Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[chestertonrules]

They disallowed the bible so folks couldn't get the real food. Protestants died so you could have it today

That is a blatant distortion

Here's a list of early bible translations into multiple languages. There was only controversy over printing the bible when some protestants starting changing the words and leaving out books.

Synopsis

• GREEK: Septuagint; Aquila; Theodotion; Symmachus; other versions.
• VERSIONS FROM THE SEPTUAGINT: Vetus Itala or Old Latin; Egyptian or Coptic (Bohairic, Sahidic, Akhmimic, and Fayûmic, i.e. Middle Egyptian or Bashmuric); Ethiopic and Amharic (Falasha, Galla); Gothic; Georgian or Grusian; Syriac; Slavic (Old Slavonic, Russian, Ruthenian, Polish, Czech or Bohemian, Slovak, Serbian or Illyrian, Croation, Bosnian, Dalmatian); Arabic; Armenian.
• VERSIONS FROM THE HEBREW: Chaldaic; Syriac (Peschitto); Arabic (Carshuni); Persian; Samaritan Pentateuch; Vulgate; other Latin versions.
• HEBREW VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
• VERSIONS FROM MIXED SOURCES: Italian; Spanish; Basque; Portuguese; French; German; Dutch and Flemish; Scandinavian (Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic); Finnish (Estonian, Laplandish); Hungarian; Celtic (Irish, Scottish, Breton or Armoric, Welsh or Cymric).
• MISCELLANEOUS: Aleutian; Aniwa; Aneitumese; Battak; Benga; Bengali; Chinese; Gipsy or Romany; Hindu; Hindustani; Japanese; Javanese; Mexican; Modern Greek.
• ENGLISH VERSIONS

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Versions of the Bible

 

[chestertonrules]

You have no right to insinuate my beliefs heresay.

I'm simply stating the fact that your beliefs were considered heresy by the early Church.

It is not an opinion.

 

[Dorothea]

Then, on the Eucharist, the words of Christ (this is my body ...) have been understood just as He stated them since the beginning. If others interpret differently, ok, but the realness is fully supported by the Holy Scriptures.

I don't know if it's ok. According to what I've read recently is one's soul is in danger if one doesn't believe Christ's teaching of the Eucharist being his Body and Blood.

 

[racer]

From a scriptural view, can you tell us what Jesus taught the apostles during these 40 days?

We can tell you what we know from Scripture--what God clearly wanted us to know.

Can you tell us something different or in addition to what is revealed in Scripture?

Can you tell us how they decided what should be included in scripture and what didn't need to be in the Bible. How did they decide what to preserve in written form and what to pass down orally?

 

[racer]

Jesus also said that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Spiritually.

Why do you think the early church unanimously believed in the literal presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist?

They didn't.

Where do you think that belief came from?

Misunderstanding. Misinterpretation. Misrepresentation. Wresting Scripture, etc . . .

 

[racer]

Then, on the Eucharist, the words of Christ (this is my body ...) have been understood just as He stated them since the beginning. If others interpret differently, ok, but the realness is fully supported by the Holy Scriptures.

Some have understood it literally from the beginning, not all. And, as to whether scripture supports a literal translation is based upon interpretation. No satisfactory explanation is given to rule out metaphorical language.

 

[racer]

I'm simply stating the fact that your beliefs were considered heresy by the early Church.

It is not an opinion.

It is not only an opinion, but a distortion. The "early church" as a whole did not consider such beliefs heresy. Perhaps, you can argue that some of the ECFs believed it to be heresy.

 

[Anglian]

[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]
So, when you say "not in circulation" do you mean the letters only or the teachings contained in Pauls letters?

Some Churches received Paul's teaching, some did not; some received some of the Gospels, some received only one; hardly anyone (sorry LLOJ) received Revelation. The only way we can know what the first Christians received is to examine their liturgies - but since many Protestants don't think this part of tradition matters, they (yet again) cut themselves off from the continuous stream of Christian history.

So, if a teaching is deemed "oral" no source is required to authenticate it?

