i hope you believe St John understood what the Eucharist is, whether it is merely bread or it is the Body of Christ.
after all, he was present at the Last Supper and we know he was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
now, if we agree on St John, can we also agree that Ignatius was taught what the Eucharist was by St John correctly? i am sure you were taught what your pastor thinks the Lord’s Supper is, just as Ignatius was taught by St John.
now, Ignatius wrote 7 epistles in the late first century just before he was martyred in Rome for his faith.
in one of these epistles, Ignatius says the Gnostics did not participate in the Eucharist because they denied it was the Body of Christ.
why do protestants continue with this gnostic heresy?
Christ and the Apostles made it very clear that we're to live by faith, not by having our personal understanding satisfied. In fact, I'd say that a good part of the weight of our cross in this modern world is the burden of believing things we cannot prove. The whole world pretends they believe that only what we can see, touch, measure, and prove scientifically, is real. Believing what Christ said is a real burden in that sort of world, especially when so many people either mock what Christ said or go to great lengths to explain why what Christ said isn't what you think He said.
It's always amazed me how so many non-Catholics answer questions by going to great lengths to show you that what Scripture says isn't what Scripture really means (in fact, that's the single biggest factor in my being Catholic now after spending most of my life non-Catholic), almost always by taking something from a different context and tossing it out. It's twice as amazing when your realize that those who are convinced that all they need is their own copy of the KJV of the Bible and their own understanding guided by whatever spirit shouts loudest are in reality creating a personal subset of the Scripture. First they select what they accept as it is written, then mix in the balance of the Scripture only after they interpret it to suit them self.
What else can you expect, really, when the originator of the Scripture Alone doctrine first threw out portions of the Bible as it existed at the time of Christ, then spelled out a hierarchy of which books in the NT were worthy and which weren't, and only then finally said "This portion of the Scripture Alone". Everyone who adheres to the same doctrine naturally feels free to do the same thing, find the portions they agree with or interpret to suit their own preconceptions and understanding and then proclaim, "This portion of Scripture Alone". Gnostics who hide the structure of their faith behind an elaborate scaffolding built from their own understanding and out of context Scripture is the result.
I know several people who cannot stand to simply let you read them the verses prior to and just after something they quote because it messes up their personal version of Scripture. In what they accept, verses other than those they quote just don't exist. They may as well redact that portion of their Bible. They believe the verses they've highlighted in various colors and believe those verses as they relate to other highlighted verses, not the entire Bible and not those portions that make them uncomfortable or might make them live by faith alone rather than by their understanding alone.
Reading what Christ personally said regarding the bread and wine is a perfect example. Non-Catholics for the most part read it, then start in on how Christ didn’t mean what He clearly said. More often than not, though, they become reenactors and make a smart remark then turn around and walk away from Christ just like people at the time did.
JMHO
Regards