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.
You keep arguing against Latin doctrines. Transubstantiation is an attempt to give a rational Aristotelian explanation for the incomprehensible action of the Holy Spirit. We Orthodox don’t use the word because we don’t think you can stuff God or His actions into Aristotelian categories (actually the inapplicability of all binary distinctions and created categories to God has been one of the touchstones of Orthodox theology since at least the Cappadocian Fathers, and maybe earlier depending on how you date “On the Divine Names” traditionally attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite.) We tried John Italus for heresy for trying to explain the Eucharist in Aristotelian terms — though he got his teaching job back when he recanted, unlike what the Latins did to Galileo when they tried him for denying Aristotle’s cosmology and locked him up in straight prison after he recanted.
I suspect further discussion is rather pointless. I read the Scriptures in the hermeneutic tradition of the Orthodox Church which (on this point in agreement with the Latins, Copts, Assyrians, Lutherans and pre-Zwingli Calvinists) takes Our Lord’s words in the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John as one of the parts of Scripture to be taken literally. You read the Scriptures in a hermeneutic tradition that seems to be shaped largely by drawing contradistinctions between your position and that embraced by the Popes of Rome, and reads those passages in a metaphorical or spiritualized sense, then goes to great trouble to stretch the meaning of other parts of Scripture to explain not taking Our Lord’s words in the sixth chapter of John literally. Neither of us will convince the other to abandon their hermeneutics, so further posts are really pointless.
If you regard FR threads as verbal duels, you are welcomed to reply one last time, but I will not answer.
May God bless you and the Holy Spirit indeed lead you into all truth.