Another commentary:
Those, therefore, who treated the symbols of his body and blood with profaneness and contempt were united in spirit with those who put him to death. They evinced the same feelings towards the Lord Jesus that his murderers did. They treated him with scorn, profaneness, and derision; and showed that with the same spirit they would have joined in the act of murdering the Son of God. They would evince their hostility to the Saviour himself as far as they could do, by showing contempt for the memorials of his body and blood. The apostle does by no means, however, as I understand him, mean to say that any of the Corinthians had been thus guilty of his body and blood. He does not charge on them this murderous-intention. But he states what is the fair and obvious construction which is to be put on a wanton disrespect for the Lord’s Supper. And the design is to guard them, and all others, against this sin. There can be no doubt that those who celebrate his death in mockery and derision are held guilty of his body and blood. They show that they have the spirit of his murderers; they evince it in the most awful way possible; and they who would thus join in a profane celebration of the Lord’s Supper would have joined in the cry, “Crucify him, crucify him.” For it is a most fearful and solemn act to trifle with sacred things; and especially to hold up to derision and scorn, the bitter sorrows by which the Son of God accomplished the redemption of the world.
http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=1co&chapter=011
This interpretation is consistent with the idea, expressed several times before, that we identify and become one with others by our acts - and we can identify with the Lord’s body, or with his slayers. If we do the latter, is there any reason to doubt that God will judge us?
I’m still hoping to get a break from the craziness of today, to get a fuller reply to you... but for now, let me summarize my thoughts on these points:
1) You appeal repeatedly to a “plain sense of Scripture”, but you don’t seem to realize how subjective a standard that can be, and how question-begging it is. If one faithful, well-informed Christian says (after much prayer and study) that “the plain sense of Scripture is [x]” and another faithful, well-informed Christian says (after much prayer and study) that “the plain sense of Scripture is [not x]”, that creates a bit of a problem which cannot be settled by mere appeals to emotion, to personal preference, or the like (and certainly not by puerile, spiritualized playground taunts of “hard-heartedness” on the part of those who disagree with you).
2) Your appeals to Scripture completely beg the question of the CONTENTS of Scripture. You, as a Protestant, presumably follow the Protestant 66-book canon of Scripture, yes? Why? How do you know that the Letter of James is inspired Scripture (Luther didn’t think it was), and that the Second Book of Maccabees isn’t? “Scripture alone” is helpless to determine the contents of Scripture; surely you can see that?
3) You presume to criticize Catholic teaching, but every attempt you’ve made has proven to be a straw man; you simply don’t have a clear grasp of what you’re trying to refute. E.g. your portrayal of Sacred Tradition as (essentially) a “blank check” which the Vatican can use to “invent” whatever it likes is simply an ad hominem canard, with no proof behind it at all. (To illustrate: since you presume to set yourself up as your own “final authority” for interpreting Scripture, how would that prevent you from interpreting any part of the Bible to mean whatever pleases you—e.g. your denial of the Eucharist, despite overwhelming Biblical proof, the moral unanimity of the Early Church, and 2000 years of Church teaching against your opinion?)
As an example: for me, when Jesus says of the Eucharist, “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood”, and the Bible repeats it—clearly, unambiguously, and without qualifiers—(cf. Matthew 26:26ff, Mark 14:22ff, Luke 22:19ff, 1 Corinthians 11:24ff, etc.), I take the “plain sense of Scripture” to mean that the Eucharist (i.e. what used to be bread and wine) is exactly what He says it says: His Body. You don’t, and you proceed to tie yourself into a pretzel trying to explain away what any child could easily see. Jesus took the bread, blessed and broke it, and said, “This is My Body” of the bread of that last Passover Seder; and He said “the Bread that I will give is My Flesh, for the life of the world” (cf John 6:51); and that true teaching is passed on, and on, for 2000 unbroken years, to us who do not find it “too hard of a saying” and refuse to believe (cf. John 6). If Jesus had meant merely to “come to Him and believe”, then He would hardly have allowed most of His disciples to leave Him on the basis of a simple misunderstanding, nor would He have failed to explain the “true meaning” to the Twelve, as in other cases of misunderstood “parables”.
So... you appeal to your own fallible interpretation of a book for whose contents you cannot account (i.e. how did the books of the Bible get chosen, and by whom, and on what authority?), you restrict yourself to that book alone (even when that book does not require such, and you flatly contradict yourself by following that “sola Scriptura” requirement), and you reject the very Church, founded upon St. Peter, Whom Jesus established specifically for the purpose of protecting and carrying on His Revelation (both written and oral), Who has existed in unbroken succession since the time of Christ. Given the above, I hope you’ll understand why I won’t simply take your word for what this-or-that bit of Scripture means.
The Church claims to be infallible in its transmission of the Faith (and has an unbroken continuity of teachings whose core content, while clarified for different ages, has NEVER changed in essence, nor has it ever contradicted itself within); while you claim to be fallible. Can you see why I’d trust the Church, rather than (no offense intended) your own views, or the views of anyone else who presumes to set themselves up as their own “private magisterium”?