"The "revealed" belief of the Eucharist and Mary Eucharist didn't happened for about six hundred years later."
Not sure what "Mary Eucharist" is, but as for the doctrine of the Eucharist, well that's fully expounded, developed and in all ways identical with today's theology of The Church in +Ignatius of Antioch in the 1st, early 2nd centuries. By the late 4th century, when the Desert Fathers began writing, they all, every one of them, refer continually to the Eucharist, usually in passsing so it doesn't signify that this was any new idea, and always espousing the exact same theology about the Eucharist that The Church does today. Where did you get the idea that the Church's doctrines about the Eucharist developed in the 9-1000's?
"As Augustine noted in a Treatise on Predestination, he received his instruction from others in the Church. Augustine was not at odds with what the Church was teaching at the time. He was actually quite consistent with what was taught."
+Augustine's speculations on predestination were his own alone. If he picked up that idea from others, they weren't among the recognized Fathers (except perhaps from some of the writings of Tertullian that The Church anathemized, or those of Origen which met the same fate). His theories on predestination and even on what he calls "Original Sin" were far outside the consensus patrum.
--Augustine, A Treatise on Predestination
Cyprian's first Christian writing is "Ad Donatum", a monologue spoken to a friend, sitting under a vine-clad pergola. He tells how, until the grace of God illuminated and strengthened the convert, it had seemed impossible to conquer vice; the decay of Roman society is pictured, the gladiatorial shows, the theatre, the unjust law-courts, the hollowness of political success; the only refuge is the temperate, studious, and prayerful life of the Christian. At the beginning should probably be placed the few words of Donatus to Cyprian which are printed by Hartel as a spurious letter. The style of this pamphlet is affected and reminds us of the bombastic unintelligibilty of Pontius. It is not like Tertullian, brilliant, barbarous, uncouth, but it reflects the preciosity which Apuleius made fashionable in Africa. In his other works Cyprian addresses a Christian audience; his own fervour is allowed full play, his style becomes simpler, though forcible, and sometimes poetical, not to say flowery. Without being classical, it is correct for its date, and the cadences of the sentences are in strict rhythm in all his more careful writings. On the whole his beauty of style has rarely been equalled among the Latin Fathers, and never surpassed except by the matchless energy and wit of St. Jerome.--NewAdvent on Cyprian