Sorry, but among the people “slaughtered by Rome” — if you want to attribute the acts of Latin Christian governments like the Spanish in the wake of the expulsion of the Muslims from Spain to the Latin church — are a lot of *my* co-religionists: the Orthodox Christians who died when the Fourth Crusade forcibly installed a Latin Emperor at Constantinople, the Orthodox who died fighting the Teutonic Knights, or resisting the Unia when the Poles controlled the Ukraine. I can quote the Fathers against Rome: the plain meaning of many canons of the Ecumenical Councils renders absurd the Latin contention of universal ordinary jurisdiction for the Bishop of Rome, as does the plain meaning of the passage in St. Ignatius’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans which first applies the adjective “katholike” to the Church. We Orthodox number among the Fathers, St. Mark of Ephesus who condemned the Latin innovation of purgatory most eloquently in his “Against the Latin Chapters Concerning Purgatorial Fire.”
Stick to the topic: the reality of the Eucharist is not an “invention” of “Rome,” but a nearly universal Christian belief until Zwingli. Those who denied it prior to Zwingli were limited to the gnostic heretics who denied the Incarnation because they held the idea that matter is evil and the iconoclasts who had trouble with the reality of the Incarnation in that they would not admit that it is possible to depict the Incarnate Son and Word of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, depictibility being part of our human nature which He assumed in all things excepting sin alone. You seem to think that only “Rome”, which you want to vilify, believes that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, ignoring us Orthodox (and the Copts and Armenians and Assyrians and Lutherans and Calvinists until the last started following Zwingli).
Plain text of Scripture? Equating works of the Law with the Mysteries of the Church? You’re the one who is stretching the meaning there. And I’d be careful: what you call “hocus pocus” is, according to the teaching of the Holy Orthodox Church the action of the Holy Spirit. We Orthodox fault the Latins’ eucharistic rites since the abandonment of the Gallican rite in favor of the Tridentine for not making this explicit in an epiclesis.
It is your argument that ignores the plain text of the Scriptures: “This is my body,” “Drink ye all of it, this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins,” “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”
And most tellingly, you ignore and set at naught the plain meaning of Our Lord’s words: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”
How, pray tell, are we to eat His flesh and drink His blood as He tells us to, since He has ascended into Heaven, if the Eucharist is not really His body and blood? According to you, neither of us has any life in us since, according to you neither of us has eaten His flesh nor drunk His blood. Nor can we, in which case this is a very silly discussion and we might as well all become “eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” pagans.
Another battle in obamas war against Catholics and all Christians for that matter
Lest you wander away and attempt to dazzle us with your historical polemics, the plain text of Jesus' words do not allow for any transubstantiation. Do you actually believe (please be honest here), that Jesus transubstantiated the bread and wine into His own body and blood? Before the cross? Any reasonable reader can tell He is signaling what is about to happen. The prophetic words of the Lord are to tell the disciples, this is "it". "You must allow my death to be the price for your lack of righteousness."
Notice, Paul does not provide for much discussion in His epistles about taking bread and wine (I Cor.11), but an enormous amount of space explaining grace as a free gift given to those whom God has elect. Read Rom. Gal. Eph. Col. Heb. This fact escapes Orthodox and Romanists alike. They cannot allow God to actually be God, but must place man in the center of their "religiion". There is no such thing in the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31ff). Read the text. God will decide (Rom 9), God will then choose, God will then elect, God will then rescue without fail (John 6).
Your preoccupation with the Lord's Supper is indicative of a very nice religious man. That is, however, not the Gospel. We, "...who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, that you may obey Jesus and be sprinkled with His blood...who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope..." And, Peter goes on to provide the promises granted. Notice, we were chosen in order that we may obey. There is where we (and likely you) have "eaten" His flesh and drunk His blood. Not during a ceremony, but during your rescue...if you are among the elect.
And, your quote is actually from Solomon.