I guess for me, the difference exists between the possible and the probable. It's possible that Christ is literally, actually transformed into the bread and wine at the Eucharist. However, it's also possible that he inhabits my tortoise, Sammy, and seeks a relationship with me through it.
Are either of those things probable (i.e., well-described in Scripture)? I don't think so. So I'll stick with my Incarnation, but pass on the whole "Real Presence at the Eucharist".
How does tradition play into it? You can go back all the way to the second century and find support for the Real Presence. As I understand it, even the Lutherans believe in the RP (though a different version). It wasn't until Zwingli that you get lots of support for a symbolic interpretation. Could such a major error have started back then, and would none of the church fathers spoken up about it in their writings?
The support for it in Scripture is light--you're right on that. I'm sure there are other things that are light that we both believe, though.
I don't think I've told you this, but I'm somewhat fascinated by the Orthodox Church. They tend to leave a lot more up to mystery than does the Catholic Church. Have you ever examined them?
Commenting by HaloScan
