VOLUME II ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIAINITY a.d. 100–325.
The doctrine concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, not coming into special discussion, remained indefinite and obscure. The ancient church made more account of the worthy participation of the ordinance than of the logical apprehension of it. She looked upon it as the holiest mystery of the Christian worship, and accordingly celebrated it with the deepest devotion, without inquiring into the mode of Christ’s presence, nor into the relation of the sensible signs to his flesh and blood. It is unhistorical to carry any of the later theories back into this age; although it has been done frequently in the apologetic and polemic discussion of this subject.
And then the last paragraph under
"...We have, therefore, among the ante-Nicene fathers, three different views, an Oriental, a North-African, and an Alexandrian. The first view, that of Ignatius and Irenaeus, agrees most nearly with the mystical character of the celebration of the eucharist, and with the catholicizing features of the age."
I don't know about anyone else, but I detect sense of Schaff's own views being somewhat aligned with the views of some modern-day [Roman] Catholics, and that without those Roman Catholics being 'modernists', so my saying this it not intended as accusation against either...
Yet, after pouring over many volumes of this type of thing in context of present-day discussion, I do detect some evidence that his work, and the work and viewpoints of many other so-called 'Protestants' have influenced the internalized understandings and viewpoints of many (but not all) present-day Catholics --- which Schaff himself, as sort-of Anglican, would in certain contexts call himself --- catholic, of the universal Church.
This is no accident, for the Reformers were not set upon creating some new religion, but were in fact very keen upon hoping to re-capture the essence of the most ancient of Christian understandings...
Here's hoping your work receives responses worthy of the time you've obviously spent compiling it.
I'm very grateful to God for my older brothers and sisters here!
Whether it's true I don't know, but “they” told me in seminary that one reason the conversation got started was to thread a path between the revulsion at the idea of eating flesh and drinking blood and the declarative sense of the “Words of Institution.”
IMHO, a lot of the development of Catholic dogma is just like this. Initially the ideas are vague and evocative. The Fathers often strike me as poetic rather than “technical.” Then something comes up, and there's a controversy.
Somebody says that Mary is the theotokos. Somebody else says,” You can't say that!” Things get ugly, so they call a council, and little by little the teaching is refined and detailed.
So then the question of the reliability of councils arise. And here we are on Free Republic.