We reject attempts to interpret John 6, and the references to the body and blood of Christ in Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22 Luke 22:19 in any less than literal sense (e.g. as symbolic representation of Christ or a reference to the teaching of Christ), as we don't see such interpretations agreeing with the plain scripture.
Further, from the analogy to the manna of heaven, we derive that the Eucharist is something to sustain us along our journey of this life and toward everlasting life ("the children of Israel ate manna forty years, till they came to a habitable land", Exodus 16:35). We are also mindful of the words of Christ "that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill" (Matthew 9:12, Mark 2:17, Luke 5:31). For this reason we see the role of the Church similar to that of a hospital, where the sinner comes to become whole, -- rather than a courthouse where he is declared guilty or innocent.
Finally, we look at 1 Corinthians 11:20-30 where we discover that the Eucharist is to be taken in full and clean conscience: "he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord". It is therefore to the benefit of the follower of Luther that he, his belief in the Real Presence absent or deficient, not present himself to the communion. For the somewhat similar reason the Eucharist is not to be received by Catholics who have consciousness of mortal sin, as again, their act of communion would betray the fact of objective separation from Christ.
The Orthodox communion would be possible on the above grounds as their eucharistic theology does not differ from ours; in their case we simply ask them to follow the instruction of their bishops, and as soon as their bishops allow intercommunion, we would extend it to them automatically.
The remarriage is, of course, a totally different and much simpler issue. The Church allows divorce for prudential reasons, primarily for habitually adulterous or abusive marital situations. However, once a marriage is validly consummated, one cannot remarry, as Christ said "Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her" (Mark 10:11-12, similar in Luke 16:18). Some read the exception in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:19, "except it be for fornication", as allowing for remarriage after a divirce resulted from adultery. This is not the Catholic reading, as more naturally the text makes the exception for the divorce only, but not for remarriage, and our reading is consistent with the other two gospels where it is mentioned. Therefore, unless the failed marriage can be annuled on the grounds of a defect at its inception, the remarried couple is in adulterous relationship. They cannot receive the Eucharist unless they separate and lead chaste lives, just like any serious sinner who displays no purpose of amending his sinful ways.
One misconception is that annulment is "Catholic divorce". It is not, -- as unfortunate as it may be for many distressed marriages, it is only a defect at the inception of the marriage that can be grounds for annulment. Such defects are in all cases the absence of ability or intent to consummate a sexual union open to procreation. Examples are prior obligations such as monastic vows, mental incapacity, or lack of understanding of the lifelong and procreative character of marriage. It is, sadly, true that the serial-marriage contraceptive mentality of the secular world tends to produce invalidly conceived marriages in great number, and the number of annulments granted in the West is very high for that reason.
Calgary -> Calvary