I finally understand the Protestant objection to the adoration of the host on a metaphysical basis. And I can’t refute it.
In transubstantiation the entire substance of the bread is converted into the entire substance of the body of Christ.
But the accidents, the appearances of bread and wine remain.
Now, the accidents have no subject, they no longer refer to anything in reality. Since the substance of bread is gone, they are mere appearances without a connection to anything. They have no subject!
But if they have no subject, then they are Created parts of reality with NO relationship to Christ!
Therefore, to adore the sensible elements of the Host is to adore that which is created and NOT connected to Christ, and therefore constitutes idolatry.
An analogy- suppose we went to the tomb of Christ while he was in it and adored the tomb itself for holding the body of God, offered incense to the tomb and proceeded about the tomb chanting and hailing the tomb and worshiping it. Is it idolatry? Yes, for the tomb is not God, it contains God.
Likewise, even if transubstantiation could be true, the sensible aspects that remain are not God, they merely contain Christ. Therefore how could they be adored? This is not the Hypostatic Union, he does not become bread for us, nor are the accidents made part of himself hypostatically, for this would alter the incarnation.
How then can the Eucharistic ACCIDENTS be adored rightly without falling into idolatry?
And before you say- “Well we adore this because it contains God!” THATS what the pagans said about their idols.
So how do we arise above a paganistic way of thinking of God “contained” in something without altering the incarnation? Are the Eucharistic accidents taken up into the Godhead? How and where is it taught? This would be like a Eucharistic Monophysitism…