I don't recall anyone saying such a thing. The wholeness of tradition contains the fullness of the faith, and if you know the ancient liturgies, the ECFs, the Councils you know the process by which Scripture was established, and you are part of a living tradition The early Protestants seem to have thrown out the baby with the bathwater in their belief that they, and they alone, knew what Our Lord meant. Where is the support from the fullness of tradition for a non liturgical form of worship or a refusal to venerate the Blessed Virgin? Protestants tend to argue: 'where is that in Scripture?' ignoring that there is nowhere in Scripture which tells them what Scripture is to be included as Scripture. The same tradition which tells us, tells us many other things to which, alas, some Protestants are deaf.

What is y our point?

My point in saying that the earliest codices have in them books we don;t receive is to show you can't rely on Scripture to prove what is Scripture - history shows it doesn't work. Why don't you receive the books in the earliest codices? Because the Church excluded them. You know, that same Church some Protestants say fell away into corruption - and yet you accept its ruling on what is Scripture. Of course, the inconsistency between the view that the Church fell away and accepting its Canon is quite amusing to the rest of us - and quite invisible to some Protestants.

So, how is it you know the process the "early church" followed to determine what was or wasn't scriptural?

There are many histories of this process, and they show that it was reference to the books cited by the ECFs, in the liturgies and accepted by the Councils of the Church.

What do you consider to be the original source? And by what method have you come to know the identity of this source? Is your knowledge based upon teachings that you have only received by word of mouth?

The original sources is the inspired judgement of the Church founded by Christ. I know by that. It bases its view on what produced the canon - the fullness of the surviving Apostolic deposit as found in the Bible, the ECFs, the ancient liturgies and the Councils.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Thekla]

Some have understood it literally from the beginning, not all. And, as to whether scripture supports a literal translation is based upon interpretation. No satisfactory explanation is given to rule out metaphorical language.

Among Christian writings that came to be viewed as "orthodox", it is the case for "is" meaning "is". The Eucharist is simultaneously attested to be spiritual food. Remember, the then current understanding of "symbol" denoted an interpenetration where the part made present the wholeness. When the term 'symbolon' is used, it is not meant in its modern sense (which is closer to metaphor, "to carry together" as opposed to an interpenetration).

I have slowly (sorry !!) been working on the "metaphor project" I told you I would do to help on the matter. I did take a break for the holidays (too busy ).

I have used both of the Greek verbs for "eat" (esthiw, trwgw) in order to be complete. There are hundreds plus verses where these words are used in the LXX OT, hence the time spent slogging ...

To follow, for each verse I read that utilizes either of these words, I weed out those that are not metaphorical (where actual eating is described). The following is a list from verses where the usage is possibly metaphorical:

Genesis (total occurrences, 44) potentially metaphoric uses:
39:6, 40: 17 & 19, 45:18, 47:22, 49:27

Exodus (total occurrence 32) potential metaphoric uses:
none

Leviticus (total occurrence 65): potentially metaphoric uses:
7:19-21, 25:9, 26:10, 26:16, 26:9

Numbers (total occurrences 18) potentially metaphoric uses:
23:24, 24:8

The several verses I mentioned previously where "eat flesh" is used metaphorically for "attack" are in the thread in the subforum where the discussion started.

I will continue, though it is slow going.
Thanks for your patience

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

What symbolism have you gotten from the verse of Gen 47:22

Here's the context

20 So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh's, 21 and Joseph reduced the people to servitude, [c] from one end of Egypt to the other. 22 However, he did not buy the land of the priests, because they received a regular allotment from Pharaoh and had food enough from the allotment Pharaoh gave them. That is why they did not sell their land.

