Transubstantiation

In a discussion with a Lutheran blogger who goes only by the name of CPA, I sought to find what Lutherans might think of transubstantiation. In my Google hunt, I came across instead what some Catholic thinks of the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation. In any case, you owe it to yourself to read this. If that's the metaphysical understanding behind the Catholic doctrine, well, draw your own conclusions.

Especially curious is their claim that they take Christ's words "literally" why we take them "symbolically." I'm not sure how the Mystical Presence of Reformed theology (i.e. that "This is my body" refers to the spiritual connection we have with Christ in the celebration of the Supper) is any less "literal" than the claim that "This is my body" means "Jesus draws the visible appearance of bread around himself and, in so doing, turns the bread into his entire person such that he is nonphysically present, but present only according to substance." "Body," when juxtaposed with "blood" simply means "flesh." "Body, blood, soul, divinity, and indeed the entire person of Christ" isn't a literal reading; it's just as much an interpolation and product of theological reflection as anything you'll find in Calvin's Institutes. If they said "The flesh of Christ" instead of "Jesus in his full divinity in substance," that would be "literal."

What they should say isn't "We take it literally, and you take it spiritually." They should say "Our theological reflection, philosophical speculation, and centuries of tradition just happen to be right. Yours are wrong. The end." This "literal reading" vs "spiritual reading" stuff is just a bunch of malarky.