I know that it really doesn't matter how I express what the "official" Catholic jargon means, Catholics on this thread will always find a way to criticize it so that they can pretend it is all just due to misunderstanding/miseducation that some people reject the party line. I'll bet most Catholics have no idea that the doctrine of the Eucharist was one that developed over nearly a thousand years and many of the "church fathers" varied in their opinions about it - sometimes even changing their minds back and forth. What Catholicism teaches now was certainly NOT what the Apostles nor the early church believed or taught, which flies in the face of the insistence that the Catholic Church teaches what has "always and everywhere been believed". Of course, I already know the response will be that it doesn't really matter since the Church has the right to decide what is or isn't in the rule of faith for Christians. The point is that many Christians choose to believe the Scriptures over what a human institution proclaims - especially if there is no Scriptural basis for the doctrine and MOST especially if said doctrine is made essential for ones salvation.
When it comes to different interpretations of Scripture and Doctrine, I’ll go with Jesus, His Apostles and those Church Fathers that were closest to them over Bob,Carol, Ted and Alice’s private interpretation or their local reverend.
I'll go with Jesus, too - the one in the Bible as well as the Holy Spirit within - who leads and guides us into all truth.
“I know that it really doesn’t matter how I express what the “official” Catholic jargon means”
It has nothing to do with “jargon”. You are misspeaking what the Eucharist means on a fundamental basis. Again, please go to a reputable Catholic site like EWTN.com or others to get a proper understanding.
The best way to countering things you don’t agree with is to have a full understanding of these things. By stating things that aren’t true or factual, you convince nobody but yourself and the core of others who have no interest in the objective truth.
“What Catholicism teaches now was certainly NOT what the Apostles nor the early church believed or taught”
To the contrary, Jesus said, “take this and eat...This is My Body.” From that point forward, the Apostles did this and they knew it was NOT a metaphor or symbolism. This evident in John 6:60, where it is discussed that this was a hard belief. How could it be a metaphor or mere symbolism, if it were such a hard thing to accept, that many were leaving due to this teaching?
From the beginning, first the Apostles practiced the Eucharist and knew first hand of the Real Presence, and from the Apostles, so did the first worshipers of Jesus Christ.
Now, you are correct that explaining The Transubstantiation developed intellectually over time with the Early Fathers, but the practice and understanding that, “...this is My Body,” was always present from the beginning.
“I’ll go with Jesus, too - the one in the Bible as well as the Holy Spirit within - who leads and guides us into all truth. “
I agree and this is an appropriate point of agreement that we both agree on and believe in. We may not have full agreement but to that point, we agree. So, I’ll bid you a “May God Bless you” at this point and wish you well.
I don’t believe that most Catholics are upset or frothing at the mouth at other Christians’ disagreement with Catholic belief. But yes, it does get the adrenaline flowing when we see untruths regarding beliefs, Doctrine, or Sacraments stated incorrectly on a repeated basis. I think for the most part it is just not knowing what that belief is in regard to your Christian brothers, who believe differently. Again, Blessings.