Hylomorphism is difficult to understand for many. While "substance" and "accidents" are used to attempt to understand transubstantiation would it not be possible to simply stated more understandable that the bread and wine are changed after the words of the Lord and the epiclesis (calling down of the Holy Spirit) and become the true Body…
Hylomorphism is difficult to understand for many. While "substance" and "accidents" are used to attempt to understand transubstantiation would it not be possible to simply stated more understandable that the bread and wine are changed after the words of the Lord and the epiclesis (calling down of the Holy Spirit) and become the true Body and Blood of the Lord? After these words and the actions that accompany them is it not true and right to say that bread and wine no longer exist on the altar but have be changed and are the actual sacramental Body and Blood of the Lord?
For those who understand hylomorphism these categories are all well and good. But to the average members of the faithful the importance is recognising that a change has taken place and the Sacred Species we are invited to received are in no way simply bread and wine but the flesh and blood of the Son of God.
The hylomorphic language we use is not intended to be broadly understandable, but theologically precise. Surely, simpler language can be used to make the ideas more accessible for the average Catholic. No disagreement there. But the challenge is that simpler language often leads to either imprecision (which can be erroneously interpreted) or outright error. For example, even your last sentence, which states that the Sacred Species are "in no way simply bread and wine," could plausibly be interpreted in a heterodox manner, as an endorsement of consubstantiation. In the greater context of your comment, it is clear that you have a full and accurate view of transubstantiation, to the extent that we understand this Divine Mystery. But not everyone will look beyond the snippet or interpret charitably.
Hylomorphism is difficult to understand for many. While "substance" and "accidents" are used to attempt to understand transubstantiation would it not be possible to simply stated more understandable that the bread and wine are changed after the words of the Lord and the epiclesis (calling down of the Holy Spirit) and become the true Body and Blood of the Lord? After these words and the actions that accompany them is it not true and right to say that bread and wine no longer exist on the altar but have be changed and are the actual sacramental Body and Blood of the Lord?
For those who understand hylomorphism these categories are all well and good. But to the average members of the faithful the importance is recognising that a change has taken place and the Sacred Species we are invited to received are in no way simply bread and wine but the flesh and blood of the Son of God.
The hylomorphic language we use is not intended to be broadly understandable, but theologically precise. Surely, simpler language can be used to make the ideas more accessible for the average Catholic. No disagreement there. But the challenge is that simpler language often leads to either imprecision (which can be erroneously interpreted) or outright error. For example, even your last sentence, which states that the Sacred Species are "in no way simply bread and wine," could plausibly be interpreted in a heterodox manner, as an endorsement of consubstantiation. In the greater context of your comment, it is clear that you have a full and accurate view of transubstantiation, to the extent that we understand this Divine Mystery. But not everyone will look beyond the snippet or interpret charitably.