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…
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.
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.