What is transubstantiation?

1261–1264 · Thomas Aquinas, Of God and His Creatures: An Annotated Translation (With some Abridgement) of the Summa contra Gentiles 4.63

This then is one reason for the accident of bread remaining, that something may be found permanent under the conversion. Another reason is this. If the substance of bread was converted into the Body of Christ, and the accidents of bread also passed away, there would not ensue upon such conversion the being of the Body of Christ in substance where the bread was before: for nothing would be left to refer the Body of Christ to that place. But since the dimensions of bread (quantitas dimensiva panis), whereby the bread held this particular place, remain after conversion, while the substance of bread is changed into the Body of Christ, the Body of Christ comes to be under the dimensions of bread, and in a manner to occupy the place of the bread by means of the said dimensions.

1265–1273 · Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, q. 76, a. 1, co.

I answer that, It is absolutely necessary to confess according to Catholic faith that the entire Christ is in this sacrament. Yet we must know that there is something of Christ in this sacrament in a twofold manner: first, as it were, by the power of the sacrament; secondly, from natural concomitance. By the power of the sacrament, there is under the species of this sacrament that into which the pre-existing substance of the bread and wine is changed, as expressed by the words of the form, which are effective in this as in the other sacraments; for instance, by the words: "This is My body," or, "This is My blood." But from natural concomitance there is also in this sacrament that which is really united with that thing wherein the aforesaid conversion is terminated.

1265–1273 · Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, q. 75, a. 2, co.

And consequently it remains that Christ's body cannot begin to be anew in this sacrament except by change of the substance of bread into itself. But what is changed into another thing, no longer remains after such change. Hence the conclusion is that, saving the truth of this sacrament, the substance of the bread cannot remain after the consecration.

1265–1273 · Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, q. 76, a. 5, co.

I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 3; A[3]), Christ's body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ's body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ's body is not the subject of those dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the substance of Christ's body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper dimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a located body. Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament.

1265–1273 · Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, q. 75, a. 1, co.

I answer that, The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on Lk. 22:19: "This is My body which shall be delivered up for you," Cyril says: "Doubt not whether this be true; but take rather the Saviour's words with faith; for since He is the Truth, He lieth not."

c. 1275 · Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend, vol. 7 34.2

The first is that the substance of the bread and of the wine is changed into the substance of the body and precious blood of Christ, and this is showed to us by such a similitude or likeness naturally, that is, that of food of bread and wine, both flesh and blood are engendered in creature, much more stronger our Lord that is sovereign nature, may do by virtue of his words that the bread and the wine is converted into his own body and into his precious blood. The second miracle is, that every day, oft and many times, the bread is converted into the proper and own body of our Lord, and notwithstanding none augmentation or increase is done in God.

c. 1550 · Louis of Blois, Spiritual Works The Spiritual Mirror, Chapter XII. Reverence for the Holy Eucharist.—Worship of the Mother of God, and of the, § 1. The Holy Eucharist

Receive the holy Eucharist with humble reverence, believing with firm faith that under the appearance of a little bread thou receivest the true and immortal Body of Christ. For by the divine power, operating through the words of consecration which the priest pronounces, the substance of bread and wine is supernaturally converted and transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. If this same Eucharist be given even to many thousands of men, each one of them receives the Body of the Lord, and Christ undivided; also if one consecrated Host be divided into many parts, Christ is entire in each fragment. And nevertheless the Body of the Lord remains whole, Christ remains entire at the Right Hand of the Father in heaven. This great mystery, this incomprehensible transubstantiation (as it is called), is accomplished by the operation of God, to whom nothing is impossible. Verily Christ in the Eucharist gives thee His whole Self; that is, He gives His supreme Divinity, His perfect Body with His Blood, and His Holy Soul.

1546–1563 · Council of Trent, Canons and Dogmatic Decrees of the Council of Trent s13.c3

The most holy Eucharist has indeed this in common with the rest of the sacraments, that it is a symbol of a sacred thing, and is a visible form of an invisible grace; but there is found in the Eucharist this excellent and peculiar thing, that the other sacraments have then first the power of sanctifying when one uses them, whereas in the Eucharist, before being used, there is the Author himself of sanctity. For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless himself affirmed with truth that to be his own body which he presented [to them]. And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable body of our Lord, and his veritable blood, together with his soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the body indeed under the species of bread, and the blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connection and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with his body and soul. Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof.

