![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Okay.
So one of the big Catholic/Protestant theological debates is on transubstantiation. Catholics believe that the bread and wine go through an ACTUAL transformation into the blood and body of Christ; Protestants believe that it's symbolic.
But Biblical literalism is a Fundamentalist Protestant thing. How do they reconcile the idea that the Bible is literal with the idea that the Mass is symbolic?
(The most common explanation of the term "hocus pocus" is that it comes from a corruption of "hoc est corpus", and it was basically a Protestant dismissive term expressing the idea that all that Catholic transubstantiation stuff was just, y'know, that "hocus pocus" fake stuff.)
So one of the big Catholic/Protestant theological debates is on transubstantiation. Catholics believe that the bread and wine go through an ACTUAL transformation into the blood and body of Christ; Protestants believe that it's symbolic.
But Biblical literalism is a Fundamentalist Protestant thing. How do they reconcile the idea that the Bible is literal with the idea that the Mass is symbolic?
(The most common explanation of the term "hocus pocus" is that it comes from a corruption of "hoc est corpus", and it was basically a Protestant dismissive term expressing the idea that all that Catholic transubstantiation stuff was just, y'know, that "hocus pocus" fake stuff.)