Calvinists believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but they hold that it is spiritual in nature. The bread and wine remain unaltered physically.
Catholics agree that Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist, but they also believe in transubstantiation. Calvinists reject transubstantiation.
Transubstantiation explains how the real presence comes about. It holds that the substance of the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Christ, while the accidents of the bread and wine retain their original nature.
It is my understanding that transubstantiation was not articulated until after 800 AD. Earlier church fathers always held to the real presence, but they never clarified how it actually occurred which is what transubstantiation does.
Is my assessment accurate? If this is the case, the debate is not really about whether the real presence exists in the Eucharist. The debate is about how it exists in the Eucharist.
Do you agree or disagree?
Please help me explore the real meaning of a change in the “substance” in the Catholic point of view. How does this really differ from saying that Christ is present spiritually? If we say that the accidents of bread and wine are unchanged, aren’t we really saying that it is unchanged physically?
P.S. I am aware that some Protestants hold that the Eucharist is merely symbolic or a memorium. I have no interest in discussing that view.