It is not either/or it is both/and. Not hard at all.
There are so many riches in writings of the Early Church Fathers. Try this text:
"Take, eat, this is My body/blood" is either literal or metaphorical as regards the contention at hand, and muddying the waters by claiming it can be both (since there are figurative aspects in the literal (which itself is not plainly literal, but resorts to the metaphysical) theology will not do. And only the metaphorical position easily conflates with the test of Scripture without contradiction .
There are so many riches in writings of the Early Church Fathers. Try this text:
Which is a fatal error, for the uninspired writings of post-apostolic men simply cannot be determinitive of what the NT church believed, and the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels) is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
While the writings of ETCS can have some value, as can the writings in the Jewish Talmud, both to varying degrees reflect the progressive accretion of traditions of men, and even the veracity of inspired preaching of the apostles was subject to testing by Scripture as supreme.