[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.

[HarleyD]

Well, I guess I'll have to look up Ratramnus' writings. But your logic doesn't make sense.

There apparently were two views by Radbertus and Ratramnus that must have been substantially different. Different enough that the council in 12?? made some kind of major decision and selection. Also the difference must have been significant for the Council of Trent to BAN Ratramnus' writings until 1900s.

If there wasn't any difference there wouldn't have been all this fuss.

[HarleyD]

You may wish to check www.newadvent.org the Catholic website. They'll tell you the same thing as this article.