Can y'all at least admit that business churches, non denominational churches, hillsong worship music, charismatics, pentacostals, entertainment driven churches are in error?

For crying out loud there are hip hop churches. I'm tired of celebrity pastors. Boomers running Bible studies with no theological discernment who would tell you Christ was created by the Father. I've seen this crap in person and it's a rampant problem.

Steven Furtick, Joel Olsteen, Kenneth Copeland, Ed Young and every midsize non denominational that wants to be just like those guys are clowns. Those are clown churches and they're the fastest growing prot churches in the US.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can y'all at least admit that business churches, non denominational churches, hillsong worship music, charismatics, pentacostals, entertainment driven churches are in error?

For crying out loud there are hip hop churches. I'm tired of celebrity pastors. Boomers running Bible studies with no theological discernment who would tell you Christ was created by the Father. I've seen this crap in person and it's a rampant problem.

Steven Furtick, Joel Olsteen, Kenneth Copeland, Ed Young and every midsize non denominational that wants to be just like those guys are clowns. Those are clown churches and they're the fastest growing prot churches in the US.

---

Look, I get that you apparently had a bad experience at a nondenominational church, but that doesn't give you a free pass to write off all Protestants based on the bad actions of some, nor to overgeneralize and treat them as some monolithic group when you know better. That's just lazy thinking.

You're taking the loudest, flashiest, most dysfunctional slice of Protestantism (i.e. celebrity pastors, prosperity gospel, entertainment-driven churches) and acting like that's the whole thing. It isn't. That's like judging all Orthodoxy by the worst priest you've heard or the most dysfunctional parish you can find. You wouldn't accept that standard applied to your own tradition, so don't use it on others.

Yes, there are Protestant churches that are shallow, personality-driven, and theologically weak. Nobody seriously denies that. Some of the worst are the denominational churches, and they deserve to be called out.

But there are also plenty that are disciplined, doctrinally grounded, historically informed, and nothing like the circus you're describing. You're ignoring those because they don't fit your narrative. And let's be honest, Orthodoxy is not some untouched island of purity. It has its own problems.

Every tradition has faithful expressions and unhealthy ones, and you're choosing to define an entire group by its worst examples.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can y'all at least admit that business churches, non denominational churches, hillsong worship music, charismatics, pentacostals, entertainment driven churches are in error?

For crying out loud there are hip hop churches. I'm tired of celebrity pastors. Boomers running Bible studies with no theological discernment who would tell you Christ was created by the Father. I've seen this crap in person and it's a rampant problem.

Steven Furtick, Joel Olsteen, Kenneth Copeland, Ed Young and every midsize non denominational that wants to be just like those guys are clowns. Those are clown churches and they're the fastest growing prot churches in the US.

---

Look, I get that you apparently had a bad experience at a nondenominational church, but that doesn't give you a free pass to write off all Protestants based on the bad actions of some, nor to overgeneralize and treat them as some monolithic group when you know better. That's just lazy thinking.

You're taking the loudest, flashiest, most dysfunctional slice of Protestantism (i.e. celebrity pastors, prosperity gospel, entertainment-driven churches) and acting like that's the whole thing. It isn't. That's like judging all Orthodoxy by the worst priest you've heard or the most dysfunctional parish you can find. You wouldn't accept that standard applied to your own tradition, so don't use it on others.

Yes, there are Protestant churches that are shallow, personality-driven, and theologically weak. Nobody seriously denies that. Some of the worst are the denominational churches, and they deserve to be called out.

But there are also plenty that are disciplined, doctrinally grounded, historically informed, and nothing like the circus you're describing. You're ignoring those because they don't fit your narrative. And let's be honest, Orthodoxy is not some untouched island of purity. It has its own problems.

Every tradition has faithful expressions and unhealthy ones, and you're choosing to define an entire group by its worst examples.

---

I didn't claim it was the whole thing, I claimed it's the largest growing sect within the radical reformed movement along with charismatics. That's a statistical fact.

Most people are flocking to either megachurches or charismatic churches. That's a fact and I think it's a major problem.

Protestants are more concerned about this than Orthodox…FYI. You've got to figure out a way to get them into your sane and more traditional churches. A lot of these places don't even believe in the Holy Trinity.

A friendly reminder that the predominant expression of Protestantism & evangelicalism in the US today, is charismatic, non-denominationalism. The 20-year attempt to center evangelicalism around Calvinism failed & is now an echo chamber blind to their growing irrelevancy. pic.twitter.com/ZVhuG3F7aZ

— Anthony Bradley (@drantbradley) June 10, 2026

I think it's not valid to throw megachurches and non-denominational churches in with Protestants, just as it would be wrong to attach them to the RCC or Orthodox groups.

Most Protestant denominations share common beliefs with the RCC and Orthodox church on basics of Christianity, and of course more doctrines with other Protestant denominations. The non-denominational churches often lack clear doctrines on those points.

Picking on one obvious example, Lakewood Church likes to claim the name of Jesus Christ, but only as some kind of talisman or magic word to promise comfort and wealth in this life, ignoring a lot of Scripture and frankly common sense. Joel Osteen is no more comparable to a Southern Baptist or Episcopalian or Lutheran minister than he to a Priest in the RCC or Orthodox groups.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Can y'all at least admit that business churches, non denominational churches, hillsong worship music, charismatics, pentacostals, entertainment driven churches are in error?

For crying out loud there are hip hop churches. I'm tired of celebrity pastors. Boomers running Bible studies with no theological discernment who would tell you Christ was created by the Father. I've seen this crap in person and it's a rampant problem.

Steven Furtick, Joel Olsteen, Kenneth Copeland, Ed Young and every midsize non denominational that wants to be just like those guys are clowns. Those are clown churches and they're the fastest growing prot churches in the US.

---

Yes! Absolutely it is a big problem. But this does not mean we should reject those fallible whims of man only to bind ourselves to the different set of fallible whims of the RC and Orthodox Churches simply because they're older. Reformation does not stop with Protestantism. It is a continuous process with infallible Scripture as the ultimate guide.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Think about what the Protestant position actually requires you to believe. The apostles faithfully transmitted the gospel, but somehow completely failed to transmit how to worship. Paul explicitly commanded the laying on of hands as a means of conferring real spiritual gifts, but it stopped meaning anything the moment the ink dried. The Holy Spirit supernaturally guided the writing of Scripture, but then immediately abandoned the very Church that preserved, canonized, and transmitted that Scripture to you. And every major Church Father, men who learned directly from the apostles or from those who did, writing from Rome to Antioch to Alexandria to Jerusalem, were all simultaneously, universally, and completely wrong about the Eucharist, with zero surviving testimony from anyone who believed otherwise.

---

Protestantism is the mother of all conspiracy theories.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Think about what the Protestant position actually requires you to believe. The apostles faithfully transmitted the gospel, but somehow completely failed to transmit how to worship. Paul explicitly commanded the laying on of hands as a means of conferring real spiritual gifts, but it stopped meaning anything the moment the ink dried. The Holy Spirit supernaturally guided the writing of Scripture, but then immediately abandoned the very Church that preserved, canonized, and transmitted that Scripture to you. And every major Church Father, men who learned directly from the apostles or from those who did, writing from Rome to Antioch to Alexandria to Jerusalem, were all simultaneously, universally, and completely wrong about the Eucharist, with zero surviving testimony from anyone who believed otherwise.

---

Protestantism is the mother of all conspiracy theories.

---

Not at all true. Your statement alone proves your own paranoia.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Think about what the Protestant position actually requires you to believe. The apostles faithfully transmitted the gospel, but somehow completely failed to transmit how to worship. Paul explicitly commanded the laying on of hands as a means of conferring real spiritual gifts, but it stopped meaning anything the moment the ink dried. The Holy Spirit supernaturally guided the writing of Scripture, but then immediately abandoned the very Church that preserved, canonized, and transmitted that Scripture to you. And every major Church Father, men who learned directly from the apostles or from those who did, writing from Rome to Antioch to Alexandria to Jerusalem, were all simultaneously, universally, and completely wrong about the Eucharist, with zero surviving testimony from anyone who believed otherwise.

