A reader writes:
Mr. Akin,
What’s the authority you had in mind when you said that the real presence ceases when the precious blood would "no longer would appear to be wine in the common estimation of men"? I’ve heard that before but can’t place it.
This is the standard test for whether Christ is really present or not. It’s common knowledge among theologians, though it is reflected in various authorities. To illustrate, though, I need to broaden the frame of reference a bit.
Christ willed that he would become present under the appearances of (wheat) bread and (grape) wine. Therefore you need wheat bread and grape wine in order to celebate the Eucharist and have valid matter for it.
Neither bread or wine, however, are natural categories (unlike, say, lamb flesh, grapes, or water, which all occur naturally). Bread and wine are prepared by human agency and thus are what one might say are "anthropological" categories rather than natural ones.
This makes us do a little more work in determining validity since anthropological kinds have (or can have) fuzzier boundaries than natural kinds, yet they are what Christ chose to employ in establishing this sacrament.
Since Christ spoke to men and instructed them to perform this sacrament, it follows that he expects men to be able to discern what falls into these categories–at least commonly. Some men might have bizarre expectations about what counts as bread and wine but one can’t rely on any bizarre opinions as a guide to what Christ intended. Therefore, a "common estimation of men" test has evolved. If something would be regarded as bread or wine in the common estimation of men then it will be valid. Otherwise, it won’t be. (Doubtful cases are doubtful matter.)
Because cultures vary, however, we have to throw in one extra qualifier: The common estimation of men has to be tied to the common estimation men in Jesus’ own day. The need for this qualifier is obvious when one considers the fact that to us–in 21st century America–"bread" tends to mean leavened bread while unleavened bread we refer to with a different term (e.g., "crackers"). That was not the case in first century Palestine, though, and to the apostles that Jesus was speaking to, "bread" (lekhem) could be either leavened or unleavened. We know that the latter was valid matter because it was the kind of bread that Jewish people were required to use during the Passover ceremony, which is when Jesus instituted the Eucharist.
So we have to adjust (make broader) what we in our culture would count as bread a little bit in order to take account of this fact.
Once we have the "Is it bread or wine in the common estimation of men?" test, two consequences fall out from that.
The first, which we have already mentioned, is that it isn’t (wheat) bread or (grape) wine then it can’t be used to confect the Eucharist. This is reflected, for example, in Redemptionis Sacramentum:
The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament [RS 48].
The second consequence gets to your question, which is what happens when the accidents no longer appear to be bread and wine. When that happens, standard Catholic theology holds, the Real Presence ceases because what Christ willed to be present under (the appearances of bread and wine) is no longer present.
Thus St. Thomas Aquinas notes:
[I]f the change [in the consecrated elements] be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would
have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under
this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when
the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so
altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or
else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be
reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops
that the species of bread or wine no longer remain [ST III:77:4].
The reader continues:
Is the real presence contingent on our subjective sensation, or on the reality of the sacred species themselves? For example, if you have bread or wine imperceptible to our senses, but chemically the same as a larger portion, does the real presence still remain?
Depending on what you mean, the answer may be neither. The Real Presence does not depend on anybody subjectively sensing the bread and wine. The consecrated elements could be reserved in the Tabernacle, with nobody sensing them. On the other hand, bread and wine are such that they can be sensed, and so the quantities do have to be sufficiently large that if someone were looking at them, they would say "That’s bread" or "That’s wine." It is not enough that a tiny particle be put under a microscope and have it be discovered to be chemically identical to bread or wine. We’re dealing with anthropological categories, and the elements have to be "anthropologically" bread and wine, not just chemically bread and wine.
Or is anything that no longer appears to us to be bread or wine necessarily chemically changed?
I couldn’t tell you for a fact with bread since I don’t know if the cell structure of the wheat typically remains in bread. However wine is not chemically changed by the mere fact of being reduced to such a small quantity that it no longer appears to be wine to the senses. I suspect that the same is true of bread as well, I just don’t know for a fact. The key, though, is not chemical composition but what they count as in the common estimation of men (with the needed cultural qualifier).
Or the crumbs on the paten, for instance. I wouldn’t call a crumb of crust "bread," but I still view that as having as much of the real presence as a larger host. Is that correct?
It depends on the size of the crumb. If it’s a particularly large crumb–something you would look at and think "That’s a piece of bread" then the Real Presence would remain. If it’s a particularly tiny crumb, something you would look at and think "That’s a speck of wheat dust" then the Real Presence does not remain. If it’s an ambiguously sized crumb then it is doubtful whether or not Christ is really present.
For safety’s sake, the Church tends to err ont the side of caution both before and after the consecration of the elements. Before the consecration if it is doubtful that the matter is valid then it cannot be used. After the consecration if it is doubtful whether the Real Presence remains then we are to assume that it does.
In obvious cases, though, (e.g., this is clearly cornbread or this clearly looks like a speck of wheat dust) then the Real Presence is not presumed and we are NOT TO SCRUPLE ABOUT THIS.
Hope this helps!
