Not a sour statement at all, just a statement of historic fact.
As I pointed out, we get a good clue of what was taught from reading what their disciples wrote - indeed what the early fathers handed down as the faith. I suggested ignatius of Antioch to Smyrneans because writings such as his and polycarp were written by the first generations taught by the apostles: in that case John.
And in that particular case, I use the example of the eucharist, to show that tradition hands down the meaning of what is found in scripture. There are all sorts of mutually exclusive beliefs on the eucharist post reformation, precisely because many seem to think they are entitled to hold any interpretation they think does not contradict the scriptural text.
But there is only one truth: in this case the real presence truly the "flesh of Jesus" - a eucharist valid only if performed by a bishop or his appointee, in a liturgical, sacramental church, which was what the church believed for millenia till those that splintered away at the reformation went of at tangents.
The other interpretations of eucharist take "memorialism" are heretical, and were made only possible by the false doctrine of sola scriptura, ignoring authority and tradition.
The problem all have is if they ignore authority, they have no new testament , or creed, because the canon and creed were inspired decisions of councils where the church is empowered to act as authority, the "pillar and foundation of truth" using the power to "bind and loose" on matters of doctrine and heresy.
And as we see, when you lose that anchor all drift ever further apart.