1907 · David S. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 5: The Middle Ages, A.D. 1049-1294 14.115

The culminating point in the history of the mediaeval doctrine of the eucharist was the dogmatic definition of transubstantiation by the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215. Thenceforth it was heresy to believe anything else. The definition ran that "the body and blood of Christ are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into the body and the wine into the blood by divine power." simply formulated the prevailing belief.

1520 · Martin Luther, On the Babylonish Captivity of the Church supper

If, for my part, I cannot understand how the bread can be the body of Christ, I will bring my understanding into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and firmly believe, in simple adherence to His word, not only that the body of Christ is in the bread, but that the bread is the body of Christ. For so shall I be kept safe by his words, where it is said: “Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and said, Take, eat, this (that is, this bread, which He had taken and broken) is my body.” Paul also says: “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” He does not say that the communion is in the bread, but that the bread itself is the communion of the body of Christ. What if philosophy does not understand these things? The Holy Spirit is greater than Aristotle. Does it even understand the transubstantiation which these men speak of, seeing that they themselves confess that all philosophy breaks down on this point?

1520 · Martin Luther, On the Babylonish Captivity of the Church supper

For this reason the ideas of Origen were rightly rejected, when, in contempt of the plain grammatical meaning, he turned the trees, and all other objects described as existing in Paradise, into allegories; since hence it might be inferred that trees were not created by God. So in the present case, since the Evangelists write clearly that Christ took bread and blessed it, and since the book of Acts and the Apostle Paul also call it bread, real bread and real wine must be understood, just as the cup was real. For even these men do not say that the cup is transubstantiated. Since then it is not necessary to lay it down that a transubstantiation is effected by the operation of divine power, it must be held as a figment of human opinion; for it rests on no support of Scripture or of reason. It is forcing on us a novel and absurd usage of words, to take bread as meaning the form or accidents of bread, and wine as the form or accidents of wine.

1546 · John Calvin, Commentary on 1 Corinthians, part 1 (chapters 1-14) 11.24

Papists hold forth to us their system of transubstantiation: they allege that, when the act of consecration has been gone through, the substance of the bread no longer exists, and that nothing remains but the accidents. To this contrivance we oppose — not merely the plain words of Scripture, but the very nature of the sacraments. For what is the meaning of the supper, if there is no correspondence between the visible sign and the spiritual reality?

c. 1553 · John Bradford, Sermons and Tracts supper

This I speak not as though the elements of these sacraments were transubstantiated, which I have already impugned, neither as though Christ's body were in the bread or wine, or were tied to the elements, otherwise than sacramentally and spiritually, nor that the bread and wine may not and must not be called sacramental and external figures, but that they might be discerned from significative and bare signs only, and be taken for signs exhibitive and representative. By this means a Christian conscience will call and esteem the bread of the Lord as the body of Christ; for it never will esteem the sacraments of Christ after their exterior appearance, but after the words of Christ, whereof it comes that the fathers, as Chrysostom and others speak with so full a mouth, when they speak of the sacrament, for their respect was to Christ's words. If the schoolmen who followed them had possessed the same spirit which they had, then would they never have consented to transubstantiation. For with great admiration some of the fathers do say that the bread is changed, or turned into the body of Christ, and the wine into his blood, meaning it of a mutation or change, not corporeal, but spiritual, figurative, sacramental, or mystical.

