“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.
Sending me to Catholic sites is not going to "help" me or anyone else since whatever is said there will still have to be read and understood. Rather than continuing to tell me I got it wrong, why don't you tell me what exactly is wrong with what I said?
The author cited in this thread said:
The most difficult repentance for us dyed-in-the-wool Catholics is changing our mind from thoughts of "meriting," "earning," "being good enough," simply to accepting with empty hands the gift of righteousness in Christ Jesus. To refuse to accept what God commands is the same sin as that of the religious Jews of Paul's time, "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." (Romans 10:3)
I think that really is the gist of our differences.
I thought I would come back and address this part of your reply. I'm glad that you acknowledge the Catholic doctrine about the Eucharist (AKA, the Lord's Supper Remembrance) did, in fact, develop over time as this proves my point that what Catholicism teaches now is not what had "always and everywhere" been believed. Many of the writings of some early church fathers cited that presume to "prove" the one and the same doctrine, omit some very important points. For example, they were not written in English, so what we may read today was what someone translated over time and many times a narrative that gets "read back into" writings are meanings that were not intended when they were first written. Also, much of the writings on the "real presence" from those first centuries actually addressed the Gnostic heresies that said Jesus did not HAVE a real body on this earth. Therefore, they should be read in that context and not what folks today THINK they meant. Finally, whatever these early believers thought they relied upon the sacred Scriptures they received from the Apostles to understand the "rule of faith" of Christianity as well as the direct teachings of the Apostles and their disciples that made up the completed New Testament of Scripture.
This article examines the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and a contribution from Origen in order to show that the ancient church never believed, taught or even conceived any doctrine like the real presence dogma: