The word "eucharist" is from the Greek "eucharistia", which means "thanksgiving".

As far as history can determine, the first person to write a book exclusively on the Eucharist was Paschasius Radbertus in 831. The book was called On the Body and Blood of the Lord. Although he did not use the term, he taught transubstantiation, the belief that the substance of the bread and wine really become Christ's body and blood by faith.

Paschasius took a literal as opposed to a figurative view of Christ's words, "This is my body broken for you." Very quickly he made his main point and hammered it home through many arguments. "Yet these [the bread and wine] must be believed to be fully, after the consecration, nothing but Christ's flesh and blood." In Paschasius' view, God miraculously creates the physical, historical body of Christ in the Eucharist anytime the loaf is consecrated. "That in truth the body and blood are created by the consecration, no one doubts who believes the divine words when the Truth says: 'For my flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink.'" If that is so, what does the unbeliever eat, who accepts the bread without faith? Since he does not discern Christ's body, says Paschasius (quoting the Apostle Paul), he eats judgment to himself.

-----------
Contemporaries criticized the abbot's view as too crude and materialistic. Most argued for a more symbolic interpretation of the body and blood. Paschasius defended his views in a famous letter. Being a well-read scholar, he was capable of putting up a stout defense. He attempted to show he was in agreement with the writings of the church fathers.
Berengar of Tours developed similar concepts in the eleventh century. The word "transubstantiation" was in widespread use in the West by the later part of the 12th century. Belief in transubstantiation was defined at the Lateran Council of 1215. Further formulation awaited Thomas Aquinas and his use of Aristotelian methods of argument in the 13th century. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) reaffirmed the doctrine. It was (and is) one of the main issues that separate Protestants and Catholics.
http://chi.gospelcom.net/DAILYF/2001/04 ... 2001.shtml

Okay, I told you I would read St. Ignatius of Antioch's letters. I found the following notes in the first one, which is a very interesting note that confirms what I have been saying all along and that is that Catholicism is forcing what it wants you to believe on your Early Church Fathers.

[1] The words 'in every letter.' are difficult. Pearson translates 'throughout his letter,' and refers it to the Epistle to the Ephesians. There are, however, references to the Ephesian Christians and to Ephesus in several of St. Paul's epistles, e.g. Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xv. 32, xvi. 8, 19; 2 Cor. i. 8 sq.; 1 Tim. i. 3; 2 Tim. i. 18, iv. 12.
[2] Lit. 'come together for thanksgiving.' The word e??a??st?a is here probably used generally, but indirectly refers to the Eucharist.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/s ... sians.html

Now, I found this also:

VIII. I write not this, because I have learned that any such evil has happened among you, but I keep guard over you beforehand, since you are my beloved, and I foresee the snares of the devil. Take up then the armour of gentleness and renew yourselves in faith,[2] which is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, which is the blood of Jesus Christ. Let no one among you have aught against his neighbour. Give not occasion to the heathen, that the godly multitude be not evil spoken of on account of a few foolish men. For, ' Woe [3] unto him through whom My Name is idly blasphemed before some.'

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/s ... lians.html

St. Ignatius writes that faith is the flesh of Jesus and love is the blood of Jesus and nothing he writes supports transubstantiation as a concept taught by St. John.

IV. Therefore give heed to keep one Eucharist.[7] For there is one flesh [8] of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup unto union with His blood. There is one altar,[9] as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants; that whatsoever you do, you may do according unto God.


[7] Cf. Smyrn.8. With the exception of the reference in the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, c. 9, these passages of Ignatius are the earliest certain instances of the name 'Eucharist' applied to the Holy Communion. In Clement of Rome, c. 41, however, the verb e??a??ste??, 'to give thanks,' is used of the public service of the Church, and probably refers to the Eucharist.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/s ... hians.html

Now I have two letters to read and am still looking for any reference that the Eucharist is in fact the actual body and blood of the Lord per St. Ignatius.