c. 1553 · John Bradford, Sermons and Tracts supper

First, the Holy Ghost plainly tells us so, by calling it often bread, after the words of consecration, as 1 Cor. x. "Is not the bread which we break a partaking of the body of Christ?'' says Paul. Lo! he plainly says, the bread which we break, not only calling it bread, but adding thereto 'breaking,' which cannot be attributed either to Christ's body, whereof no bone was broken, nor to any accident (or mere appearance without substance, editor), but must needs be of a substance, which substance, if it is not Christ's body, must be bread. As in the 11th chapter four times he plainly calls it so. "He that eats of this bread, he that receives this bread," &c. And in the Acts of the Apostles, we read how that (in speaking of the communion) "they met together break bread," &c. So that it is plain that the substance of bread and wine remains in the supper after the words of consecration, as also may appear plainly by Christ's own words, who calls that which he gave them in the cup, wine, or the fruit of the vine, as both Matthew and Mark write: whereby we see that there is no transubstantiation of the wine, and therefore we may also see, that there is no transubstantiation of the bread. As for the papists' cavilling, that it has the name of bread, because it was bread, as Simon the leper was still called leprous, though he was healed, or as Moses' rod, being turned into a serpent, was still called a rod, (Matt. xxvi., Exod. vii.,) it proves nothing; for there was in the one a plain sight, and the senses certified, that Simon was no leper, and in the other plain mention that the rod was turned into a serpent. But concerning the sacrament, neither the senses see any other thing than bread, neither is there any mention made of turning; and therefore their cavil is plainly seen to be but a cavil, and of no force.

c. 1553 · John Bradford, Sermons and Tracts supper

Fourthly, I prove that there is no transubstantiation, by Luke and Paul's words spoken over the cup. For they are no less effectual to transubstantiate the cup, than their words spoken of the bread are operative and mighty to transubstantiate the bread. For as they say of the bread 'This is my body,' so say they of the cup, 'This cup is the new testament,' which is absurd to be spoken or thought either of the cup, or of the thing in the cup, by transubstantiation; yea, rather in saying these words, 'This cup is the new testament,' we are taught by their coupling the word cup to the demonstrative this, how we should in the words, 'This is my body,' know that the word this there demonstrates bread. Fifthly, as the reasons before brought forth prove, that the substance of bread remains in the sacrament, so does the definition of a sacrament. For the fathers affirm it to consist of an earthly thing and of a heavenly thing, of the word and of the element, of sensible things and of things which are perceived by the mind. But transubstantiation wholly takes away the earthly thing, the element, the sensible thing, and so makes it no sacrament; and therefore the definition of a sacrament teaches, that bread, which is the earthly thing, the sensible thing, and the element, remains still, as St. Augustine says.

1555 · John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, part 3 Matt.26.26

In short, consecration is nothing else than a solemn testimony, by which the Lord appoints to us for a spiritual use an earthly and corruptible sign; which cannot take place, unless his command and promise are distinctly heard for the edification of faith; from which again it is evident, that the low whispering and breathing of the Papists are a wicked profanation of the mystery. Now if Christ consecrates the bread, when he declares to us that it is his body, we must not suppose that there is any change of the substance, but must only believe that it is applied to a new purpose. And if the world had not been long ago so bewitched by the subtlety of the devil, that, when the monster of transubstantiation had once been introduced, it will not now admit any light of true interpretation on these words, it would be superfluous to spend any more time in investigating their meaning.

1559 · John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.17.14

Hence proceeded that fictitious transubstantiation for which they fight more fiercely in the present day than for all the other articles of their faith. For the first architects of local presence could not explain, how the body of Christ could be mixed with the substance of bread, without forthwith meeting with many absurdities. Hence it was necessary to have recourse to the fiction, that there is a conversion of the bread into body, not that properly instead of bread it becomes body, but that Christ, in order to conceal himself under the figure, reduces the substance to nothing. It is strange that they have fallen into such a degree of ignorance, nay, of stupor, as to produce this monstrous fiction not only against Scripture, but also against the consent of the ancient Church. I admit, indeed, that some of the ancients occasionally used the term conversion, not that they meant to do away with the substance in the external signs, but to teach that the bread devoted to the sacrament was widely different from ordinary bread, and was now something else.

c. 1611 · Lewis Bayly, The Practice of Piety 14

The divine words of blessing do not change or annihilate the substance of the bread and wine, for if their substance did not remain it could be no sacrament; but it changes them in use and in name. For that which was before but common bread and wine to nourish men’s bodies, is, after the blessing, destinated to an holy use, for feeding of the souls of Christians.

1647 · Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith 29.6

That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries.

