“I don’t understand why anyone would find this belief easier or more reasonable than transsubstantiation.”
I don’t understand why anyone would presume to precisely define, or feel compelled to precisely define, what happens to the bread and wine at the time of the epiklesis. The Fathers had no problem with it being a Mystery.
The Fathers weren’t accountants.
**The Fathers had no problem with it being a Mystery.**
Nor do REAL Catholics. It’s OK with me if it is a mystery.
So, why then, am I reduced to tears when receiving the Sacred Body and Blood from the priest? To me, that is a mystery too.
The Fathers were Eastern. The East is always more contemplative, less conceptual; the West more involved in reason. I don’t know why this is, both have their benefits and shortcomings.
I think the response to “precisely define” came as a result to questions and I think these questions occur more in the West than the East for the reason above.
I prefer the Eastern view in the matter, but I’ve found the Western definitions helpful in answering questions. There’s a hump to get over, and transubstantiation is helpful.