Isn't that a little extreme? While I'll agree there is substantial writings on this, this was not without controversy in the Church. The Roman Council in 1079 felt a need to issue a statement on it and the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 felt they needed to reiterate their stance. If this was universally accepted there would be no need to issue these proclamations, especially so late.
But more important than whether it actually turns into the body and blood, what does the Real Present represent? Would you say the Real Presence represents a "sacrifice offered to God", as Augustine states? Quotes from the early fathers says is in regards to a sacrifice given to God, some say to appease God's wrath, and therefore we must participate in that sacrifice.
"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]). -Cyprian of Carthage
It makes no difference whether a person believes that the bread and wine actually turn into flesh and blood. What matters is whether a person recognizes that God is angry with man and that He carried out this anger on His Son who gave Him up as a sacrifice for us. And when we take the Real Presence, that is what we should remember.
And therein lies the very danger in Rome's seeming inability to leave well enough alone. Dogma, in the One Church, was only declared to combat a known and present heresy, Arianism, Nestorianism, Iconoclasm, etc. In any event, the Roman Council was a local council and had no power to declare dogma. The 4th Lateran is not recognized by Orthodoxy as an Ecumenical Council but even if it were, in relevant part, what that council dogmatized was the Latin doctrine of Transubstantiation, which describes the Real Presence in physical terms using philosophical language. It didn't dogmatize the Real Presence doctrine.
"Even though Cyril believed in the Real Presence it seems he needed to remind others that it's not just bread and wine."
HD, I'll bet my own metropolitan has preached on this subject within the last year. That's what preachers do, they teach the Faith. He also teaches that Christ is True God and True Man, but there is no dispute in The Church about that either.
"Ignatius taught that it was Christ's suffering for our sins and those who refuse are perishing. Cyprian further this argument by saying that the sacrifice was to appease an angry God. Is this what the Orthodox believe when you take the Real Presence?
+Ignatius certainly teaches that Christ suffered for our sins. That is plain. Here he also teaches that those who cut themselves off from God's grace in the Eucharist have chosen their own fate. They reject God, not the other way around. You'll find no "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" phronema in +Ignatius. +Cyprian, like most of the early Westerners, was all over the map on theology (just like his theological mentor, the heretic Tertullian). Be taht as it may, the section you quoted from De Lapsi is not talking about partaking of the Body and Blood to appease an angry god, but rather about the Lapsi taking communion unworthily, before confessing their apostasy and receiving absolution for their sin. So, do the Orthodox believe as you have stated the matter? No. As I have stated the matter? Yes.
"It makes no difference whether a person believes that the bread and wine actually turn into flesh and blood. What matters is whether a person recognizes that God is angry with man and that He carried out this anger on His Son who gave Him up as a sacrifice for us."
What you have written expresses what may be the most profound difference between what is taught by The Church and that preached by the various ecclesial heirs of the Calvinist groups. I do not for one minute doubt the sincerity of your belief. But it is why I have come to believe that Calvinists worship a "god" unknown to the Orthodox.