You misunderstand me. When I said "no one has every believed that the eucharist literally turns to blood and flesh" I meant that no one believed it changed physically as opposed to in some spiritual, philosophical way.
But that is what they believe, or at least what the doctrine says. It literally turns into blood and flesh. It's just that all its empirically observable properties remain those of bread and wine. If you think that that is theological gibberish, sure, obviously it is, but it's still what they believe.
We are in then agreement then because when I am said that no one ever believed that there is a literal change I meant that no one believed the "observable properties" change.
