Maybe I’m just dull, but I feel like we’re just arguing semantics here. You say bread and wine change mystically/spiritually into Christ’s body and blood during the Eucharist. Back when I was in the Protestant church, we did communion, where we interpreted the bread and wine to be symbols. I don’t think any Protestant would deny that Christ could/would be spiritually present during this ceremony. So it seems the actual concept the same; that Christ is present spiritually during Communion/Eucharist. But you would consider a Protestant unsaved because they don’t say the the bread and wine are actually turned into Christ’s blood and body.
It’s not that I disagree with you at this point, I just don’t see that it’s a big difference, other than wordplay.
Luthier , may I ask you a question? Do you believe that the apostles had the teaching authority of the Holy Spirit behind them? Because that is biblical as Jesus ordained them by the laying of hands and breathing of them , which the apostles in turn ordained future church leaders to make sure that the full deposit of faith (the full truth ) was passed down to future generations .
If we can agree on this then the next step would be to research what these apostolic fathers were taught to believe about the eucharist.
This is ignatius of Antioch a disciple of the apostle John writing in 110ad. Notice that none of the early Christian church leaders labelled him a heretic for what he wrote on the eucharist, which the early church always did when a heretical teaching against what the apostles taught was brought up by anyone. Their zeal for passing down the truth was amazing in that they willingly died to pass down the fullness of truth.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.
“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”
-“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.
“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”
-“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.
“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”
Ignatius was pretty clear about not only the belief in the real,presence of the eucharist but how important a belief it was , important enough to label unbelievers in the eucharist as heretics.
People like ignatius, polycarp and clement of Rome knew the apostles and were ordained and taught by them to pass down the fullness of truth throigh the church to future generations .
It’s not an easy doctrine to believe by any means and that is why many of Christs followers left him it that time.
The believe in the real,presence in the eucharist is not only biblical but goes all the way back to the early Christians and the early Christian church.
The link I gave u in this post will show you the consistency of belief on this throughout the early Church’s history.
As far as Protestants believing in the eucharist, there is no historical consistency to what they believed the eucharist is and what catholics have always believed the eucharist is, and in fact there are many Protestants that don’t believe in the real,presence at all . I know because I had been to Protestant bible study in the past.
Protestants are free to either believe it in some lesser level or reject it completely.
We believe it because the historic Church establish by Christ has taught this from the very beginning.
We do however, worship the Eucharist. So I would say there is a bigger difference than simply semantics. I’ve never seen Protestants have 24 hour adoration or anything of that sort at all, I do see Catholics falling on their faces in front of the Blessed Sacrament. Again, not judging individuals souls, but I see a bigger difference than word play here, just simply in the way that Catholics and Protestants talk about and treat the Eucharist. (Of course, there are Catholics who are ignorant and treat the Eucharist like a symbol, but I’m talking about Catholics who understand their faith well.)
