Transubstantiation: Theology, History, and Christian Unity

by Brett Salkeld

This thoroughgoing study examines the doctrine of transubstantiation from historical, theological, and ecumenical vantage points. Brett Salkeld explores eucharistic presence in the theologies of Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin, showing that Christians might have more in common on this topic than they have typically been led to believe. As Salkeld corrects false understandings of the theology of transubstantiation, he shows that Luther and Calvin were much closer to the medieval Catholic tradition than is often acknowledged. The book includes a foreword by Michael Root.

Genres: Theology, Catholic, History, Nonfiction, Religion

283 pages, Kindle Edition

Published November 19, 2019

Reviews

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

A few months ago, I heard Brett Salkeld (the author) talking on the First Things podcast about this book. I was intrigued, and we ended up selecting it for my Christian reading group.

The overall project is a deep-dive on Catholic theology of transubstantiation and some proposals for Christian unity on the Eucharist. It is fairly high-level and challenging. But if you have any tolerance for academic theology/philosophy, I think it is well worth the investment of time and attention.

Salkeld covers, very roughly, three topics:

(1) He summarizes the historical Christian understanding of the real presence prior to Aquinas. For Catholic apologetic purposes, this is extremely useful, because it helps respond to cherry-picked quotes from certain church fathers that appear to deny real presence. For example, Augustine at times refers to the bread and wine as "signs" or "figures," and the book helps makes sense of this.

(2) He then does a deep-dive on Aquinas to really get to the heart of exactly what is meant by "transubstantiation." This includes a question-by-question walk-through of several of the key passages in the Summa. The analysis is thorough and addresses strange corner-questions, like: "Quid sumit mus?" (What does the mouse eat?), i.e., "if a mouse goes into church after the Mass and sneaks a bite from the tabernacle, does transubstantiation mean that the mouse consumes Christ?"

(3) He then does similar deep-dives into Luther (consubstantialism) and Calvin (instrumentalism) to contrast their views with Aquinas. The conclusion here is that, in many important respects, the reformers were arguing against non-doctrinal perversions of Aquinas's articulation. Salkeld demonstrates how close Luther and Calvin really were to Aquinas's original formulation, and he suggests some ecumenical paths forward for church unity on this issue with our Lutheran and Calvinist brothers and sisters.

Although Salkeld's intention in writing the book is ecumenical, it is worth reading just for the explanation of Catholic doctrine. I'm a cradle Catholic and thought I understood transubstantiation reasonably well, yet the book was honestly transformative of my thinking. In particular, Salkeld highlights treatments of real presence that were near-cannibalistic (i.e., the first confession of Berengarius) and how theology pivoted away from that extreme until Aquinas's precise formulation of transubstantiation.

As I gather from Salkeld, the gist of Aquinas's articulation is (very roughly): transubstantiation is not the removal of the substance of the bread and replacing it with the substance of Christ. Rather, God is the very essence of being, in that all of reality subsists in Him. The consecration at the Mass tears the veil that separates the substance of the bread from the underlying reality of God in which it subsists. Salkeld's detailed explanation of Aquinas and working out of the implications of the doctrine brought my appreciation for the Eucharist to an even higher level.

I also enjoyed the discussion of Luther and Calvin, and the book improved my understanding of their theology. I felt Salkeld did a good job framing their objections to transubstantiation in the context of contemporary theological development and showing how the reformers were closer to Catholic doctrine than we might think. Although, I'll have to leave it to the Lutherans and Calvinists to opine on whether Salkeld's ecumenical outreach is helpful for them.

I really, really loved the book, but in fairness, I'll close with two comments to point out who it is NOT for:

First, although Salkeld does an incredible job explaining Catholic doctrine and tracing historical development, he doesn't do a step-by-step justification of the fundamentals of Catholic theology. For example, there's no chapter with a scriptural analysis of John 6 and the Bread of Life discourse. If you want a book to give you that basic introduction to apologetics, I would suggest Barron's "Eucharist" and Pitre's "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist."

