There is no record of this belief before 100 AD. None. If this were a core truth of Christianity, one would expect to see commands and descriptions and examples. There are none. To say it happened is an argument from silence.
Nothing exists before 100 ad in the inspired Word of God. What people wrote hundreds of years later is irrelevant. Your argument attempts to make what was written much later - which is new to what appears in Scripture - equal as evidence of belief much earlier.
I disagree with your line of thought. By the time these “fathers” wrote, syncretic paganism had taken over by introducing many pagan ideas into church life - including the existence of a class of believers called “priests.”
The Catholic Church is expert at taking a later development and reading it back into Scripture, finding whatever hooks it can hang it on - a bit here and a bit there - to try to justify it. The authoritarian structure and mystical thinking leads to group-think.
What is the significance of the year 100 AD? Is that the year you think syncretic paganism took over all of the churches? The church in Jerusalem? The church in Antioch? The church in Alexandria? It is certainly centuries before the church in Rome had widespread influence.
While there may or may not have been writings before 100 AD, there were several writings shortly thereafter. For example, Justin wrote the following:
“For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” (”First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155)
And about 30 years after that, Iranaeus wrote:
“So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.”(”Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely Named Gnosis”. Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D.)
Dismiss them as irrelevant if you wish, but they cannot be dismissed as an argument from silence. And they certainly were not written centuries later.
By the same token, if the belief that the bread and wine are not transformed into the body and blood of Christ were a core truth of Christianity, one would expect to see evidence of this belief in the early church. One would also expect to see a contemporaneous refutation of the writings referenced above. The silence is deafening.
To restate my question, why are there no early church writings either expressing the belief that Christ’s actions at the Last Supper were merely symbolic or refuting the writings that say the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ?
All Apostles lived before 100 AD. If something was not taught before 100 AD, it is not part of the Apostle's teaching.
Dismiss them as irrelevant if you wish, but they cannot be dismissed as an argument from silence. And they certainly were not written centuries later.
These things were not written during the time of the Apostles. Nor do we know they were not tampered with - as was the Didache and other writings.By the same token, if the belief that the bread and wine are not transformed into the body and blood of Christ were a core truth of Christianity, one would expect to see evidence of this belief in the early church.
Yes. We do. It is referred to as a feast and as the Lord's Supper.One would also expect to see a contemporaneous refutation of the writings referenced above. The silence is deafening.
This is evidence of uniformity of submission to authoritarian structures. We were warned by multiple Apostles of the error that would creep into the Church. In Revelation, Christ condemns Churches that had already fallen into error and this was before 100 AD.
To restate my question, why are there no early church writings either expressing the belief that Christ’s actions at the Last Supper were merely symbolic or refuting the writings that say the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ?
There are Christian writings expressing the belief that Christ's presentation at Passover was symbolic. We call them the Bible.
Since the idea of transformation into the literal body and blood of Christ wasn't believed at that time, there was no reason to refute it.
Kind regards.
THINK! Is there blood distributing The LIFE of the real, physical body JESUS now occupies in Heaven? It was the influx of paganism into the Christian community, much centered in ROME that Polycarp went to Rome to oppose. The BODY JESUS now occupies in Heaven does not use blood to distribute the LIFE, so your paganized Mass is a farce! But you want to support this farce by citing Justin Martyr and others who were part of the influence of paganization of Christianity! THINK!
JESUS told you in His Upper Room Discourse that the bread and wine were symbolic. HE called the ritual a Remembrance, a replacement remembrance for the Passover, actually. You don’t want to believe JESUS because you would rather hold to your pride in following the sacramental trail through the broad gate.