EUCHARIST
579
EUCHARIST
the appearance of bread alone, as well as under the
appearance of wine alone, we receive Christ whole and
entire (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. iii). This,
the only reasonable conception, finds its Scriptural
verification in the fact, that St. Paul (I Cor., xi, 27, 29)
attaches the same guilt " of the body and the blood of
the Lord" to the unworthy "eating or drinking",
understood in a disjunctive sense, as he does to "eat-
ing and drinking", understood in a copulative sense.
The traditional foundation for this is to be found in the
testimony of the Fathers and of the Church's liturgy,
according to which the glorified Saviour can be present
on our altars only in His totality and integrity, and
not divided into parts or distorted to the form of a
monstrosity. It follows, therefore, that supreme
adoration is separately due to the Sacred Host and to
the consecrated contents of the Chalice. On this last
truth are based especially the permissibility and in-
trinsic propriety of Communion only under one kind
for the laity and for priests not celebrating Mass (see
Communion under Both Kinds). But in particular-
izing upon the dogma, we are naturally led to the
further truth, that, at least after the actual division of
either Species into parts, Christ is present in each part
in His full and entire essence. If the Sacred Host be
broken into pieces or if the consecrated Chalice be
drunk in small quantities, Christ in His entirety is
present in each particle and in each drop. By the
restrictive clause, separalione jactA, the Council of
Trent (Sess. XIII, can. iii) rightly raised this truth to
the dignity of a dogma. While from Scripture we
may only judge it improbable that Christ consecrated
separately each particle of the bread He had broken,
we know with certainty, on the other hand, that He
blessed the entire contents of the Chalice and then
gave it to His disciples to be partaken of distributively
(cf. Matt., xxvi, 27 sq.; Mark, xiv, 23). It is only on
the basis of the Tridentine dogma that we can under-
stand how Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. niyst. v, n. 21)
obliged communicants to observe the most scrupulous
care in conveying the Sacred Host to their mouths, so
that not even "a crumb, more precious than gold or
jewels", might fall from their hands to the ground;
how Csesarius of Aries taught that there is "just as
much in the small fragment as in the whole"; how the
different liturgies assert the abiding integrity of the
"indivisible Lamb", in spite of the "division of the
Host"; and, finally, how in actual practice the faith-
ful partook of the broken particles of the Sacred Host
and drank in common from the same cup.
While the three foregoing theses contain dogmas of faith, there is a fourth proposition which is merely a theological conclusion, namely, that even bejnre the actual division of the Species, Christ is present wholly and entirely in each particle of the still unbroken Host and in each drop of the collective contents of the Chalice. For were not Christ present in His entire Personality in every single particle of the Eucharistic Species even before their division took place, we should be forced to conclude that it is the process of dividing which brings about the Totality of Presence, whereas according to the teaching of the Church the operative cause of the Real and Total Presence is to be found in Transubstantiation alone. No doubt this last conclu- sion directs the attention of philosophical and scien- tific inquiry to a mode of existence peculiar to the Eucharistic Body, which is contrary to the ordinary laws of experience. It is, indeed, one of those sublime mysteries, concerning which speculative theology at- tempts to offer various solutions [see below under (.'>)].
(3) Transubstantiation. — Before proving dogmati- cally the fact of the substantial change here under consideration, we must first outline its history and nature, (a) The scientific development of the concept of Transubstantiation can hardly be saiil to be a prod- uct of the Creeks, who did not get beyond its more general notes; rather, it is the remarkable contribu-
tion of the Latin theologians, who were stimulated to
work it out in complete logical form by the three
Eucharistic controversies mentioned above. The
term transubstantiation seems to have been first used
by HUdebert of Tours (about 1079). His encouraging
example was soon followed by other theologians, as
Stephen of Autun (d. 1139), Gaufred (IISS), and Peter
of Blois (d. about 1200), whereupon several oecumeni-
cal councils also adopted this significant expression, as
the Fom-th Council of the Lateran (1215), and the
Council of Lyons (1274), in the profession of faith of
the Greek Emperor Michael Pala;ologus. The Council
of Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. iv ; can. ii) not only accepted
as an inheritance of faith the truth contained in the
idea, but authoritatively confirmed the "aptitude of
the term " to express most strikingly the legitimately
developed doctrinal concept. In a closer logical analy-
sis of Transubstantiation, we find the first and funda-
mental notion to be that of conversion, which may be
defined as " the transition of one thing into another in
some aspect of being". As is immediately evident,
conversion (conversio) is something more than mere
change (jnutatio). Whereas in mere changes one of
the two extremes may be expressed negatively, as,
e. g., in the change of day and night, conversion re-
quires two positive extremes, which are related to each
other as thing to thing, and must have, bcsitles, such
an intimate connexion with each other, that the last
extreme {terminus ad quern) begins to be only as the
first {terminus a yuo) ceases to be, as, e. g., in the con-
version of water mto wine at Cana. A third element is
usually required, known as the commune terlium,
which, even after conversion has taken place, either
physically or at least logically unites one extreme to
the other; for in every true conversion the following
condition must be fulfilled: " What was formerly A, is
now B." A very important question suggests itself as
to whether the definition should further postulate the
previous non-existence of the last extreme, for it
seems strange that an existing terminus a quo. A,
should be converted into an already existing terminus
ad quern, B. If the act of conversion is not to become
a mere process of substitution, as in sleight-of-hand
performances, the terminus ad quem must unquestion-
ably in some manner newly exist, just as the terminus
a quo must in some manner really cease to exist. Yet
as the disappearance of the latter is not attributable to
annihilation properly so called, so there is no need of
postulating creation, strictly so called, to explain the
former's coming into existence. The idea of conver-
sion is amply realized if the following condition is ful-
filled, viz., that a thing which already existed in sub-
stance, acquires an altogether new and previously
non-existing mode of being. Thus in the resurrection
of the dead, the dust of the human bodies will be truly
converted into the bodies of the risen by their previ-
ously existing souls, just as at death they had been
truly converted into corpses by the dcjiarture of the
souls. This much as regards the general notion of con-
version. Transubstantiation, however, is not a con-
version simply so called, but a substantial conversion
{conversio substa7itialis) , inasmuch as one thing is sub-
stantially or csseniiall;/ converted into another. Thus
from the concept of Transubstantiation is excluded
every sort of merely accidental conversion, whether it
be purely natural (e. g. the metamorphosis of insects)
or supernatural (e. g. the Transfiguration of Christ on
Mount Tabor). Finally, Transubstantiation differs
from every other substantial conversion in this, that
onh/ the substance is converted into another — the acci-
dents remaining the same — just as would be the case if
wood were miraculously converted into iron, the sub-
stance of the iron remaining hidden under the external
appearance of the wood.
The application of the foregoing to the Eucharist is an easy matter. First of all the notion of conversion is verified m the Eucharist, not only in general, but in