Second, the book does a superb job addressing Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists. But one view that does not get much attention is, unfortunately, the one that in my experience is the most dominant in American Protestantism—the theology that takes the Lord's Supper as purely symbolic (whether as official teaching in most evangelical seminaries, or the practical understanding in the pews of most Protestant churches). Because those groups don't have a true sacramental theology, there's not much in the book's scope to address them. So if your goal is ecumenical outreach to "it's just a memorial" evangelicals, Salkeld will need to write another book.

[Tyler C · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent! Salkeld takes great care to present the historic Roman, Lutheran, and Calvinist doctrines of the Lord’s Supper in a fair and accurate way, clearing up common misunderstandings from both critics and, often, their most passionate defenders. While differences undeniably exist, he paints a picture that highlights how much these three views share in common—far more than many are willing to acknowledge. Each tradition affirms that the whole Christ is truly present in the Supper, and all rely on philosophical and metaphysical language to explain how this is possible. Much of their disagreement seems to arise from using different vocabularies to express similar ideas. It’s a thought-provoking and rewarding, though sometimes challenging, read.

[Ross Jensen · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book surprised me: while its conclusions on the compatibility of Roman Catholic and Lutheran descriptions of the real presence are essentially sound, for instance, its basic account of transubstantiation itself is unsatisfying in its vague gestures toward a general “sacramentality” and the “Platonic-Christian” synthesis of the church fathers. It also fails to address a fundamental problem that arises in the course of the argument: namely, what is the meaning of the notion of two “levels of reality” (represented, e.g., by the Thomistic version of the substance/accidents distinction)? Is this notion even intelligible as (positively) more than a way of speaking? Salkeld appears to believe that it is—and appears to believe that it is *important* that it is—but he doesn’t actually try to show this; instead, he just says, more or less, that the Christian “Platonists” believed in such “levels” and so we simply need to recover their understanding (using the historically-conditioned language of the later history of the church, of course—a dubious prospect in its own right). But what if the “Platonic-Christian” synthesis collapsed for good reason? What if it is philosophically untenable, as many are inclined to suppose it is? Then the question of the function of “two-level” language needs to be revisited more directly than it is revisited here.

[Jared Mcnabb · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'll admit was skeptical of this book when a friend recommended it to me. As a Reformed pastor, I reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and while I'm generally sympathetic to some ecumenical impulses, a lot of of ecumenical theology is done by either liberalizing, or pursuing third-wayism. But few books upend my understanding like this one did.

Salkeld did two things that I didn't think possible to accomplish in one book. He helped me appreciate the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and he deepened my appreciation for my own tradition and Calvin's view.

Salkeld lays out Aquinas' articulation of Transubstantiation, and then describes the ways in which the doctrine changed and degraded over the next few centuries prior to the reformation. Salkeld discussed the views of Luther and Calvin, and often agreed with the reformers critiques and rejection of the Transubstantiation that they encountered in their day. But his argument is that in their rejection, the reformers actually were closer to Aquinas' view than they recognized.

[J Landon Light · Rating 4 out of 5]

Salkeld goes to great lengths to fairly and accurately present the historic Roman, Lutheran, and Calvinist doctrines of the Lord's Supper and clarify them from the popular misrepresentations of their respective critics and, as happens all too often, most zealous advocates. While differences certainly remain, the picture that emerges is one in which these three views have much more in common than most are willing to admit. All parties believe the whole Christ is truly present in the Supper, and all parties must resort to philosophical and metaphysical language to explain how that can be. Much of the disagreements between the parties stems from trying to say the same things with different vocabularies. A very eye-opening and enjoyable, even if challenging, read.

[Andrew Leccese · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book. Becomes quite dense at times and probably could have been shorter. Really enjoyed the ending of the book and how Brett tied everything back together.

[Primordial Offering · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very contextualizing. Very well done!

[Tynan Brooks]

Great book. Generously ecumenical, enriching my appreciation of transubstantiation and bringing me into greater sympathy with more Protestant understandings of the real presence.