If I may suggest, an excellent book on this is then Cardinal Ratzinger’s God Near Us where he discusses the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He explains such things as the difference between literal presence and substantial presence and what the Church means by these things. It is a very readable book, not lengthy by any means.

You might find that some of things that you object to about Catholic teaching is not, at the end of the day, what the Church actually teaches.

You’re attacking Transubstantiation when you were asked to show an example of a Church Father denying the Real Presence. I see where you’re coming from, but I think it would be better to first admit that there wasn’t any father that denied Real Presence, as Tap said, and then go on to explain “but I feel that this isn’t significant because there wasn’t universally accepted precision regarding the nature of the sacrament.” This is the sort of give and take that is necessary to engage in fruitful dialogue.

No one, that I know of, would claim that St. Augustine could articulate the dogma of Transubstantiation, although his mentor, St. Ambrose, would have certainly come very close. Fortunately, even the great doctor St. Augustine is not the regula fidei. He was capable of error. He did not deny Transubstantiation because it had not been formulated explicitly by the Church, and let’s be clear – Augustine was no Protestant on this matter. Engwer’s points are refuted here.

Insofar as ‘physical’ denotes a subjection to the laws of physics, i.e. part of the material universe, we deny Christ’s physical presence. The alternative isn’t ‘spiritual’ presence as in the same mystical presence in the Church as Body or ‘where two or three are gathered’, but in a metaphysical presence. The Church was unanimous on this: that the bread, after consecration, is the Body of Christ. St. Augustine concurs in a multitude of places as shown by the link above.

I am quoting Jason Engwer:
Augustine believed in a eucharistic presence, but he defined that presence in a way that contradicts transubstantiation. For example:

“You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, ‘Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion,’ although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, ‘This day the Lord rose from the dead,’ although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood,’ in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith.” (Letter 98:9)

Augustine compares the eucharist to a holiday in that it has some similarities to what it symbolizes, but it isn’t the same thing.

He says elsewhere:

“But He instructed them, and saith unto them, ‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth.” (Expositions on the Psalms, 99:8)

Elsewhere, Augustine denies that there is any bodily presence of Christ in the church today:

“It may be also understood in this way: ‘The poor ye will have always with you, but me ye will not have always.’ The good may take it also as addressed to themselves, but not so as to be any source of anxiety; for He was speaking of His bodily presence. For in respect of His majesty, His providence, His ineffable and invisible grace, His own words are fulfilled, ‘Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.’ But in respect of the flesh He assumed as the Word, in respect of that which He was as the son of the Virgin, of that wherein He was seized by the Jews, nailed to the tree, let down from the cross, enveloped in a shroud, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested in His resurrection, ‘ye will not have Him always.’ And why? Because in respect of His bodily presence He associated for forty days with His disciples, and then, having brought them forth for the purpose of beholding and not of following Him, He ascended into heaven and is no longer here. He is there, indeed, sitting at the right hand of the Father; and He is here also, having never withdrawn the presence of His glory. In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, ‘Me ye will not have always.’ In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes.” (Lectures on the Gospel of John, 50:13)

I don’t remember your comment. It must have been deleted by mistake. Please feel free to re-post. The correct answer to his question is “no.”

Your comment must have been lost. I don’t remember it specifically. We’re probably getting too far off topic with that question anyway. If you want to know what we mean by “Real Presence,” we mean what the fathers did, namely that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ during the consecration. You can read some of the prominent quotes here.

Nobody disagrees with this. The issue St. Francis is bringing up is that no one appointed the Reformers to interpret the scriptures and establish new teachings, or perhaps it would be better to say that no one asked them what the apostles said. So I would go back to my earlier question about how you think I, who became a Christian at 17, should have known which of the thousands of self-styled teachers (who claim to have been called by the Spirit) with their thousands of different teachings I should have trusted. The only options I have are to come up with some criterion by which to judge the voices, or I must do it myself, effectively making myself my own pope. Apostolic succession is the coherent criterion that was used since the ancient church to answer this question. The Spirit’s gift in this succession protects the Church from error (being in opposition to God’s Word) when it speaks dogmatically.

Did you ask me a question earlier? It’s possible all the questions haven’t been moderated yet, so I haven’t been able to see it yet.
You don’t have to make yourself your own pope to find a church to go to. And I don’t believe there has to be a pope, as in one central person that has to rule over the church. The bishop of Rome should be the bishop of Rome, and not of every other city in the world. If you research the denominations a bit and then visit some local churches you can find a church that is teaching the truth. The main protestant denominations are not outside the truth in their historic doctrines. This presupposes that you are also seeking the Lord in prayer and in scripture daily to abide in Him. He would lead you to where He wants you to be in time. In the meantime you could just attend a local church in order to be in fellowship with other believers, and you might find out this is where you should be. The church is meant to function as a body with each person contributing his or her gifts to help each other and to reach out to others. If something is not perfect, then maybe it’s your job to make it right or at least pray about it and talk to your leadership about it. Churches aren’t perfect, but they should be growing into that. I say this also knowing that there seems to be a general falling away in all the churches; but there are still many who have not fallen away. Mine is one of them, I’m glad to say.