The dogma of the Real Presence remained unmolested down to the time of Berengarius of Tours who died in 1088. Until that time, the real presence in the Eucharist was understood by all and taken for granted.
To the contrary, the earliest historical evidence of transubstantiation was in the 4th century.
"No consideration of the nature of consecration or the precise moment when it was effected appears in the early sources. In the fourth century, however, the idea of a conversion of the elements finds expression.
When that occurred, it became important to define the moment of the change." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 107)
A plain and honest reading of early church writings pre-200 AD clearly show the bread and wine is taken as figures (symbols) of Christ.
The words anti-types, figures, symbols, all point to the symbolic, not literal, nature of the elements.
"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "
figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have
been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)
"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat,
in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink,
in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70)
For Hippolytus, too,
the bread and wine are the antitypes or likenesses of the reality portrayed. His consecration prayer (VIII.5) contains both the words of institution and petition for the Holy Spirit. But
there is no suggestion of a change in the elements. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)
Ignoring the fact that no bible verses teaches transubstantiation in the Catholic sense, early church writings don't teach transubstantiation either. A natural reading of the texts is that the early church regarded the bread and wine as nothing more than symbols. It takes a lot of imagination to draw out the R.C. doctrine of transubstantiation from the early church writings pre-400 AD.
It is thought that transubstantiation is a doctrine that grew out of the Gnostic controversies of the mid second century. The Gnostics claimed that Jesus did not have literal flesh and blood,
it only appeared that way.
The bible easily proves transubstantiation wrong. After the said prayers, the priest regards the bread and wine as actually the body and blood of Christ. 1 Cor 11:26-27 proves transubstantiation wrong because Paul calls the loaf, "bread" after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the "change" was supposed to take place. In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, "this is my blood" and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, "fruit of the vine".
But even IF it is true that the Real Presence was believed from the very beginning as Catholics claim, let's take a look at the hypocrisy and false teaching of the modern-day Catholic church. In 1415 AD the Council of Constance decreed that the laity could no longer drink of the cup, but the bread alone. This contradicts the Scriptures and earliest church traditions that they
all drank from it. Frankly it contradicts the idea that Christ died for sinners. Surely sinners, not the priest, should be the first to have access to the blood of Christ.
When looking at history, we find a steady change of doctrine by the Catholic church from orthodoxy to apostasy, until even today the laity is denied the blood of Christ.