I. I render glory to Jesus Christ the God[1] Who has given you such wisdom. For I have perceived that you are firmly settled in unwavering faith, being nailed, as it were, to the Cross of the Lord Jesus Christ[2] in flesh and spirit, and firmly planted in love in the blood of Christ, being fully convinced as touching our Lord that He is truly of the race of David after the flesh, and Son of God after the Divine will and power,[3] truly born of a virgin, baptized by John, that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him,[4] under Pontius Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch [5] truly nailed for us in the flesh (of Whose fruit are we,[6] even of His most blessed Passion); that He might raise up an ensign [1] to the ages through His resurrection, for His saints and believers, whether among Jews or Gentiles, in one body of His Church.[2]

[1] The Armenian and Coptic versions omit the words 'the God.' On the other hand, the Greek text and the Latin version contain them, and the passage is quoted by two Fathers of the sixth century with the words inserted. On Ignatius' use of the word 'God' as applied to Jesus Christ see Introd. § 4.
-----------
VI. Let no man be deceived. Even the heavenly powers and the glory of the angels and the principalities both visible and invisible,[1] except they believe in the blood of Christ [Who is God],[2] have a judgment awaiting them. Let him that receiveth receive[3] Let not office puff up any man. For faith and love are everything, and there is nothing better than these. Mark those who hold strange doctrine with regard to the grace[4] of Jesus Christ, which came unto us, how opposed they are to the mind of God. They have no thought for love, nor for the widow,[5] the orphan, the afflicted, the prisoner,[6] the hungry nor the thirsty. They withhold themselves from Eucharist[7] and prayer, because they confess not[8] that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which in His loving-kindness the Father raised up.

[2] The words in brackets are found apparently in two quotations of this passage in writers of the fifth and sixth centuries, but they are omitted by the Greek text and the Latin, Armenian, and Coptic versions. Against their genuineness is the fact that Ignatius never speaks of Christ as 'God' in this absolute way. See Introd. § 4.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/s ... aeans.html

Okay, I have finished all of St. Ignatius’ letters. The above reference to the flesh and blood of the Lord does not equate to how Catholicism interprets “the real presence”. It is ambiguous and can also be understood the same as most non-Catholics understand the elements of the Lord’s Supper.

I could find no reference to Mary, purgatory, praying to the physically dead, and etc. If I missed any reference to any Catholic dogma rejected by me then please point it out.

transubstantiation Look up transubstantiation at Dictionary.com
1398, "change of one substance to another," from M.L. trans(s)ubstantiationem (nom. trans(s)ubstantio), noun of action from trans(s)ubstantiare "to change from one substance into another," from L. trans- "across" + substantiare "to substantiate," from substania "substance" (see substance). Ecclesiastical sense in reference to the Eucharist first recorded 1533.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?sea ... hmode=none

Judaizers

(From Greek Ioudaizo, to adopt Jewish customs -- Esther 8:17; Galatians 2:14).

A party of Jewish Christians in the Early Church, who either held that circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic Law were necessary for salvation and in consequence wished to impose them on the Gentile converts, or who at least considered them as still obligatory on the Jewish Christians. Although the Apostles had received the command to announce the Gospel to all the nations, they and their associates addressed themselves at first only to Jews, converts to Judaism, and Samaritans, that is to those who were circumcised and observed the law of Moses. The converts, and the Apostles with them, continued to conform to Jewish customs: they observed the distinction between legally clean and unclean food, refused to eat with Gentiles or to enter their houses, etc. (Acts 10:14, 28; 11:3). At Jerusalem they frequented the Temple and took part in Jewish religious life as of old (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 21:20-26), so that, judged from external appearances, they seemed to be merely a new Jewish sect distinguished by the union and charity existing among its members. The Mosaic ceremonial law was not to be permanent indeed, but the time had not yet come for abolishing its observance. The intense attachment which the Jews had for it, amounting to fanaticism in the case of the Pharisees, would have forbidden such a step, had the Apostles contemplated it, as it would have been tantamount to shutting the door of the Church to the Jews.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm