I know the theory. I am talking about the use of language. No one has ever said that Luther was a metaphysician. But the Council of Naiaea basically redefined “substance” in applying it to the relationshio between Father and Son. That is wht Luther was trying to do, to go behind the medieval term “transubstantuation.” because they thought it proported to explain the inexplicable. In my view is is is essentially a term that significes a negative” NOT transformation, NOT transfiguration etc. A “miracle” that —like the Resurrection is not a miracle but more like Creation itself.
Jumping in where angels wisely fear to tread: Luther said -- PLEASE don't ask me to look it up, I think that paper back fell apart about a decade ago -- that Aquinas misunderstood Aristotle. As far as I'm concerned anybody who says that is claiming to be a metaphysician, whether I agree with him or not.
(Are metaphysicians in my insurance-approved health provider group?)
I don’t know what caused him to choose the term he used, but you could be right. Trying to connect the understanding of the Trinity reached at the CoN to our understanding of the Euchrist would make a whole lotta sense.
What matters to me is whether or not I believe there is Scriptural support behind the ideas.
Wrapping my mind around many of the ideas behind my beliefs tend to send me wandering around somewhere in outter space. If that makes me a metaphysician, I dunno. If I am, I’m afraid I’m not a very good one.
I believe God’s energy holds the universe as we know it together in its current form. Since energy & matter are different forms of the same thing... Bread, wine, the flesh & blood of Christ, all there. Don’t know if I’m right or not, cuz that takes a leap of faith.
To be honest, I hadn’t thought about it much, but your last line, “A “miracle” that —like the Resurrection is not a miracle but more like Creation itself.”, connected with me.