St Thomas and the Eucharistic Conversion

The Thomist 65 (2001): 529-65 ST THOMAS AND THE EUCHARISTIC CONVERSION STEPHEN L. BROCK Pontifical University ofthe Holy Cross Rome, Italy IT IS HARDLY POSSIBLE to read the encyclical Fides et ratio without being struck by its insistence upon the need for philosophy, and especially metaphysics, in Christian theology. Among the many reasons cited for this need, one stands out as fundamental. The word of God refers constantly to things which transcend human experience and even human thought; but this "mystery" could not be revealed, nor could theology render it in some way intelligible, were human knowledge limited strictly to the world of sense experience. Metaphysics thus plays an essential role of mediation in theological research. Gohn Paul II, F«Jes et ratio,§83) The following study concerns a particular case of this sort of mediating role of metaphysics in theology. It is a small but dominant element in St Thomas Aquinas's doctrine of the Eucharist: his account of the nature of the sacramental conversion, or what is traditionally called transubstantiation. What has suggested this study to me is a recent article by Germain Grisez on Jesus' substantial presence in the Eucharist.1 Grisez takes issue with St. Thomas's doctrine. Not only his theme, but also his attacks on Thomas, have much to do with "metaphysical mediation." 1 Germain Grisez, "An Alternative Theology of Jesus' Substantial Presence in the Eucharist," Irish Theological Quarterly 65 no. 2 (2000): 111-31; cited hereafter by page number alone. 529 530 STEPHEN L. BROCK Grisez is not accusing Thomas of teaching things contrary to the faith (113). Rather, he is delivering judgment from the standpoint proper to the theologian, that of "faith seeking understanding." His charge is that a number of Thomas's central positions on Christ's presence in the Eucharist are simply unintelligible. Of these positions, all but one have to do with the accidents found in the sacrament (either those of the bread and wine, or Jesus' own) and their relation to the substance ofJesus' body and blood. The other position concerns transubstantiation. Grisez's objections are all serious and worth pondering, even if none is actually fatal to Thomas's account.2 The strongest, I think, is the one about transubstantiation.3 With a view to better understanding Thomas, I also find it the most fruitful to engage. As I hope we shall see, not least among the results is an appreciation of the truly theological nature of the account. I. THE OBJECTION The purpose of the doctrine of transubstantiation is to specify the kind of change that takes place when the sacrament of the Eucharist is performed. Before the priest utters the words of the consecration-"This is my body," "This is the cup of my blood"-the host and the contents of the chalice are bread and wine. Afterwards, they are the body and blood of Christ. As Thomas sees it, this change must consist in the conversion of the substance of the bread into the substance of Christ's body, and the 2 Considering them fatal, Grisez goes on to propose a vastly different account of Jesus' presence in the sacrament. Ishall notdiscuss Grisez's own proposal in any detail. He presents it only as a hypothesis, and he assures us that if he thought that one could reasonably accept Aquinas's account, he would not question it (113). 3 Thismaynotbe Grisez'sview. Whathe seemsto find mostproblematicisThomas'sview that the accidents of the bread and wine subsist without a subject. In general this does appear to be the most controversial aspect of the doctrine. But I find Grisez's particular objection to it less difficult to resolve than the one concerning transubstantiation. In any case, it seems to me that the transubstantiation issue should be addressed first. In all ofThomas's systematic treatments ofthe sacrament, the discussion oftransubstantiation precedes anddetermineshis positions on the other matters. See IV Sent., dd. 8-12; ScG IV, cc. 63-68; STh Ill, qq. 75-80. EUCHARISTIC CONVERSION 531 conversion of the substance of the wine into the substance of his blood (STh III, q. 75, a. 4). Grisez recognizes that this is in accordance with conciliar teaching both...