1658 · Congregational Churches (Savoy Assembly), The Savoy Declaration of the Congregational Churches 30.6

The doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called Transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament; and hath been and is the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.

1677 · Particular Baptist elders and congregations of London, The Baptist Confession of 1689 (the Second London Confession) 30.5

The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, in other words, the body and blood of Christ, albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.

1692 · Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments 4.5

The Papists hold transsubstantiation — that the bread, after consecration, is turned into the very substance of Christ’s body. We say, we receive Christ’s body spiritually; they say, they receive Christ’s body carnally; which is contrary to Scripture. Scripture affirms, that the heavens must receive Christ’s body ‘until the times of the restitution of all things.’ Acts 3: 21. Christ’s body cannot be at the same time in heaven and in the host. Aquinas says, ‘It is not possible by any miracle, that a body should be locally in two places at once.’ Besides, it is absurd to imagine that the bread in the sacrament should be turned into Christ’s flesh, and that his body which was hung before, should be made again of bread. So that, ‘This is my body,’ is, as if Christ had said, ‘This is a sign and representation of my body.’

c. 1714 · Simon Browne, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11.23-34

The materials of this sacrament; both, [1.] As to the visible signs; these are bread and the cup, the former of which is called bread many times over in this passage, even after what the papists call consecration. What is eaten is called bread, though it be at the same time said to be the body of the Lord, a plain argument that the apostle knew nothing of their monstrous and absurd doctrine of transubstantiation.

1784 · Methodist Episcopal Church, Methodist Articles of Religion 18

Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, can not be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the means whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.

1820 · John Tillotson, Works, Volume 6 130

I can never while I live believe these two things, that the last thing our Saviour did before his death, should be to teach his disciples not to believe their own senses, as he must do if he taught them transubstantiation; and that the very first thing he did after he was risen from the dead, should be to teach them the quite contrary, by appealing to the certainty of sense for the proof of his resurrection; for when they doubted of his resurrection, (Luke xxiv. 38.) “He said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” If this be a good argument, that it was a real body which they saw, because they saw and felt flesh and bones; is it not as good an argument, on the other side, that what they saw in the sacrament was not his real and natural body, because they could neither see nor handle flesh and bones? So that I can not believe transubstantiation, unless I can believe that truth itself can contradict and destroy itself.

1823 · Robert South, Sermons Preached Upon Several Occasions, Volume 3 6

To this I answer, 1st, in general, that no man discoursing or proceeding rationally upon this subject, refuses to believe transubstantiation merely upon this account, that it is impossible to be understood. 2dly, I affirm, that the case between transubstantiation and the Trinity is very different; the former being contradicted by the judgment of that faculty, of which it is properly the object; the latter being not at all contradicted, but only not comprehended by the faculty, to which the judgment and cognizance of it does belong. To make which clear, we must observe, that both the bread and the body of Christ, about which transubstantiation is said to be effected, being endued with quantity, colour, and the like, are the proper objects of sense, and so fall under the cognizance of the sight and touch; which senses being entire, and acting as naturally they ought, they both can and do certainly judge of their proper objects, and upon such judgment find it to be a contradiction for a small body retaining its own proper dimensions, at the same time to have the dimensions of a body forty times greater. For one body to be circumscribed, and so compassed in one place, and at the same time to fill a thousand more, I say it is a contradiction; for it makes the same thing in the very same respect to be circumscribed, and not to be circumscribed; circumscribed, because encompassed in such a place; and yet not circumscribed, because extending itself beyond that place to many others.

1834 · Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible: 1 Corinthians 11.26

Ye eat this bread - This is a direct and positive refutation of the doctrine of the papists that the bread is changed into the real body of the Lord Jesus. Here it is expressly called "bread" - bread still - bread after the consecration. Before the Saviour instituted the ordinance he took "bread" - it was bread then: it was "bread" which he "blessed" and "broke;" and it was bread when it was given to them; and it was bread when Paul says here that they ate. How then can it be pretended that it is anything else but bread?

