To the Catholic, however, this so-called "miracle of change" is a part of the total mystery of Divine Condescension, which reaches fulfillment in the Incarnation. For him the Eucharistic presence does no injury to the mystery of the Ascension of Christ. Rather, by the dogma of transubstantiation the truth of the Ascension of Christ's humanity is brought home to him more forcefully. Although Christ is at the right hand of the Father...nevertheless the Catholic accepts in faith the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This presence, his faith tells him, can only be brought about by a change in the ontological order. A change must take place in the profound reality of the bread and wine; a change brought about by the omnipotent hand of God in the service of spiritual fellowship between the Bride and the Bridegroom, between Christ and the Church. It is not the purpose of the dogma of transubstantiation to explain the mystery of the presence of Christ, but to give a logical explanation of the words of institution which safeguard the dogmas of the Resurrection of Christ's humanity, His Ascension and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. What appears to be bread is truly Christ by reason of a profound change which touches the very being of the earthly reality and which is unobservable to the senses. This doctrine will influence no one who does not believe in the dogmas of the Resurrection, Ascension and real presence. But if considered not only in the light of the Semitic way of thinking: the bread is what Christ makes of it, but also in the light of the entire patristic tradition, the dogma of transubstantiation should afford another point of contact between Lutherans and Roman Catholics...
The explanation of the Council of Trent remains the only possible one. It is a logical explanation of the words of institution, which does not go beyond the given data. It is read out of the proposition whose meaning and extent parallel the logical explanation exactly. Thus the dogma of transubstantiation is distinguished from ontic explanations proposed by the various schools of theology to give further understanding to the dogma.39 It is a well known fact that the Council avoided implicating itself in any philosophical system and professed to have received the dogma from the words of institution. Thus the meaning of the words "conversion," "substance," and "species" is to be derived from the words of institution and not from a particular philosophical system. Since this is so, there remains the possibility that adversaries of the Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophical system may nevertheless come to accept the logical interpretation of the words of institution proposed by Trent.
The logical explanation of Scripture is, indeed, the basis of Biblical theology and not at all foreign to Lutheran theologians. The realization that Trent was only presenting such an explanation of the words of institution and not binding itself to a particular philosophical system might well dispose many Lutherans to accept the dogma of transubstantiation. But even if Lutherans were to accept this dogma as a logical explanation of Christ's words, there yet exists a profound difference between Lutherans and Catholics on the point at issue. As Rahner points out, for the Catholic a logical explanation can become a proposition which binds the faith of the individual by reason of the Church's teaching, while for the Lutheran it remains basically theological and therefore revisable.
Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J.
