You provide me with your sources refuting or denying Eucharistic Realism from the 1st through 5th centuries, and we'll take it from there.
Thanks for posting the link!
I’m not Catholic m’self and I don’t believe in the Catholic version of the Real Presence, (I think it goes too far beyond what Scripture says, but I’m closer to you than most other Christian denominations; I still believe that Jesus is truly present, physically, but not all the way into transubstantiation) but this will be helpful in future discussions.
Ha! It's been done before, on this forum. You run away (or deny the plain words, or else turn to some kind of word-game trickery) EACH and EVERY time.
Why should anyone believe it will be different this time?
But before we go there, let's have a bit more clarity as to what you mean when you say "Eucharistic realism".
Does that include that you are saying the sources you linked to, are each one of them, universally & clearly supporting there is "realism" inclusive of there being corporal physical presence?
I could show you a few who clearly deny such a concept, Augustine being one of them. There were others also.
I could provide trace outline for the development of the doctrine of transubstantiation too.
Wanna go there? Ask me nicely -- but only after you answer the questions just now posed to you.
I have to give you some credit that you keep pitching what you believe or wish.
Some housekeeping:
First, you made a specific truth claim that "This euchastisric Body and Blood of His are so real, they are real on every Catholic altar and in every Catholic tabernacle in the world, and in the very body--- yes, body to Body --- of His servants who receive Him. The first 15 centuries of Christians all saw this sacramental sense IN Scripture. "I asked you to show this was true, since without proof, it is simply an assertion, a wish. I asked you to prove your truth claim. I do not need to disprove what you claimed. You need to demonstrate your claim is true.
As evidence, you provided some copied information that is inadequate.
Your link tries to pass off the Didache as before 100 ad. This is problematic. Scholars have dated it somewhere between 50 ad and 220 ad. No one knows.
There are additional problems:
The link and you are reading back into history a doctrine that didn't develop until hundreds of years later.
There are no fragments of the Didache from before 100 ad that I am aware of. Fragments of the Didache were found at Oxyrhyncus from the fourth century and in coptic translation from 3rd or 4th century.
The Didache was considered a lost document and was not discovered in whole until 1873.
We have no idea as to whether the document existed before 200 ad, nor whether the document was updated as the doctrines of the church were altered.
Nor do we have sufficient fragments from before 100 ad to reconstruct the original...
And that is the first problem - we do not know it was not changed as doctrines in the church changed.
I think more importantly though, the Didache - even if it were not corrupted later - doesn't make the case to support your claim.
The Didache doesn't describe the cup of wine as the real physical presence of Christ.
There is no mention of the wine in the cup being symbolic of Jesus’ blood.
The Didache simply says, "Celebrate the Eucharist as follows: Say over the cup: “we give you thanks, Father, for the holy vine of David, your servant, which you made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you be glory for ever”.
Of the bread, the Didache says, "Over the broken bread say: “we give you thanks, Father, for the life and the knowledge which you have revealed to us through Jesus your servant. To you be glory for ever. As this broken bread scattered on the mountains was gathered and became one, so too, may your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. For glory and power are yours through Jesus Christ for ever.”
Since it is late and it is sufficient that you have not proven 1500 years of the current Roman teaching of real presence nor transubstantiation, I will stop here.
There is more, like that scholars have noted that the document itself is a compilation of other documents later rolled into one document.
What is here though is sufficient - that there is no teaching of real presence nor transubstantiation.
I wish you the best as always, but you have not supported your truth claim.