---

Protestantism is the mother of all conspiracy theories.

---

LOL. Spoken like a good Catholic heretic.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

OKThink about what the Protestant position actually requires you to believe. The apostles faithfully transmitted the gospel, but somehow completely failed to transmit how to worship. Paul explicitly commanded the laying on of hands as a means of conferring real spiritual gifts, but it stopped meaning anything the moment the ink dried. The Holy Spirit supernaturally guided the writing of Scripture, but then immediately abandoned the very Church that preserved, canonized, and transmitted that Scripture to you. And every major Church Father, men who learned directly from the apostles or from those who did, writing from Rome to Antioch to Alexandria to Jerusalem, were all simultaneously, universally, and completely wrong about the Eucharist, with zero surviving testimony from anyone who believed otherwise.

---

Protestantism is the mother of all conspiracy theories.

---

LOL. Spoken like a good Catholic heretic.

---

Playing referee here, don't think that would apply to Sam.

Most Roman Catholics are well inbounds in mainline Christian beliefs, and Sam certainly is not a heretic from the RCC position.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

OKThink about what the Protestant position actually requires you to believe. The apostles faithfully transmitted the gospel, but somehow completely failed to transmit how to worship. Paul explicitly commanded the laying on of hands as a means of conferring real spiritual gifts, but it stopped meaning anything the moment the ink dried. The Holy Spirit supernaturally guided the writing of Scripture, but then immediately abandoned the very Church that preserved, canonized, and transmitted that Scripture to you. And every major Church Father, men who learned directly from the apostles or from those who did, writing from Rome to Antioch to Alexandria to Jerusalem, were all simultaneously, universally, and completely wrong about the Eucharist, with zero surviving testimony from anyone who believed otherwise.

---

Protestantism is the mother of all conspiracy theories.

---

LOL. Spoken like a good Catholic heretic.

---

Playing referee here, don't think that would apply to Sam.

Most Roman Catholics are well inbounds in mainline Christian beliefs, and Sam certainly is not a heretic from the RCC position.

---

I don't disagree that Sam's beliefs are in line with RC.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Spoiler Alert: After five months and hundreds of posts, no one has changed their opinion here.

---

LOL
Spoiler alerts come at the beginning, not five months in

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Spoiler Alert: After five months and hundreds of posts, no one has changed their opinion here.

---

LOL
Spoiler alerts come at the beginning, not five months in

---

Yeah, but everyone is arguing so much at the very start they ignore anything but their own opinion anyway.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Spoiler Alert: After five months and hundreds of posts, no one has changed their opinion here.

---

LOL
Spoiler alerts come at the beginning, not five months in

---

Yeah, but everyone is arguing so much at the very start they ignore anything but their own opinion anyway.

---

This is EXACTLY the kind of projection I was referring to.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

OKThink about what the Protestant position actually requires you to believe. The apostles faithfully transmitted the gospel, but somehow completely failed to transmit how to worship. Paul explicitly commanded the laying on of hands as a means of conferring real spiritual gifts, but it stopped meaning anything the moment the ink dried. The Holy Spirit supernaturally guided the writing of Scripture, but then immediately abandoned the very Church that preserved, canonized, and transmitted that Scripture to you. And every major Church Father, men who learned directly from the apostles or from those who did, writing from Rome to Antioch to Alexandria to Jerusalem, were all simultaneously, universally, and completely wrong about the Eucharist, with zero surviving testimony from anyone who believed otherwise.

---

Protestantism is the mother of all conspiracy theories.

---

LOL. Spoken like a good Catholic heretic.

---

Most Roman Catholics are well inbounds in mainline Christian beliefs

---

True, discerning Christians know that this is false.

Your comment is indicative of the lack of discernment that seemingly is prevalent among many biblical Christians. It's also revealing how everything that's been shown here in these threads has been in one ear and out the other with you. Because, like you so aptly projected, you only want to hear your own voice.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

OKThink about what the Protestant position actually requires you to believe. The apostles faithfully transmitted the gospel, but somehow completely failed to transmit how to worship. Paul explicitly commanded the laying on of hands as a means of conferring real spiritual gifts, but it stopped meaning anything the moment the ink dried. The Holy Spirit supernaturally guided the writing of Scripture, but then immediately abandoned the very Church that preserved, canonized, and transmitted that Scripture to you. And every major Church Father, men who learned directly from the apostles or from those who did, writing from Rome to Antioch to Alexandria to Jerusalem, were all simultaneously, universally, and completely wrong about the Eucharist, with zero surviving testimony from anyone who believed otherwise.

---

Protestantism is the mother of all conspiracy theories.

---

LOL. Spoken like a good Catholic heretic.

---

Most Roman Catholics are well inbounds in mainline Christian beliefs

---

True, discerning Christians know that this is false.

Your comment is indicative of the lack of discernment that seemingly is prevalent among many biblical Christians. It's also revealing how everything that's been shown here in these threads has been in one ear and out the other with you. Because, like you so aptly projected, you only want to hear your own voice.

---

If by mainline Christian beliefs, he means that RC is considered by our society a mainline Christian sect, I don't disagree with him.

If he intended that RC beliefs are in line with the core principles of Christianity - and in particular, salvation and grace as expressed in scripture - indeed, there is no way one can reconcile that position with the plain language of scripture.

All depends on what he means by mainline.

Mothra said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

OKThink about what the Protestant position actually requires you to believe. The apostles faithfully transmitted the gospel, but somehow completely failed to transmit how to worship. Paul explicitly commanded the laying on of hands as a means of conferring real spiritual gifts, but it stopped meaning anything the moment the ink dried. The Holy Spirit supernaturally guided the writing of Scripture, but then immediately abandoned the very Church that preserved, canonized, and transmitted that Scripture to you. And every major Church Father, men who learned directly from the apostles or from those who did, writing from Rome to Antioch to Alexandria to Jerusalem, were all simultaneously, universally, and completely wrong about the Eucharist, with zero surviving testimony from anyone who believed otherwise.

---

Protestantism is the mother of all conspiracy theories.

---

LOL. Spoken like a good Catholic heretic.

---

Most Roman Catholics are well inbounds in mainline Christian beliefs

---

True, discerning Christians know that this is false.

Your comment is indicative of the lack of discernment that seemingly is prevalent among many biblical Christians. It's also revealing how everything that's been shown here in these threads has been in one ear and out the other with you. Because, like you so aptly projected, you only want to hear your own voice.

---

If by mainline Christian beliefs, he means that RC is considered by our society a mainline Christian sect, I don't disagree with him.

If he intended that RC beliefs are in line with the core principles of Christianity - and in particular, salvation and grace as expressed in scripture - indeed, there is no way one can reconcile that position with the plain language of scripture.

All depends on what he means by mainline.

---

I take it to mean with regard to core principles, not demographic category. He was trying to say that Sam Lowry is not a "Catholic heretic" because he's neither a heretic in Roman Catholicism nor to Christianity in general, because according to him the core beliefs held by "most" RC's are essentially the same as the core beliefs in true, biblical Christianity. But if these RC's are holding to their church's official teaching, then as you and I both know and have demonstrated often, that isn't true. However, if he is suggesting that "most" RC's do NOT hold to their church's offical teaching but are actually holding, on their own, to the true biblical gospel in spite of their church's teachings - then, while it would be true that these particular RC's are line with Christianity's core beliefs, still, that would not apply at all to Sam, who has expressed his beliefs to be fully in accordance with the official beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. So either OldBear is confused, or he hasn't been paying attention at all.

Yes, it would be nice to get some clarification. I would ask him, but if the pattern holds, all I'll get in response is a dodge, followed by accusations of being a "Pharisee" and a "bully" with "hate and spite" and "anger management issues". I might even get a ticket from the grammar police. And after all that I'll be condescendingly offered his prayers for help with all my apparent personal flaws. How caring of him.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And does it make sense at all to either you or Sam, for Augustine to explicitly assert that we will NOT eat the flesh that the disciples were seeing in front of them in John chapter 6, and that we will NOT eat the blood that will be shed on the cross...... but yet he believes that we DO actually eat the flesh that they see, and actually DO drink the blood that is shed on the cross but only when the Eucharist bread and wine are physically transformed into them?

