The let's go with that. Your church believes in the Real Presence just as the Lutheran churches do and the Anglican churches do and the Orthodox do and a dozen other denominations. That's not the issue here.
I'm not sure that's true, but ok. All you really say is that it's not Transubstantiation, but I don't believe you really define what it IS.
...which is NOT Real Presence but a particular twist on the belief in Real Presence that dates only to the Middle Ages. You started your reply by insisting that you never said that Transubstantiation dates to the early church, and whether not you did, the church and this teaching (Transubstantiation) clearly does not. So, that side issue is, hopefully, settled.
Nope, Justin Martyr describes exactly what we believe. Which is Transubstantiation. What I've been trying to say is that the word, yes, was coined, actually in the 11th to give a term to what we believe happens.
IN A PARTICULAR, SPECIFIC, WAY.
Yes, would you like the entire doctrine spelled out here?
I cannot imagine why the Brittanica is "my" authority LOL, but you can see right there in that wording you've relayed to us that that the substance changes and is something other than what our senses perceive.
Well you are the only person I ever knew who quoted Brittanica to prove something you asserted. So it's only your authority when it suits you. LOL.
But yes, that's exactly right. The bread and wine become the Real Presence, Jesus' Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. And that, friend, is what the Church has believed forever.
Yes, that is the change over that makes Transubstantiation a version of Real Presence, but there are other churches that hold to the belief of the early church that Christ is truly present but which do not define the supposed mechanics of the matter or insist that the bread and wine CEASE TO EXIST.
Well, anything else isn't "Real Presence," the way the Catholic Church believes it. It's your version of it. And I don't know how He could be "truly present" but not be?
Finally, for what it's worth, as I've stated over and over, "Transubstantiation" doesn't really describe anything very well. It's a mystery. I leave it up to God to how He does it. For me, it just IS. Justin Martyr (d. 165) wrote in his
First Apology, "We do not consume the Eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilate of its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of His own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving."
I don't really care what you believe, Albion. Just like you don't care what I believe. I'm pointing out facts. What I'm disputing is that it's something they thought up in the 12th century. This is clearly not the case. The Catholic Church has always believed that Jesus is really and substantially present in the Eucharist. They came up with a term for it in the 12th century. Words really can not describe many of the things we believe.