23 Joseph said to the people, "Now that I have bought you and your land today for Pharaoh, here is seed for you so you can plant the ground. 24 But when the crop comes in, give a fifth of it to Pharaoh. The other four-fifths you may keep as seed for the fields and as food for yourselves and your households and your children."
25 "You have saved our lives," they said. "May we find favor in the eyes of our lord; we will be in bondage to Pharaoh."
26 So Joseph established it as a law concerning land in Egypt—still in force today—that a fifth of the produce belongs to Pharaoh. It was only the land of the priests that did not become Pharaoh's. 27 Now the Israelites settled in Egypt in the region of Goshen. They acquired property there and were fruitful and increased greatly in number.

 

[Thekla]

What symbolism have you gotten from the verse of Gen 47:22

Here's the context

20 So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh's, 21 and Joseph reduced the people to servitude, [c] from one end of Egypt to the other. 22 However, he did not buy the land of the priests, because they received a regular allotment from Pharaoh and had food enough from the allotment Pharaoh gave them. That is why they did not sell their land.

23 Joseph said to the people, "Now that I have bought you and your land today for Pharaoh, here is seed for you so you can plant the ground. 24 But when the crop comes in, give a fifth of it to Pharaoh. The other four-fifths you may keep as seed for the fields and as food for yourselves and your households and your children."
25 "You have saved our lives," they said. "May we find favor in the eyes of our lord; we will be in bondage to Pharaoh."
26 So Joseph established it as a law concerning land in Egypt—still in force today—that a fifth of the produce belongs to Pharaoh. It was only the land of the priests that did not become Pharaoh's. 27 Now the Israelites settled in Egypt in the region of Goshen. They acquired property there and were fruitful and increased greatly in number.

First of all, just to clarify, metaphor and symbol are not the same in the time when the Holy Scriptures were written. Metaphor means literally to "carry together", and works by a comparison of shared attributes. Symbol, otoh, means literally to "throw together" and is understood to be an actual interpenetration of the components whereby a part makes present the whole. (The opposite of "symbolon" is "diabolos" to divide or throw apart, meaning slanderer, the etymological origin of English "devil").


I am using the LXX OT, and there are differences -- in the LXX, the passage reads:

"Only the land of the priests he did not buy; for the priests had rations allotted to them by Pharaoh, and they ate their rations Pharaoh gave them ; therefore they did not sell their land."

Note: I have included as "potentially metaphorical" every verse that is not a literal eating. IE, I don't want to assume what someone else might think is or is not a metaphor.

In the earlier thread, I noted several verses throughout the OT (both LXX and Masoretic) where eat flesh is a metaphor meaning "to attack, oppress".

Here is an example from Psalm 26 (LXX numbering, so you may need to check on either side of the number 26 if using the Masoretic):

"When the wicked draw nigh against me to eat my flesh, they that afflict me and are my enemies, they themselves became weak and fell."

 

[Trento]

They disallowed the bible so folks couldn't get the real food. Protestants died so you could have it today

Protestant Historical Scholar HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH Phillip Schoff

CHAPTER VI. Schoff

Fortunately, the weakness of the empire and the want of centralization prevented the execution of the prohibition of Protestant books, except in strictly papal countries, as Bavaria and Austria. But unfortunately, the Protestants themselves, who used the utmost freedom of the press against the Papists, denied it to each other; the Lutherans to the Reformed, and both to the Anabaptists, Schwenkfeldians and Socinians.756 Protestant princes liked to control the press to protect themselves against popery, or the charges of robbery of church property and other attacks. The Elector John Frederick was as narrow and intolerant as Duke George on the opposite side.
Obviously, the Church preferred that Catholics read bibles which reflected the orthodox Catholic interpretation of the Word of God. The misuse of the Gospel against the Church established by Christ himself is as Pope Leo XII noted nothing less than satanic. Interpretation of Church history or tradition, is as cloudy as the Protestants understanding of the Scriptures.

Three Protestant Scholars write:
Roman Catholicism has a high regard for Scripture as a source of knowledge . . . Indeed, official Roman statements concerning the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture would satisfy the most rigorous Protestant fundamentalist.

{Robert McAfee Brown, The Spirit of Protestantism, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1961, pp. 172-173}

There was never a time in the history of the western Church during the 'Dark' or 'Middle' Ages when the Scriptures were officially demoted. On the contrary, they were considered infallible and inerrant, and were held in the highest honour.

