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].
>> 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. <<
We’re not talking of the illiterates, here, though. While Justin Martyr was not Pope, or reporting the decisions of an ecumentical council, he was very influential. His writings are cited by (and thus implicitly endorsed by) Tatian, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Ephanius, Jerome, and many more Church Fathers, who were in the practice of scouring the writings of others for the hint of heresy. (Even Tertullian himself would later be regarded as heretical over arguably a finer detail.)
The attacks on the doctrines of the Church require one to equate ignorance with uncertainty, uncertainty with reasonable doubt, and reasonable doubt with a justification to consider any doctrines of the Catholic Church presumptively wrong.
Often, one can get in trouble from arguing from silence, or the dog that didn’t bark. But, in this case, Justin’s articulation of the doctrine is so unambigious, and direct, and the danger of heresy so grave, that it’s inconceivable that guardians against heresy would blindly commend Justin’s writings if it contained what would be a very blatant, grave, and explicit heresy.
What we find instead is equally explicit attestations from Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian and others. And none of these were criticized, either.