I assume you intended the last sentence as a question? Why is it so hard for people to understand, you ask?
It is because it's not entirely true as you describe things to be, with the main problem being that there is --- and always was -- range of opinion as to what constitutes so-called "real presence". Even the term "real presence" not used until sometime around the 16th century, but that's something of a digression as for one word in particular, though we can focus upon the various iterations of the concept...
It can be a difficult and very divisive subject. Do you want me to prove to people here that the ECF's were not of one mind on this issue, and have often been selectively quoted by Roman Catholics --- again?
I'm not the only one who has delved into the topic. To even begin to cover the issue would take many pages. Do you really want to go there?
Since it's obvious to myself that there are many here who have not bothered to study the documentary evidence as to "why" there was not uniform doctrine of 'real presence' associated with eucharist among earliest centuries patristics, even when that has been supplied on this forum innumerous times, then I seriously doubt that bringing it out once again would open anyone's eyes to that which --- as far as I can tell --- is simply refused to be recognized.
How about not bringing any more threads of this nature to this forum?
Or --- learn to listen, and listen carefully -- and then you wouldn't be asking the question which you did.
But the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox do NOT share identical views towards eucharist.
It could be said that the Anglicans, and perhaps even Methodist, are closer to sharing the views which various Orthodox assemblies have, than they share in with concept of "transubstantiation", as that is known of among Roman Catholics most singularly alone, with this better recognized when the details are more closely examined.
One simply cannot speak of "real presence" as far as how those of the RCC speak of 'real presence' without addressing the dogma of transubstantiation -- as that is described by the Latin Church.
Even there, among Roman Catholics, there are those who argue inclusively for a corporeal presence, and those whom take much more of a spiritualized view.
Then do not bring this subject to the religion forum of FreeRepublic again? Yet you did.
Here, you asked, "why is that so hard for people to understand"(?).
In answer to that, I ask that you study the following carefully, and then I'll ask you much the same question --- why is it that many [Roman] Catholics do not seem to understand just why, and for what reasons, the arguments put forth by Rome as for alleged authority to transubstantiate bread into being literally, even corporately into being even ceasing to "be" bread at all, yet become instead in entirety (other than so-called 'accidents' of outwards appearances) even the physical being and material if you will, of 'body of Christ', is rejected as not well founded in Scripture, and earliest centuries church traditions?
If any were to make the effort (admittedly arduous as that can be) to examine the evidences against 'transubstantiation' as that later came to be known (after centuries of doctrinal development) the lack of evidence for the precise same things in earliest times, which is something of an argument, but one from silence, still speaks loudly enough that it should not be ignored --- then the answer to the question you posed should be obvious.
In this first link which I shall provide [below], to a previous FR thread which discussed this issue, there is material there which refutes your claim that there was "no opposing views".
On that note also, there were not necessarily diametrically opposing view to the dogma of transubstantiation --BECAUSE--- it would be a bit much to ask for opposition to a doctrine which had not yet developed. Let that sink in..?
You expressed wonder as to your own assertions are not taken as Gospel truth(?) read the following, perhaps taking it as form of introductory about ECF's who expressed the view that the underlying physical,material substance of the bread and wine remained as it was (prior to consecration). albeit when consecrated, was figuratively taken to be the body and blood of Christ.
The info at the above link, once carefully examined and digested, goes a along way towards dispelling assumptive notions that "There are no opposing views...", although that may depend upon which [Roman] Catholic is doing the talking...for even though the same words can be used by many -- not all have the same precise internalized views of what those words actually mean. This is yet another complication whenever this subject arises...
Augustine at one point said the bread is a sign for what it represents...
Surely you've seen that quote before?
Although I've not that one ready at hand inclusive of the context from which it is derived, that very concept has long been recognized to have been included within Augustine's writings, once those are examined in wider context. It simply does not do to take him, and all other ECF's ---too literally--- when they were not intending to be taken entirely literally, when they were speaking of spiritual things, and spiritual truths and meanings ----- not those, PLUS those same things being made fully and most literally present in a corporeal way.
