The power of the mysterious transmutation permeates the nature of the bread and wine and changes it. They become other than themselves, other than what they are as things of the physical world. But the bread and wine do not lose their thingness within the limits of this world; their breadness and wineness — their smell, taste, weight, color, physical and chemical properties — remain unchanged. The change in their nature that has occurred is not manifested in their physical being. The miracle of the transmutation of the eucharist elements is therefore not a physical but a metaphysical event. This miracle is not expressed in the replacement of one kind of matter by another within the realm of the physical world — a replacement of the sort that occurred, for example, in the miracle of Cana of Galilee, where the matter of the water was transformed into the matter of the wine, or in the miracle of the loaves and fishes, where the quantity of bread was multiplied. There is — and even can be — no such matter in the world into which the bread and wine could be transformed during their transmutation into the body and blood of Christ. Such a transmutation does not correspond to any transformation within the limits of this world, for the matter of Christ’s body and blood is, in general, absent among the things of this world. Such a transformation would signify a wholly new creation accomplished by the annihilation of the former creation. But in this case this would not be a transmutation, a metabole, which presupposes a certain identity– as well as a complete distinction — between the terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem. A new creation in place of the former one annuls this connection, annihilates both the terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem in their relation.
The idea of transmutation thus contains an antinomy which overcomes the law of identity without annulling it.
–Sergius Bulgakov, “The Eucharistic Dogma,” in The Holy Grail & The Eucharist. Trans. Boris Jakim (Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Books, 1997), 63-4.
This post is inspired by Brett’s gracious efforts to discuss the eucharist.
Thanks Henry.
This is a nice piece. I must read my Bulgakov sooner rather than later. A close collaborator of mine does Bulgakov and Eucharist.
This has interesting links with the Herbert McCabe article I linked to below the Frank Sheed quote. I get the sense that McCabe would do a good job of reconciling Thomas and Bulgakov or, perhaps, of helping Bulgakov read Thomas more generously.
Yes, I will grant Bulgakov isn’t necessarily being generous with his interpretation of Thomas (as is clear in the essay), but I think a part of it has to do with how Thomas was to be interpreted in the last few centuries (causing the problems you have to deal with yourself). But I also think he helps show what an Orthodox view of the eucharist entails, showing why one doesn’t have to use Western traditions to promote the eucharist (though transubstantiation, if understood properly, is a good way of discussing the real presence).
Beyond that, I know I have been getting more and more people to study Bulgakov through the years. His work is indeed a part of the future of Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant dialogues, imo.
I agree very strongly that Thomas is not the problem, but the pop understanding of transubstantiation that is credited to him. McCabe does a good job of getting underneath that stuff.