[Wallace T.]

The greater antiquity of the doctrine of transubstantiation (Fourth Lateran Council in 1215) vs. the Calvinist doctrine of spiritual presence (Westminster Confession in 1648) does not mean that the former is correct. The Catholic doctrine is conceivably more reasonable than the Calvinist one, based on historic precedents of the ancient church and the writings of the church fathers rather than a rejection of the precedents. However, neither doctrine, nor other positions (consubstantiation as the Lutherans believe, for instance) are objectively provable. Can it be tested or measured? Is it an historical event, like Napoleon invading Russia or the explosion of Mt. Vesuvius in the first century AD?

[annalex]

Transsubstantiation is taught by the Catholic Church and is treated as compatible with the Orthodox teaching, and as far as I know with all other Churches (pre-Chalcedon) that have a valid apostolic succession. This is therefore a part of the teaching as commanded by Christ in his Great Commission to the apostles, which is a scriptural fact. The other teachings do not have similar historical or scriptural continuity.

Note that the appeal here is not to antiquity as such, although we certainly have that in this case, but to validity of the teaching commission.