As a Lutheran, I often hear that Transubstantiation should be rejected because it’s ‘only philosophy’ and/or because it’s an ‘unbiblical term.’ The word ‘philosophising’ is also thrown around, together with claims that the categories of substance and accident aren’t helpful and that we should embrace ‘mystery.’ But the same arguments are completely forgotten the second they defend the Nicene Creed. Why are none of these people saying that the category of homousios is ‘unhelpful’? Why is it all of a sudden OK to use philosophy when a Nicean Father does it? And why is the category of substance all of a sudden ‘helpful’ (since they acknowledge that Christ is of ‘one substance with the Father’)?
Is it just a case of ‘Platonism good, Aristotelianism bad’? Why is it that using philosophy is wrong, in principle, when it comes to the Scholastics and the Eucharist, while it is of utmost importance when it comes to Church Fathers and Christology?