As Charles Hastings Collette wrote, in
I have already observed that we meet in the Fathers most extravagant language as applied to this subject. Indeed, the compilers of "The Faith of Catholics" (vol ii, p 317) has given us a striking instance......When, however, these writers abandon this extravagant style, and in their sober moments, we find them describing the elements as types, images, representations, &c., &c., of the body and blood of Christ. It is in this spirit we must read these ancient authors. The real question between us is whether any one single Father of the Church for the first five centuries ever alluded to a change of substance of the bread and wine as now taught by the Roman Church. We in vain search for any such passages in the several quotations given us from Augustine.
Below, from page 132, switching what is being directly referenced, yet still under heading of EUCHARIST, and what the volume of "The Faith of Catholics" he was responding to had said;
The passage referring to David's feigned madness, "that he bore himself in his own hands" (vol ii. p. 337) and that Augustine applied this to Christ at the Last Supper, is also quoted. The compilers, however, have the candour to put the original passage in a note, though not the full translation of the text:--- "Et ferbatur in manibus suis...quomodo ferebatur in manibus suis? Quia cum commendaret ipsum corpus suum et sanguinem suum, accepit in manus quod norunt fideles: et ipse se portabat quodam modo cum diceret 'Hoc ect corpus meu,' " Augustine does not say that our Lord did really carry His own body in His own hand, but only after a certain manner.The proposition sought to be established is truly ridiculous. Augustine's theory was that signs of things represent the things signified. The bread and the wine represented a type or figure of His body and blood, and, therefor, after a certain manner, that is, typically or allegorically, He bore Himself in His own hands. Nothing more can be made of the passage. We may rest assured, as is the fact, that the compilers have omitted the striking passages I have quoted:--- " You shall not eat this body which you see, nor drink this blood which they shall shed, that will crucify Me. I have commanded a certain sacrament unto you, that being spiritually understood will quicken you. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood."* Nor, indeed, do we find any of the other important passages on this subject which I have quoted --- a clear indication that Augustine's doctrines are not accepted as "the Faith of Catholics" of the present day.
*http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.XCIX.html Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms, Psalm XCIX, see 8.)
Additional previous discussion of issue, in furtherance of answering that question which you posed;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3309723/posts?page=412#412
VOLUME II ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIAINITY a.d. 100–325.
The doctrine concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, not coming into special discussion, remained indefinite and obscure. The ancient church made more account of the worthy participation of the ordinance than of the logical apprehension of it. She looked upon it as the holiest mystery of the Christian worship, and accordingly celebrated it with the deepest devotion, without inquiring into the mode of Christ’s presence, nor into the relation of the sensible signs to his flesh and blood. It is unhistorical to carry any of the later theories back into this age; although it has been done frequently in the apologetic and polemic discussion of this subject.
And then the last paragraph under
"...We have, therefore, among the ante-Nicene fathers, three different views, an Oriental, a North-African, and an Alexandrian. The first view, that of Ignatius and Irenaeus, agrees most nearly with the mystical character of the celebration of the eucharist, and with the catholicizing features of the age."
I don't know about anyone else, but I detect sense of Schaff's own views being somewhat aligned with the views of some modern-day [Roman] Catholics, and that without those Roman Catholics being 'modernists', so my saying this it not intended as accusation against either...
Yet, after pouring over many volumes of this type of thing in context of present-day discussion, I do detect some evidence that his work, and the work and viewpoints of many other so-called 'Protestants' have influenced the internalized understandings and viewpoints of many (but not all) present-day Catholics --- which Schaff himself, as sort-of Anglican, would in certain contexts call himself --- catholic, of the universal Church.
This is no accident, for the Reformers were not set upon creating some new religion, but were in fact very keen upon hoping to re-capture the essence of the most ancient of Christian understandings...