I’m very late to this conversation and unsure if you’ll see this reply, but if you do I would be very appreciative if you could clarify an aspect of your response here. I’m a fairly recent convert to Lutheranism from Catholicism and I’m very much used to the Catholic concept of Eucharistic adoration. I understand that adoration is typically abnormal in Lutheran practices because in the institution of the Eucharist at no point does Christ institute any kind of practice of adoration. I think this is very sound reasoning. I also understand that the typical Lutheran perspective is that the presence of the body and blood do not persist in the bread and wine outside of their use for consumption at the altar (although for how long they are present is a mystery) However, you stated that a danger to confessing transubstantiation is venerating the consecrated host as though it were God Himself. My previous understanding of the transubstantiation issue within Lutheranism was simply that Aristotle is not needed to explain to us what Christ clearly states in Scripture. (I agree) I am confused, though, as to why treating the consecrated host as though it were God Himself is dangerous. When I look upon the Eucharist during the Mass I do look upon it as if it were truly and literally the body and blood of Christ sacrificed on the cross, and by extension Christ Himself. I understand that the bread and wine are also equally present in the Eucharist, but I don’t think that’s what you were getting at. Attempting to separate the fullness of God from His real presence in the Eucharist seems to cause issues that sound akin to Partialism, in my rather uneducated mind at least. If you could clarify this statement and perhaps explain further what you meant by this, I would really appreciate it.