The Bible and the Church Fathers teach the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist

I am taking the CON position to the statement "The Bible and the Church Fathers teach the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist" PRO is taking an overly literal interpretation of scripture to support his position. PRO assumes the Church Fathers were unified in this view, that is no the case. First, some definitions. Real presence is a term used in various Christian traditions to express belief that Jesus Christ is really present in the elements of the Eucharist, and that his presence is not merely symbolic, metaphorical, or by his activity alone, ideas common amongst the Radical Reformers and their followers.[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... Bible - Any English translation with preference given to literal translations like the NASB. Church Fathers - " are ancient and generally influential Christian theologians, some of whom were eminent teachers and great bishops. The term is used of writers or teachers of the Church not necessarily ordained and not necessarily "saints"" [2] Catholics generally regard the Patristic period to have closed with the death of John of Damascus, a Doctor of the Church, in 749. [3] [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... It is clear that Jesus is speaking figuratively in Matt 26:26-28 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus is still in his physical (unglorified) body. He is handing out the bread and the wine of the Passover celebration. His statement "this is my body" is not literal, but figurative. For Jesus and His disciples, this was the last time they would celebrate Passover together. The disciples knew that Passover was symbolic of the events in Exodus 12. God himself tells Moses that this is a memorial: "Now this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance."[Ex 12:14] Recognizing that Passover is a memorial does not make it less important. Any Jew who eats leaven is to be cut off from the congregation of Israel [Ex 12:19] Our celebration of the Eucharist is patterned on Jesus"s celebration of Passover. There is no hint that the wine and unleavened bread of Passover are anything but wine and bread. Their importance is that they point to the amazing work of God in grace, mercy and redemption. There are many examples of figurative language in scripture.[4] The Psalmist says The Lord God is a sun and shield" [Ps 84:11]. Too literal a view of scripture gives God wings[Ps 63:7]. Most of Jesus parables expect us to figure out symbolic meanings. When Jesus is called the foundation or cornerstone we do not think He is claiming to be masonry; we know it is a figure of speech. It is the same when Jesus says "This is my body", there is no reason to claim a literal interpretation of these words. [4] biblehub.com/library/barrows/companion_to_the_bible/chapter_xxxv_the_figurative_language.htm The bible does not require a literal understanding of the words "This is my body". Trying to force a literal interpretation here makes no more sense than saying that God has feathers [Ps 63:7] or that God is a piece of military hardware [Ps 84:11]. Regarding the Church Fathers Clement of Alexandria - Clement states ""But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes"the Lord who is Spirit and Word. " [Paedagogus 1:6] "The words of the Lord from the bread of life discourse "Eat My flesh and drink My blood," is, according to Clement, figurative speech. Given Clement"s credentials and with regard to how much he was admired in the church, it is not at all likely he was out on a limb here. Clement was teaching orthodox Christian doctrine, widely understood in the universal church at that time." [5] [5] https://onefold.wordpress.com... In the same chapter of his teachings, Clement says "And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?" Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; " describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,"of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle." [Paedagogus 1:6] Irenaeus of Lyons - (This is shamelessly borrowed from https://onefold.wordpress.com...) > There is also a fragment extant from Irenaeus that sheds a bit more light on the question of the Eucharistic bread"s substance. Apparently during the persecutions at Lyons, one of the accusations placed upon Christians was the charge of cannibalism. This charge was made because the non-Christians heard that the Christians ate the body and blood of Christ. This fragment from Irenaeus shows that the Christians indeed did not consider that the Eucharist was the literal body of Christ. > > "For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practiced] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct]. To these men Blandina replied very admirably in these words: "How should those persons endure such [accusations], who, for the sake of the practice [of piety], did not avail themselves even of the flesh that was permitted [them to eat]?"" (Fragment 13) There are other remarks from other Church Fathers that show the blood and body words to be symbolic. The very words "Do this in remembrance of me." show that it is a memorial. Luke 22:19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 1 Corinthians 11:24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 1 Corinthians 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."