{Peter Toon, Protestants and Catholics, Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1983, p. 39}

After quoting 19 eminent Church Fathers to the effect that Scripture is infallible and held in the highest regard (bolstering his own thesis in this book), Harold Lindsell, former editor of Christianity Today and well-known evangelical scholar, has this to say about the Catholic reverence for Scripture:

The view expressed by Augustine was the view the Roman Catholic Church believed, taught, and propagated through the centuries . . . It can be said that the Roman church for more than a thousand years accepted the doctrine of infallibility of all Scripture . . . The church has always (via Fathers, theologians, and popes) taught biblical inerrancy . . . The Roman church held to a view of Scripture that was no different from that held by the Reformers.
The Catholic Church does set limits to speculation that are derived not from the opinions of individual scholars or schools of thought but rather by the Hierarchy under the protection of the Holy Spirit. The truth of the Gospel is what we have received, not that which we invent for ourselves out of academic speculation.

 

[Athanasias]

What about Hans Solo-scriptura?

 

[racer]

There does seem to be one major difference here. The person existed independently of the biographer; the Bible did not exist independently of the early Church.

What? The church is not synonymous with the Gospel.

In the second and third centuries all the books we have in our NT were in circulation; but so were many others. The earliest surviving codices have in them books we no longer receive, but which Christians then did. Some books we receive we considered doubtful, but the Church included them. If it had the inspiration to recognise the genuine Apostolic deposit, why should it lack the inspiration necessary to read it aright?

Why was it ever written to start with?

In line with the first part of my signature, I will decline to get involved in confessional disputes. I have know Orthodox say the same thing, and I have known Protestants claim virtual infallibility for their own private interpretation and to quote from St. Peter in defence of it.

Honestly? Prtotestants have said to you that their private interpretaion is infallible? In those exact words?

BTW, you are following your own private interpretation. It's just that your interpretation happens to co-incide with the faith to which you belong. It does not by default cease to be your understanding and interpretation of Scripture. If you did not believe that what your faith teaches was in line with Scripture, then you would not belong to that faith. You have exercised personal discernment to conclude this.

The OP here asked whether everything had to be proven from Scripture; what I would assert is that since Scripture cannot be proven from itself, it is illogical to think that everything can be proven from Scripture.

How do you figure? How does something that is an authority prove that it is an authority?

Why this continual misrepresentation of what people who look to Scripture as the authority upone which their faith is based actually believe?

Scripture is "sufficient" in revealing what is necessary for salvation. The OP "asks" if Solo Scriptura is biblical. His particular view here is new to me and it would be the first time that anyone has asserted that Solo Scriptura is biblical if anyone here says that it is.

Anyhow, regarding the sufficiency of Scripture, I am puzzled how proponents of Catholic theology, people who cointinually claim that ECFs were unquestionable "Catholic," ignore teachings of ECFs such as this:

"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For"Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed." (Letter 43:19)

this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)

"In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind....In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

"For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,--to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)
​

That is not to downplay its importance; it is simply to say that for the historic Churches it is a major part of tradition and best read in that tradition. There is nothing to stop anyone from doing that.

Cearly, when taking in consideration what some of the earliest church fathers said regarding Scripture, it's importance is definitely downplayed by some.

 

[racer]

Protestant Historical Scholar HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH Phillip Schoff

CHAPTER VI. Schoff

The absurd misrepresentations you provide regarding Schaff are bad enough, but your constant misspelling of his name alone reveals what you do not know about him.

 

[chestertonrules]

It is not only an opinion, but a distortion. The "early church" as a whole did not consider such beliefs heresy. Perhaps, you can argue that some of the ECFs believed it to be heresy.

Show me a quote from the first 500 years of Christianity that denies the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If you can find one, I can find 25 that support the belief.

FYI:

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
"[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).
"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200). "But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).

