is always the same person who undergoes the changes. From a short, tiny boy, he has sprung into a well-built man, from a scrawny little girl, she has grown into a tall and slim model.
Almost every case of change conceivable is accidental. In the case of the Eucharist, what we have is a substantial change. How? If a substance is the unifying factor for accidental changes to take place, then in transubstantiation, the unifying factors for change are the accidents of bread and wine. These accidents must remain unchanged, in order that, when a priest consecrates both the bread and the wine in the chalice, the substances of the bread and wine are completely changed, or rather transubstantiated into the very Body and Blood, the Soul and Divinity of Christ. As the accidents remained unchanged, it feels like bread and it tastes exactly like wine before consecration. In other words, the “breadness” of the bread or the “wineness” of the wine are changed completely into the same substance that 2000 years ago walked upon the earth.
This explains our carrying the Consecrated Host in procession. We are not interested in carrying a “symbol” through the streets. Symbols may be powerful but they cannot save us. Only God can. If anything, Satan would like and is working very hard to lead us in thinking that the “host” we receive is no more than just a “symbol”. The point is, no matter how meaningful, no matter how magnificent, it cannot be a symbol as Flanner O’Connor, the eminent Catholic novelist, wrote in 1955, “Well, if it is a symbol, to hell with it”. We are not worshipping a symbol.
Transubstantiation explains the Church strict teachings with regard to the reception of the Eucharist. St Thomas Aquinas in the “Lauda, Sion” or “Sing forth, O Zion”, which was the sequence we sang or recited, “Behold the bread of angels (Panis angelicus) sent. For pilgrims in their banishment. The Bread for God’s true children meant that may not unto dogs be given”. The dogs are symbolic of those who do not know and therefore cannot gain from receiving Holy Communion.
If it were only a symbol, then there should be no drama involved when every Tom, Dick and Harry receives Holy Communion. But it is not. If we were to feed a dog Holy Communion, what is the dog eating? The Body of Christ, for objectively that is “Who”, not “what”, it is. The difference between a dog and a baptised Catholic consuming Holy Communion is that the dog will NEVER gain anything good from eating the consecrated Host but we will benefit or not, depending on whether or not we place obstacles (our sins) to its effects.
This knowledge that we are eating and drinking no less than the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ is the reason for St Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 11, “And so anyone who eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be behaving unworthily towards the Body and Blood of the Lord”. It may sound offensive but it highlights “Whom” we are truly and objectively receiving, Jesus Himself. Now you understand why we cover the spot where you drop your Host so that we can purify it. If you find it abhorrent to even think about subjecting the corpse or remains of your beloved to people stomping on it, how much more must we be reverential when dealing with the Body of Christ.
If we think negatively, St Paul’s teaching sounds condemnatory but if we regard it positively, he is inviting us to an inner transformation. Transubstantiation changes the substances of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ whereas transformation does not turn us into God but rather that those who meet us will encounter Jesus Christ—through our words and actions. This is what we must bear in mind and heart as we process with the Blessed Sacrament or when we consume it. Whether or not there is a procession, transubstantiation goes hand in hand with our transformation. The more we eat of the Body of Christ, the more we can resemble Christ in every thing that we say and do. We are not God but we can be like Him and for that, we need the only “vehicle” capable for this divinisation: the Bread of Life—the Eucharist.
__________
[1] It is a concept alien to the modern mindset. Our world view is organised according to “I, me or myself” as the centre of the universe. A suggested alternative to transubstantiation is “transignification”. The Holy Communion signifies a reality for me. The question then becomes what happens to that “reality” when it no longer means anything to me. Does it cease to be “real”?
[2] An accident is defined as the unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, resulting in damage or injury. Translated, it is “kemalangan” and the closest it resembles “unintentionality” is when we describe birth as an accident. This kind of accident is not a failure in contraceptive practice but rather it details how one is born either as poor or rich, man or a woman. A rich person could have been born poor and therefore the being rich is really an accident of birth.
