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).
no subject
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).