"Is it your belief that the (Latin version) Catholic should not question the "Latin" explanation of the Eucharist without question or are you saying that no one, you, I, Protestants, any person, should not speculate on its' validity?"
I think "explanations" of the Mysteria are an almost sure way to fall into error. The Mysteria, we believe, are of God and so it is presumptuous far beyond the position of created beings to explain them. I think everyone, Latins, Orthodox, Protestants, you, me, Kosta, should, therefore, question ( and ultimately reject) explanations of what the Holy Spirit does at the consecration such as "transubstantiation" or "consubstantiation". For all I care, personally, people can question whether or not the bread and wine on the altar table actually becomes the true Body and Blood of Christ at the epiklesis. The Church, from the very beginning, has believed that. My people for the past 18-1900 years have believed that. But it is equally true that there were those from the earliest days who did not. God created us free, so it's not up to me to throw rocks at their heads.
I believe this is a reasonable approach. Actually much like my "Unitarian" view.
I am almost an old man now (not as old as Kosta who is really old!), and I'm not enamored of change. Age has taught me very, very little of real value (mostly I'm just disgusted) except perhaps a low level of humility and an appreciation for my own sinfulness. So I'll stick with what I know.
The older I get, the smarter I get. The smarter I get, the more I know of how little I really know. I am at the point where I put my fate in the hands of a loving God.
That is a pretty accurate satement, Old Reggie, as long as you understand that my "'warm' regards for Ortrhodoxy" are based on the historicity of the Eastern Church as the refelection of the original Church, and not a personal preference.