Often Catholic apologists will assume that “Real Presence” in and of itself, is one to one equivalent to “Transubstantiation.” However, while this is popular, even the Council of Trent, as well as informed Catholics, do not argue that “Real Presence” is “Transubstantiation.” As one Catholic apologist wrote about Trent’s affirmation that Transubstantiation is the only theologically acceptable understanding of “Real Presence” (the following was written, in part, against Edward Schillebeeckx’s work on the Eucharist):
To establish this teaching, Trent formulated the two canons. The first was directed against Zwingli, OEcolampadius, and the Sacramentarians, who had completely symbolized the Eucharist and claimed that Christ was not present in any manner. Neither Luther or Calvin fit into the condemnation of the first canon, since the former held to consubstantiation (viz., that Christ is present alongside the bread and wine and only during the liturgy) and the latter held to a “special” or “spiritual” presence in the Eucharist. However, both Calvin and Luther were subjects of the second canon, which held that transubstantiation is the only acceptable description of the presence of Christ, since, according to Trent, any proposed theory had to account for the change of substance. The Council did not, however, use the Aristotelian term “accidents” but preferred the word “species,” from which some have claimed that Trent was discarding the categories of the Greek philosopher. Schillebeeckx correctly concludes this was not the case, since unofficial texts that formed the basis of the official dogmas refer consistently to the Aristotelian language, and that “species” had a firmer tradition behind it, since it was used at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1439). As a result, Schillebeeckx says that the Council of Trent, although not sanctioning Aristotelian philosophy as a whole, nevertheless, needed to retain the Aristotelian language to safeguard the distinctive character of the Catholic Eucharist against the many and varied copies appearing almost yearly. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 378)
For more articles interacting with the dogmas of the Mass, see, for e.g., the articles listed at:
