On the question of the Real Presence, I feel a duty to conform my language on the subject to that of the Church Fathers and to the weight of the Church’s tradition. I would rather do this than play linguistic hopscotch, trying to avoid stepping on the toes of Reformed people who have abandoned the teaching of the Church on this issue and seeking to wring as high a doctrine of the Supper as I can out of unwilling confessional documents. The Reformed doctrine of the Supper is insipid. By the time that you are able to make any affirmation on the presence of Christ in the Supper in Reformed circles your statements have to be so diluted by qualifications and clarifications as to be relatively meaningless.
I strongly affirm that in the Supper the Body and Blood of our Lord are truly present and that we eat and drink them. Everyone who rejects this has departed from the Scriptures and the Christian tradition. I do not make this claim as an unwilling concession to the larger Christian tradition. It is not a doctrine that I have come to only through careful study to ascertain whether the Reformed faith will permit me to hold such a position. This is just plain vanilla Christian faith and does not need to be justified by the Reformed confessional documents. To the degree that the Reformed confessional documents mute, obscure, omit or deny this doctrine, it is they that stand in need of justification, not the larger tradition.