1865 · Edward Bouverie Pusey, An Eirenicon, in a Letter to the Author of 'The Christian Year' 101

My own conviction is, that our Articles deny Transubstantiation in one sense, and that the Roman Church, according to the explanation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, affirms it in another. A very eminent foreign Divine, of the Roman Communion, allows (I am informed) that “the ‘materia’ of bread and wine remains,” and that, following Theodoret, Pope Gelasius and other Fathers, we may say that “there are two natures in the Sacrament.”

1872 · Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Part III, chapters XV-XX; Part IV, Eschatology) 3.20.19

As to that argument, as urged in behalf of the doctrine of transubstantiation, Protestants say, first, that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice, and, therefore, that no doctrine, which cannot be proved from the Bible, can be received as an article of faith. And as the doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be so proved, it is to be rejected as a mere human theory. And, secondly, that even admitting the authority of tradition, it can be demonstrated that the doctrine in question has no claim to support from the rule, “quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus.”

1875 · Reformed Episcopal Church, Articles of Religion of the Reformed Episcopal Church 27

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine into the very body and blood of Christ) in the Supper of the Lord can not be proved by Holy Writ, is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many and idolatrous superstitions. Consubstantiation (or the doctrine that Christ is veiled under the unchanged bread and wine, and that his very body and blood are present therein and separate the one from the other) is utterly without warrant of Scripture, is contradictory of the fact that Christ, being raised, dieth no more, and is productive equally with transubstantiation of idolatrous errors and practices.

1887 · Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Spurgeon's Sermons, Volume 33 (1887) 1971

The Lord Jesus Christ was then alive, sitting at the table and yet, pointing to the cup filled with red wine, He said, "This is My blood, which is shed for many." This proves that He could not have intended that the wine was literally His blood. Surely it is no longer necessary to refute the gross and carnal dogma of transubstantiation which is obviously absurd! There sat the living Lord at the supper, with His blood in His veins and, therefore, the wine could not literally be His blood! Value the symbol, but to confound it with the thing symbolized would draw into the idolatrous worship of a piece of bread!

1949 · Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology 5.2.5

The supposed Scriptural ground for this is found in the words of the institution, "this is my body", and in John 6:50 ff. But the former passage is clearly tropical, like those in John 14:6; 15:1; 10:9, and others; and the latter, literally understood, would teach more than the Roman Catholic himself would be ready to grant, namely, that every one who eats the Lord's Supper goes to heaven, while no one who fails to eat it will obtain eternal life (cf. verses 53,54). Moreover, verse 63 clearly points to a spiritual interpretation. Furthermore, it is quite impossible to conceive of the bread which Jesus broke as being the body which was handling it; and it should be noted that Scripture calls it bread even after it is supposed to have been transubstantiated, I Cor. 10:17; 11:26,27,28. This view of Rome also violates the human senses, where it asks us to believe that what tastes and looks like bread and wine, is really flesh and blood; and human reason, where it requires belief in the separation of a substance and its properties and in the presence of a material body in several places at the same time, both of which are contrary to reason. Consequently, the elevation and adoration of the host is also without any proper foundation.

1559 · John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion ded.4

It is a Father who testifies, “That the substance of bread and wine in the Eucharist does not cease but remains, just as the nature and substance of man remains united to the Godhead in the Lord Jesus Christ.” This boundary they pass in pretending that, as soon as the words of our Lord are pronounced, the substance of bread and wine ceases, and is transubstantiated into body and blood.

1559 · John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.17.15

In the age of Bernard, though a harsher mode of speech had prevailed, transubstantiation was not yet recognised. And in all previous ages, the similitude in the mouths of all was, that a spiritual reality was conjoined with bread and wine in this sacrament.

1820 · John Tillotson, Works, Volume 4: Sermons LV-LXXXIV 61

Thus the church of Rome boasts, that she hath in all ages been the true visible church of Christ, (and none besides her) free from all errors in doctrine, and corruptions in practice; and that, from the age of Christ and his apostles, she hath always professed the same doctrines and practices which she does at this day. Can any thing be more shameless than this? did they always believe transubstantiation? let their pope Gelasius speak for them; who expressly denies, that in the sacrament there is any substantial change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.