Do you think that ONLY Catholics have the right interpretation of that passage of Scripture? Are you aware that the early church understood Jesus' words to mean a "by faith" receiving of Him and that "eating his flesh and drinking his blood" meant they had believed in Him? This article examines the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and a contribution from Origen in order to show that the ancient church never believed, taught or even conceived any doctrine like the real presence dogma:
http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/.
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
Yet you would reject the text which states that “this is My body”, this is “my blood”.
See, here’s the problem boatbums. You can cite Father after Father after Father, but in the end it comes down to this.
Do we see any of the fathers defend your position that communion is ‘symbolic’, and deny the Real Presence? I want to see it. Show me!
OTOH, Ignatius, with a better claim on apostolicity than anyone you mention, clearly teaches the Catholic doctrine.
So does Augustine of Hippo, who's supposedly "the first Protestant", or so we're told.
Of course it's clearly taught in Scripture as well, which is why there were no significant challenges to it until the 8th century.