[ealgeone]

You can't answer in the affirmative which tells me the ECFs were not in 100% agreement which means this was not a universal teaching as roman catholics would have us believe.

Your defense of roman catholic teaching is typical of what I've seen on these threads.

A statement is made about this or that and when asked to substantiate the claim the catholic obfuscates and provides mis-direction or just won't answer the question.

[Steelfish]

You can’t be serious. 100% and nothing else?
I gave you a link that comprehensively discusses the crucial debate and consensus on the doctrine of substantiation. Rather than making an attempt to inform, you reflexively post the same stuff that reflects the instruction given by some corner street pastor.

[Mercat]

What does the European Cyclist Federation have to do with all this?

[boatbums]

How could they “all” have been in agreement when they didn’t even get around to defining “transubstaniation” until the thirteenth century!

The earliest known use of the term “transubstantiation” to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist was by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours, in the 11th century.[13][14] By the end of the 12th century the term was in widespread use.[15] The Fourth Council of the Lateran, which convened beginning November 11, 1215, spoke of the bread and wine as “transubstantiated” into the body and blood of Christ: “His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God’s power, into his body and blood”.[17]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation