[HarleyD]

This was not a belief that first appeared in the 9th century. It had its roots in the early church and fester for centuries. While you've listed some of those who supported transsubstantiation there were others that felt this was more symbolic.

[AlguyA]

"While you've listed some of those who supported transsubstantiation there were others that felt this was more symbolic."

Please post your sources for this.

[AlguyA]

"While you've listed some of those who supported transsubstantiation there were others that felt this was more symbolic."

In fact, the article which you, yourself, posted shows it is a mistake to think even Ratramnus in the Ninth Century was taking a symbolic view of the Eucharist

Ratramnus writes elsewhere that "under cover of the corporeal bread and of the corporeal wine Christ's spiritual body and spiritual blood do exist." It is clear therefore from these two selections that this author is not advocating the same doctrine as that which would later be propounded by Ulrich Zwingli. Here, the signs not only represent, but also convey Christ's spiritual body and blood.

[polemikos]

This was not a belief that first appeared in the 9th century. It had its roots in the early church and fester for centuries. While you've listed some of those who supported transsubstantiation there were others that felt this was more symbolic.

Catholics don't deny that the Eucharist has symbolic meanings. But saying that something holds a symbolic meaning doesn't deny that it also holds a literal meaning. The literal interpretation has roots all the way back to the Bible (Exodus, actually).

The purely symbolic interpretation is a theological novelty that gained a foothold in the Reformation.