You do realize that, except for gnostics and iconoclastic heretics (two groups that had trouble with the reality of the Incarnation), no Christian of any note prior to Zwingli denied the reality of the Eucharist as Christ's very Body and Blood? Not the Latins (you call them "Catholics", why do you do that? do you credit their claim to be the universal Church?), not us Orthodox, not the monophysites (Copts, Syrian Jacobites and Armenians) not the Nestorians (Assyrians), not the first generations of Lutherans, not Calvin and those of his followers who didn't adopt Zwingli's views. We might quibble over whether the Latins' use of Aristotelian categories to describe the miracle is appropriate (we Orthodox don't like applying Aristotelianism to matters of the Faith, and the Copts and Assyrians aren't wild about it either), we might quarrel with the Latins and Armenians over their use of azymes in place of artos for the Eucharistic bread, but we all agree that Jesus should be taken at His word at face value when He instituted the Eucharist.
You do realize that there is no contradiction between celebrating the Eucharist in remembrance of Christ (the anamnesis is a part of every traditional Eucharistic rite East or West) and when this is done the Holy Spirit making the elements of bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ so we can literally fulfill His command that we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood that we might have Him and the Father abiding in us, and might have life.
To believe otherwise you need to insert a non-existent "only" into the passage you quote against the vast majority of Christian believers, and read large swaths of Scripture non-literally.
No, my FRiend, there is a mountain of "difference". And, for a moment consider...nowhere does the text indicate any of the "processes" the RCC has manufactured over the centuries to attempt this "literal" change. Notice, Jesus never said, "By the way, when this comes up after I am gone, you will need a special man (I'll designate him a priest) to have special bread baked and special wine set aside in a chalice. Then, at a moment, he must lift it up and say certain words over it for the actual transubstantiation to occur. Then, he must "administer" it to parishoners who line up and walk across the stage. This is what I mean by 'doing this in remembrance of me'."
Compare that to eating bread and drinking wine and saying, "I remember you Lord Jesus".
And, yes, there were many believers who saw this second understanding as the correct one. Paul and Peter, for example. Nowhere in Scripture do either of them refer to a "transubstantiation" ceremony. Your club made the whole thing up...and we invite you to abandon their chains and find rescue in Jesus, alone...if God permits you (Rom. 9).