Clearly, the distinction between must be made between the sense in which Jesus is absent, and the sense in which he is present, because you, I, and all the Church fathers recognize some sense in which he is present, and one in which he is absent.
But who says your distinction is correct?
Jesus is not present in the sense that he speaks for Himself, can pop up on camera, etc. Certainly, taking on the Greeks called the “formal accident” of bread is certainly not being here in the sense that Revelations depicts.
Now, if it were NOT the position of the early Church that Christ is obectively present in the Eucharist, then the person who DID first say that He was present would certainly be considered a heretic, an idolator, etc. Yet, with all the debate about the nature of Christ (dualism, monarchism, monophytism, etc.), no-one ever seems to take issue with what would be outrageous statements.
Now, Protestants such as Missey_Lucy_Goosey claim to have studied Church Fathers like Justin Martyr. She reads Justin as denying the presence because he clarifies that Christians aren’t cannibals. But here’s what Justin says: “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 by the Word of God, had both 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.”
Not necessarily so. Remember that most people of the day were illiterate, and had little access to the writings of Justin Martyr, et al, and could care less what He wrote. Just because he says so does not mean it was the sentiment of the day. It was merely his sentiment at that particular moment and for many of these guys their opinions vacillated with time.
It wasn't until a false teaching began to gain popularity that it was addressed and not necessarily in a lengthy dissertation that few would read. These would have been addressed orally by preaching the scriptures from the pulpit or by a simple memorizable scriptural creed.
All we know for sure is that perhaps by the middle of the 2nd century, the fundamentals of the faith that were on the lips of of the faithful were embodied in the Apostles Creed. And not only is the Real Presence not found therein, but there is/was no room for it at all for those who believed the Creed's words: "is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will come again to judge the living and the dead". The location of the Real Presence was/is at the right hand of His Father from whence He will come again [the second time].