All of the Fathers believed in the Real Presence. There were none who did not. +Ignatius tells us of heretics who didn't, but we have no names. Do you?
"Ratramnus...."
Ratramnus said that the bread and wine on the altar table were "vere corpus et sanguis Christi". Sounds like the Real presence to me, HD. What he denied, heretically in the opinion of Rome and, I suspect given the fact that Rome had yet to break with the rest of The Church, in that of the other Patriarchates as well if they ever gave him any thought, was that Christ on the altar table was the "same Christ" as He who was born of the Theotokos, lived, suffered, rose from the dead and ascended to the Father; an odd teaching indeed but not, apparently, a denial of the Real Presence.
HD, the denial of the Real Presence as a doctrine for Christians was an innovation of some Protestants after Luther. It is not even remotely patristic, let alone a teaching found in the consensus patrum.
"Well, John and Paul for starters...
Joh 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
1Th 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
Oh, HD, I'm disappointed. You know that while +Paul and John are considered among the greatest Evangelists and Apostles, neither are considered, even by the Reformers, as "Fathers". Beyond that, neither of the quotes you cite stand for any form of the atonement theory of salvation all of which, other than the "ransom" theory, were virtually unknown in The Church until Anselm of Canterbury's innovations in the 11th century which, as expanded on by Aquinas, your folks later picked up and ran with.
Isn't that a little extreme? While I'll agree there is substantial writings on this, this was not without controversy in the Church. The Roman Council in 1079 felt a need to issue a statement on it and the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 felt they needed to reiterate their stance. If this was universally accepted there would be no need to issue these proclamations, especially so late.
But more important than whether it actually turns into the body and blood, what does the Real Present represent? Would you say the Real Presence represents a "sacrifice offered to God", as Augustine states? Quotes from the early fathers says is in regards to a sacrifice given to God, some say to appease God's wrath, and therefore we must participate in that sacrifice.
"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]). -Cyprian of Carthage
It makes no difference whether a person believes that the bread and wine actually turn into flesh and blood. What matters is whether a person recognizes that God is angry with man and that He carried out this anger on His Son who gave Him up as a sacrifice for us. And when we take the Real Presence, that is what we should remember.