[rzman21]

The dogma of the real presence predates the canonization of the New Testament. Not to mention, the Orthodox more or less share the same doctrine as the Catholic Church although Aristotle’s terminology isn’t used.

Eastern Catholics don’t make use of Aristotle’s philosophy.

The Protestant denial of the real presence is a 16th century innovation that the earliest Christians would have found odd.

[One Name]

As a prot; the Real Presence is not a familiar doctrine.

Matthew 28:20
King James Version (KJV)

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

I have to suspect this verse relates somehow.

The Spirit is indeed here as a Comforter and Friend.

Jesus lives, and guides his Bride to the Truth.

[Mad Dawg]

I would look at distinguishing the dogma from its explanation. You don't HAVE to be Aristotelian/Thomist to believe that that there has become "really" the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. After all, between Thomas Aquinas and now the word "real" has undergone a massive change of meaning. For Thomas the "reality" of the idea of triangle and of the rock I just tripped over are very different.

I find Thomas as helpful in saying what that belief does NOT imply as what it must imply. Thank you to Dr. Brian Kopp for this post.

[Mr. Lucky]

Denial or affirmation of the Real Presence is not a theolgical dispute between Catholics and Protestants, but rather between Protestants and Protestants.

Article 10 of the Augsburg Confession, the original confessional statement of those who later became known as Lutherans states:

It is taught among us that the true body and blood of Christ are really present in the Supper of our Lord under the form of bread and wine and are there distributed and received. The contrary doctrine is therefore rejected.