---

Do you try this hard to NOT understand with everything in your life? I feel for your family.

Paraphrasing Augustine, he is saying that the person is not going to actually eat the arms, legs, toes, or hair of Jesus hanging on the cross and that his physical body would be reduced by the amount of flesh bitten from his body.

When a person consumes the Eucharist (under either or both species) they consume 100% of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus.

---

And why do you try so hard to not understand that if Augustine didn't believe they were going to literally eat Jesis' actual, physical body, it means he sure didn't believe that the Eucharist bread that we are to literally eat is Jesus' actual, physical body?

I mean, this is elementary school logic were talking' here.

---

Bless your heart. Are you touched? Why don't you want to understand the position correctly.

Augustine was arguing against actual cannibalism eating of a leg or an arm or finger and that piece of Jesus being consumed and missing from his body.

The corpus of his works clearly indicates he believed in the Real Presence.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And does it make sense at all to either you or Sam, for Augustine to explicitly assert that we will NOT eat the flesh that the disciples were seeing in front of them in John chapter 6, and that we will NOT eat the blood that will be shed on the cross...... but yet he believes that we DO actually eat the flesh that they see, and actually DO drink the blood that is shed on the cross but only when the Eucharist bread and wine are physically transformed into them?

---

Do you try this hard to NOT understand with everything in your life? I feel for your family.

Paraphrasing Augustine, he is saying that the person is not going to actually eat the arms, legs, toes, or hair of Jesus hanging on the cross and that his physical body would be reduced by the amount of flesh bitten from his body.

When a person consumes the Eucharist (under either or both species) they consume 100% of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus.

---

And why do you try so hard to not understand that if Augustine didn't believe they were going to literally eat Jesis' actual, physical body, it means he sure didn't believe that the Eucharist bread that we are to literally eat is Jesus' actual, physical body?

I mean, this is elementary school logic were talking' here.

---

Bless your heart. Are you touched? Why don't you want to understand the position correctly.

Augustine was arguing against actual cannibalism eating of a leg or an arm or finger and that piece of Jesus being consumed and missing from his body.

The corpus of his works clearly indicates he believed in the Real Presence.

---

He believed in the "Real Presence" in what sense? Be specific and clear.

I can't believe you still need this explained to you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

He believed in the "Real Presence" in what sense? Be specific and clear.

I can't believe you still need this explained to you.

---

I assumed that when the term "Real Presence" is used in this forum, we would ALL be using it in the frame of the Catholic understand that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

St. Augustine believed this.

As stated, his body of work affirms this including we should ADORE the Eucharist.

His teacher and mentor, St Ambrose (who also baptized him) held the same view. It is absurd to believe that Ambrose and Augustine were teaching a different Eucharistic doctrine teacher and disciple, father and son in the faith, both present at the same liturgy, both receiving the same Sacrament.

As mentioned by me and others, the Church would have never declared him a Doctor, if he taught something so contrary to an essential, well-established Church teaching.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

He believed in the "Real Presence" in what sense? Be specific and clear.

I can't believe you still need this explained to you.

---

I assumed that when the term "Real Presence" is used in this forum, we would ALL be using it in the frame of the Catholic understand that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

St. Augustine believed this.

As stated, his body of work affirms this including we should ADORE the Eucharist.

His teacher and mentor, St Ambrose (who also baptized him) held the same view. It is absurd to believe that Ambrose and Augustine were teaching a different Eucharistic doctrine teacher and disciple, father and son in the faith, both present at the same liturgy, both receiving the same Sacrament.

As mentioned by me and others, the Church would have never declared him a Doctor, if he taught something so contrary to an essential, well-established Church teaching.

---

Augustine did not believe in the Roman Catholic dogmatized view of the Real Presence. This was clearly proven, to all rational and honest people, in all his quotes that were referenced.

