Well, first is the issue that the real presence is the belief of the overwhelming majority of Christians, even if we exclude Catholics. Luther certainly never rejected the real presence, and I’ve found some of the arguments of Zwingli as well as those of the Calvinists as odd and over dependent on one verse (John 6:63). Additionally, the argument that Jesus’ body can only have a localized presence because it is “only a human body” is unfathomable to me. Christ might have limited himself while he was on Earth, but it sounds preposterous to me that an omnipotent God would not be omnipresent. Yes, I’ve heard that Jesus “is spiritually omnipresent” but that to me is a problem because it almost sounds like Nestorianism, alleging that there are two Christs running around. Plus, I’ve noticed that in other parts of scripture where Christ is confusing his disciples, he comes out and explains it to them, or, at least, the author of the particular gospel says it - for instance, when referring to the “sign of Elijah”, the author clearly indicates to the reader that Jesus referred to John the Baptist. Or with regards to the destruction of the Temple, it says “but the temple he was referring to was his body.” Yet when Jesus lifts the cup, it doesn’t say “This is my body [that is, the symbol of His body]…”
Also, the fact that the Church Fathers clearly spoke of a literal presence, not symbolic.
So who am I to counter 2,000 years of history?
Well I went to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy and I loved the presentation of the Eucharist.
And by the way, you Mary-worshipping, statue-kissing, Catholic heathens (just kidding of course), you’re obviously welcome to join in on the discussion, given that I didn’t set any limits and that this is ostensibly a Catholic forum, lol.
