No it's not complex ,dear brother, and we have been through this before and you use people and so called experts who twist the actual writings of the Church fathers and you have been shown the Church Fathers believed Eucharist is the Actual body of Christ. This has coupled with the many documented miracles which you choose to ignore.
From your source""Irenaeus has been brought as a witness for the Roman doctrine, only on the ground of a false reading
Irenaues is very clear and there can be no false reading of what he means in the following- that the Eucharist is really Christ ...
“So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.” Saint Irenaues-”Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely You really need to stop reading what other people twist and read the Church Fathers writings for yourself.
You are applying a quote to the wrong bit of doctrine. Schaff was talking about “This eucharistic sacrifice, however, the ante-Nicene fathers conceived not as an unbloody repetition of the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross, but simply as a commemoration and renewed appropriation of that atonement, and, above all, a thank-offering of the whole church for all the favors of God in creation and redemption.”
Schaff’s reason for calling it a false reading of Irenaeus is:
424 Adv. Haer. IV. c. 18, §. 4: “Verbum [the Logos] quod offertur Deo;” instead of which should be read, according to other manuscripts: “Verbum per quod offertur,”—which suits the connexion much better. Comp. IV. 17, § 6: “Per Jes. Christum offert ecclesia.” Stieren reads “Verbum quod,” but refers it not to Christ, but to the word of the prayer. The passage is, at all events, too obscure and too isolated to build a dogma upon.
I have no clue what that says.
Also, my link was wrong, it is here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.vii.xi.html