You even define your Church's view of the "Real Presence" and then I showed where Augustine explicitly rejects it word for word. For honest, rational people, the debate was over. Your view, that he believed the Eucharist was the literal flesh and blood of Jesus, is found NOWHERE in any of his statements, and in fact flies in the face of what he explicitly declared. He NEVER said we should "adore" the Eucharist - this is a complete misreading of his statement, as was already clearly explained. It's clear that you just can't be reasoned with using basic facts and logic. You want to believe what you want to believe - the facts be damned.

Your mindless repeating of an already debunked argument about Augustine being made a Doctor is just another example of your mindless irrationality. As any normal, rational person can comprehend, the fact that Athanasius was made a saint and Doctor even though he taught something contrary to an essential, well-established church teaching - the dogma of the canon - fully destroys your argument.

Obviously, you are too much in a mind trap to have a rational conversation with. You have no rational, objective thinking. That's been obvious for a long while now. It has become clear that at this point, if your church told you the sky isn't blue, then that's what you'll believe and no amount of evidence, even you seeing the color blue in the sky with your very own eyes, would convince you otherwise. It is truly uncanny, and very, very sad.

"nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius adoraverit… peccaremus non adorando"

"No one eats that flesh without first adoring it… we would sin by not adoring it."

- Augustine's Commentary on Psalm 98 (Enarrationes in Psalmos)

Doc Holliday said:

---

"nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius adoraverit… peccaremus non adorando"

"No one eats that flesh without first adoring it… we would sin by not adoring it."

- Augustine's Commentary on Psalm 98 (Enarrationes in Psalmos)

---

Now read the entire passage. He was talking about adoring the actual body of Jesus, NOT the Eucharist bread as if it had literally turned into the body of Jesus. Augustine wasn't even talking about the Eucharist in that passage at all. I've repeated this over and over, and you guys just refuse to get it. Have you guys even read the whole passage yourselves?

And how weird that you're defending transubstantiation as an Orthodox.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

"nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius adoraverit… peccaremus non adorando"

"No one eats that flesh without first adoring it… we would sin by not adoring it."

- Augustine's Commentary on Psalm 98 (Enarrationes in Psalmos)

---

Now read the entire passage. He was talking about adoring the actual body of Jesus, NOT the Eucharist bread as if it had literally turned into the body of Jesus. Augustine wasn't even talking about the Eucharist in that passage at all. I've repeated this over and over, and you guys just refuse to get it. Have you guys even read the whole passage yourselves?

And how weird that you're defending transubstantiation as an Orthodox.

---

If Augustine meant we must adore Christ's actual body before eating the Eucharist, he's presupposing that the Eucharist is that body.

Where in the Enarrationes in Psalmos 98 does Augustine say the bread does not become Christ's body?

Orthodox reject the Scholastic terminology, not the reality it points to. We affirm Real Presence, we just leave it as a mystery and don't try to explain it like a nominalist westerner.

Do you base your theology on Augustine?

Other and earlier Church fathers:
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD): calls the Eucharist "the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ" and says those who deny it "deny the gift of God." This is one generation from the Apostles.

Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD): explicitly says the Eucharistic food is "the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus," not common bread or drink.

Irenaeus (c. 180 AD): uses Real Presence to argue against Gnostic docetism. The Eucharist being truly Christ's body proves matter is good and Christ truly became flesh.

Cyril of Jerusalem (4th c.): tells catechumens in the clearest possible terms that the bread and wine are truly the Body and Blood, and to let no doubt arise because of their appearance.

John Chrysostom describes the priest at the altar trembling because of what is present there.

It's present before the canon is even settled. The burden of proof is entirely on you to explain why you diverge from the overwhelmingly majority of Christian witnesses across every geography, language, and century. Even Luther would have agreed with me that Augustine is teaching Real Presence and you accept the solas…that's very hypocritical of you. You're not even representing mainstream Reformation theology, you're to the left of Calvin.

You're a Calvinist who holds a more radical memorialist position than Calvin himself, who affirmed real spiritual presence. Luther thought Zwingli's view was demonic. The entire pre-Reformation Church is against you. The Reformers are largely against you. So my genuine question is: what exactly gives you the confidence that your extremely radically reformed theology is infallible?