Protestants often lack the ability to think. When a Protestant cites an early Church father as believing in sola scriptura he creates a problem for himself. Cyril of Jerusalem, for instance, believed in the Real Presence. Yet no Protestant who believes in sola scriptura here at FR would agree with him on that.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2301246/posts
Thus, the Protestant has a dilemma. If Cyril of Jerusalem believed in sola scriptura, then the Eucharist must be Christ’s body.
The know-nothing Papists have a bigger problem, since Cyril specifically says not to give him heed if it cannot be shown out of the holy scripture. IOW, he does not, of himself, give himself absolute authority to dictate doctrine.
Thus the know-nothing Papist gets his real presence, but loses tradition, by conceding that Cyril to us.
Second, the know-nothing Papists need to read about Luther's sacramentology and the Westminster confession. What the know-nothing Papist is really talking about is Transubstantiation, not the Real Presence.
You remember what happens to you when we get into a debate about whether Transubstantiation is the historical Christian doctrine, don't you? Don't tempt me man! Don't tempt me! It ain't safe! For your own well-being, step away!(but I know you won't)