[stfassisi]

This unanimous belief of 1500 years is itself an argument for its truth. For it is impossible that the Holy Spirit could leave the Church in error over a long period of time about one of the central doctrines of Christianity.

[stfassisi]

Ping!

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

I would say John 6 makes a pretty compelling argument for the “Real Presence.”

[Oratam]

Flannery O’Connor, once famously remarked during what seemed to her a fatuous discussion of eucharistic symbolism, “If it’s only a symbol, I say to hell with it.”

[RobbyS]

I gather the Protestant problem was the association of substance with physicality. Why they should think this after the Church had refined “substance” in the process of stating the doctrine of the Trinity is something I do not understand. In any case, the doctrine of transubstantiation is not dependent on any acceptance of either antigue or modern physics. But maybe the Reformers were dependent on nominalist philosophy and associated the doctrine with a crude materialism.