This is one thing that confused me since you mentioned it the other day. Transubstantiation, really? The full-on Monty?
Not consubstantiation instead?
Ironically, despite my subsequent issues with Roman Catholicism and the loss of pretty much all my faith in a superior deity (I retain enough to be agnostic, but the only way I could believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing god is one who is in fact running a lab experiment with us and is a good enough scientist not to interfere), transubstantiation was my main issue. (Which led to a domestic WWIII when I was 15/16.)
I could reconcile a presence in the Host with belief, but the actual transformation? I could not cope with that. It seemed blasphemous to me. One of the things I liked about Anglicanism was that I thought the theology was that the Presence was there, but it wasn't full-on transubstantiation. In other words, it was consubstantiaion.
(Please delete this if I've upset or offended you).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2011-05-11 12:07 am (UTC)Not consubstantiation instead?
Ironically, despite my subsequent issues with Roman Catholicism and the loss of pretty much all my faith in a superior deity (I retain enough to be agnostic, but the only way I could believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing god is one who is in fact running a lab experiment with us and is a good enough scientist not to interfere), transubstantiation was my main issue. (Which led to a domestic WWIII when I was 15/16.)
I could reconcile a presence in the Host with belief, but the actual transformation? I could not cope with that. It seemed blasphemous to me. One of the things I liked about Anglicanism was that I thought the theology was that the Presence was there, but it wasn't full-on transubstantiation. In other words, it was consubstantiaion.
(Please delete this if I've upset or offended you).