I tell you what since you claim this is so obviously a metaphor...can you name any early Christian to ever challenge this “heresy” the Catholic Church promotes? Any early Christian will suffice. There is a multitude to choose from.
Now to be clear, I am saying metaphorically/symbolically in context
to the "last supper" not everything in the word of God is figurative, literal, symbolic, Allegory, or prophetic. The context is established and authorial intent from all scripture both Old and New Testament. it is not either-or it is all contextually.
it is too, dishonest to say
" can you name any early Christian to ever challenge this “heresy” the Catholic Church promotes? ".
The early church had many issues as Paul addressed them as there was with the Lord Supper in
1cor chapter 11.
Many issues were addressed after the Apostles of Christ died for example
the deity of Christ. The Church needs time and the word of God to receive correction, clarity to what is godly. Gnosticism rose it's ugly head again.
Now to say :
"can you name any early Christian to ever challenge this “heresy” the Catholic Church promotes? ".
Well, can you name when THE EARLY CHURCH
started teaching the doctrine Transubstantiuon? NO. MANY ERRORS IN THE CHURCH TOOK TIME TO ADDRESS.
The word “eucharist” means “thanksgiving” and was an early Christian way of referring
to the celebration of the Lord’s Table.
Believers in the early centuries of church history regularly
celebrated the Lord’s Table as a way to
commemorate the death of Christ. The Lord Himself commanded
this observance on the night before His death. As the apostle Paul recorded in 1 Corinthians 11:23–26:
the church fathers who you hold their writing as authoritative said :
Tertullian clarified his understanding of the Lord’s Table by noting
that the bread and the cup were symbols of Christ’s body and blood. In that same vein, we find that many of the church fathers similarly clarified their understanding of the eucharist by describing it in symbolic and spiritual terms.
Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “
the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist,
in commemoration of His blood"(
Dialogue with Trypho, 70).
Origen similarly noted, “
We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).
Athanasius (296–373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “
[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven,
in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that
the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (
Festal Letter, 4.19)
it would appear those of the early church fathers agreed with the word of God and Paul. Not the RCC of today
Words matter.
Symbols, remembrance and commemorative do not transfer to become the blood and body of Jesus Literally.
You are in error. Take your church father's word for it if you won't take Pauls.