“The Transubstantiation is how the Catholic Church explains the Real Presence in terms of rational philosophy.”
Rather like the rationalizing of the Incarnation we saw earlier on this thread, Alex. I don’t accept the rationalizations at any level. I even think, frankly, that they are unhelpful, but then again I don’t need those explanations. Mystery is mystery.
“Our beliefs don’t differ on the matter, our ways of talking about them differ.”
Yes, they differ profoundly but to the extent that the words can be separated from the belief, you are likely correct. The ramifications of ways we talk about the Eucharist, however, are broad.
So true. Just think of the filioque fallout.
I would not use this word. There are certain scriptures, certain practices, and certain theology. They happen to be facts: I mean, it is a fact that Luke 1 is written the way it is, or that we have certain prayers and hymns connected to the Advent season, and we have the writings, for example, of St. Athanasius on the Incarnation. We can therefore rationally discuss those on the factual and logical basis. It does not mean we do violence to the ineffable nature of the mysteries themselves by "rationalizing" them.