 

[racer]

Yes, this book is quite an eye-opener. Here I'd been fed these lies that our churches (EO, OO, and even the RCC) aren't biblical, we don't follow the Bible, and we follow the traditions of men. Well, reading this book, everything we do is biblical down to changing our names after baptized, and we follow Christ's and the Apostles traditions, whereas, what I've learned in this book is that the Protestants do not even follow the Bible they say is their authority, which, btw, isn't Biblical, and is actually against the Bible, thus against what Christ and the Apostles taught. So, in actuality, they follow their own traditions that aren't even in line or connected to the Apostles' traditions, so truly, they are the ones that follow the traditions of men that the Apostles warned us about. I don't mean this as a slam on the Protestants, just sharing the information, which is quite astounding, and really, I hope the Protestants read Anthony's book "West of Jesus" by a former Protestant turned EO to learn how far off the teachings and path Christ and His Apostles had taught and instructed from the beginning.

So, what are you saying that this 'book' is Gospel? That it is infallible? You think people are intentionally "lying" about these faiths to you to mislead and deceive you?

 

[racer]

Show me a quote from the first 500 years of Christianity that denies the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If you can find one, I can find 25 that support the belief.

Okay.

"It may be also understood in this way: 'The poor ye will have always with you, but me ye will not have always.' The good may take it also as addressed to themselves, but not so as to be any source of anxiety; for He was speaking of His bodily presence. For in respect of His majesty, His providence, His ineffable and invisible grace, His own words are fulfilled, 'Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.' But in respect of the flesh He assumed as the Word, in respect of that which He was as the son of the Virgin, of that wherein He was seized by the Jews, nailed to the tree, let down from the cross, enveloped in a shroud, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested in His resurrection, 'ye will not have Him always.' And why? Because in respect of His bodily presence He associated for forty days with His disciples, and then, having brought them forth for the purpose of beholding and not of following Him, He ascended into heaven and is no longer here. He is there, indeed, sitting at the right hand of the Father; and He is here also, having never withdrawn the presence of His glory. In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, 'Me ye will not have always.' In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes." (Augustine, Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13)

"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle." - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)

you can't get much more explicit than those citations.

FYI:

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

FYI, I never said that NONE of the ECFs adhered to a "literal" interpretaion of the Eucharist.

 

[chestertonrules]

you can't get much more explicit than those citations.

OF course you can.

Once again you are misrepresenting Augustine's opinion. In addition, Clement does not dispute the real presence, but offers us a spiritual understanding as well.



St. Augustine:

Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body. {Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31}​

The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the blood of Christ.{Sermo 227; on p.377}​

Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: "this is my body." {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377} ​

The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}​

The Blood they had previously shed they afterwards drank. {Mai 26, 2; 86, 3; on p.64}

Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. {Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p.65}






"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.",

-"The Instructor of the Children". [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,​

 

[Thekla]

"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle." - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)

you can't get much more explicit than those citations.
[/i]
FYI, I never said that NONE of the ECFs adhered to a "literal" interpretaion of the Eucharist.

A fuller comparison for each ECF should be used; all that they wrote on the Eucharist should be included. For example, here is Clement of Alexandria again:

"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.",

-"The Instructor of the Children". [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,​

"The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. 'Eat My Flesh,' He says, 'and drink My Blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!",

-"The Instructor of the Children" [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D.. ,​

On the first quote (given by Racer):
Note his use of the word "metaphor", where he then discusses shared attributes (as in the definition I gave for metaphor). Reconsider his use of the term symbol, per the ancient (versus modern) understanding.

The quotes I gave above demonstrate a consistency with "real presence".

EDIT:
on metaphor and symbol:

First of all, just to clarify, metaphor and symbol are not the same in the time when the Holy Scriptures were written. Metaphor means literally to "carry together", and works by a comparison of shared attributes. Symbol, otoh, means literally to "throw together" and is understood to be an actual interpenetration of the components whereby a part makes present the whole. (The opposite of "symbolon" is "diabolos" to divide or throw apart, meaning slanderer, the etymological origin of English "devil").