The trouble with your analysis of the Church fathers is that you start with your sectarian bias first in judging their interpretation of the Bible.
Isn’t your interpretation of the meaning of the Bible any less conjectural?
There isn’t a single verse in scripture that explicitly says that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he said: “This is my body” “This is my blood.”
Or 1 Peter 3:21, which pronounces that “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you— not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience— through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” NASB
There isn’t exactly a single verse in scripture that explicitly says that baptism is symbolic either.
It comes down to TRADITION of what verses you choose to stitch together to create your catechetical position.
Then you choose to ignore or dismiss verses like 2 Thessalonians 2:14 and 3:6, which challenge your interpretation of the Traditions of Men.
Which refer to the 600+ Mitzvot that the Pharisees and their contemporary successors expect the Jews to observe.
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
St. Paul says we are to live by the spirit of the law, not by the letter of the law.
The Christian Bible references the letter and the spirit of the law in Romans 2:29 NASB. Though it is not quoted directly, the principle is applied using the words “spirit” and “letter” in context with the legalistic view of the Hebrew Bible. This may be the first recorded use of the phrase.
In the New Testament, Pharisees are seen as people who place the letter of the law above the spirit (Mark 2:3–28, 3:1–6). Thus, “Pharisee” has entered the language as a pejorative for one who does so; the Oxford English Dictionary defines Pharisee with one of the meanings as A person of the spirit or character commonly attributed to the Pharisees in the New Testament; a legalist or formalist. Pharisees are also depicted as being lawless or corrupt (Matthew 23:38); the Greek word used in the verse means lawlessness, and the corresponding Hebrew word means fraud or injustice.
In the Gospels Jesus is often shown as being critical of Pharisees, precisely because of his position that the “Spirit of the Law” is the better way. He is more like the Essenes than the other Jewish groups of the time (Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots), however, The Pharisees, like Jesus, believed in the resurrection of the dead, and in divine judgment. They advocated prayer, almsgiving and fasting as spiritual practices. The Pharisees were those who were trying to be faithful to the law given to them by God. Not all Pharisees, nor all Jews of that time, were legalistic. Though modern language has used the word Pharisee in the pejorative to describe someone who is legalistic and rigid, it is not an accurate description of all Pharisees. The argument over the “Spirit of the Law” vs. the “Letter of the Law” was part of early Jewish dialogue as well.
Some[who?] might connect 2 Corinthians 3:6 with such an idea, but that passage talks about “the letter” versus “the Spirit”, where “the letter” refers to the Old Covenant and its rules, while “the Spirit” refers to the Holy Spirit (and the New Covenant). The new covenant described in Jeremiah 31:31-33 is a common theme of the prophets, beginning with Hosea.[1] According to Jeremiah, “the qualities of the new covenant expounded upon the old are : a) It will not be broken; b) Its law will be written in the heart, not merely on tablets of stone; c) The knowledge of God will deem it no longer necessary to put it into written words of instruction.”[1] According to Luke (Lk 22, 20), and Paul, in the first epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11, 25), this prophecy was fulfilled only through the work of Jesus Christ,[1] who said “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.” Christ did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. His purpose was to encourage people to look beyond the “letter of the law” to the “spirit of the law”...the principles behind the commandments and the law’s intention. The law was never intended as a moral slide-rule, but as evidence of transgression. Mankind turned this declaration into a moral code book. Jesus quotes the book of Deuteronomy and Leviticus: “All the Law can be summed up in this: to love Yahweh with all your heart, all your mind and all your heart, and to love your neighbor as yourself” (paraphrased).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law#The_Bible
It says nothing about Catholic or Orthodox practices apart from the reader’s anti-Catholic biases that precede their reading of the sacred texts.
My way of interpreting their interpretations is governed by my own cultural traditions, just as yours is. We all have biases of some kind or another because we grow and develop our worldview within the traditions that surround us, though some of us may be fortunate enough to study others. Thank God, his truths found in Holy Scripture transcends cultures, and backgrounds, and biases. The very Holy Spirit of God is what speaks to each heart inclined to hear it and, with his presence, we CAN come to grasp the height, and depth and width of the riches of God revealed to us. It is what sets it apart from all other writings, of any other human endeavors.
Isn’t your interpretation of the meaning of the Bible any less conjectural?
No more and no less than any other believers. What makes their thoughts and musings any more valuable than mine or yours? Is God not able to illuminate his truths to the twenty-first century mind just as easily as he did the first century? Rather than presume everything I was taught growing up about God was completely true, I decided to study it word for word. I put myself through Bible college almost right out of high school - at minimum wage of $1.50 per hour - and I graduated from it with a firm knowledge that it WAS the word of God, that it was true and trustworthy and that I could spend the rest of my life plunging its depths. I don't regret a day I spent there because, now, I not only know what I believe I know why I believe.
There isn’t a single verse in scripture that explicitly says that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he said: “This is my body” “This is my blood.”
Only his own words. Like:
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” (John 6:35-40)
Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. (John 6:47-48)
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” (John 6:61-65)
When Jesus held up the bread and broke it at the last supper with his disciples, he said it was his body which would be broken for them. The bread did not change into flesh, but remained bread. Jesus used the bread to represent his body. The same with the cup. It represented his blood which would be shed for them, by drinking the cup and eating the bread he gave them, they were signifying their faith in his sacrificial death for them. They received him, believing him, just as he told them in the John 6 section, that whoever receives him has eternal life.
Or 1 Peter 3:21, which pronounces that “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you— not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience— through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” NASB
There isn’t exactly a single verse in scripture that explicitly says that baptism is symbolic either.
Yet you gave one yourself. All throughout Scripture, there are many ways that God teaches the same truths to us. As Noah was saved from drowning by the Ark, so Jesus saves us by himself. All he required was faith, believe, trust, receive then he does the rest. There IS a baptism of the Spirit that happens when we receive Jesus as Savior. The rite or ritual of water baptism is purely symbolic just as Peter explained.
It comes down to TRADITION of what verses you choose to stitch together to create your catechetical position.
Take a look at the Catechism sometime, if you want to really see patchwork scripture to try to prove a position.
Then you choose to ignore or dismiss verses like 2 Thessalonians 2:14 and 3:6, which challenge your interpretation of the Traditions of Men.
You have no knowledge of what I do or do not believe about Scripture, so please do not presume to tell me what I ignore or dismiss. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (II Tim.3:16-17)
The very same Spirit that illuminated Scripture, or not, to people two thousand years ago, is just as relevant today and just as able to do the same for those who are open to his leading. II Thess. 2:13-15, says "But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
Why you presume to tell me I ignore or dismiss these verses is beyond me. Why you seem to insist that these verses PROVE your magesterium has carte blanche to define any "tradition" not recorded in Scripture as equal to Holy Scripture is not beyond me, because I know that they have used these verses to state such before and their intent is plainly visible. So if we want to live the "spirit" of God's truths, we must know what they are first. Only then can we begin to grow in the grace of God and be all he desires for us to be.