"When Luther began to read what Paul wrote in the scriptures his catholic eyes were OPENED!"
Your assertion bears no relationship to reality. First, Luther was a professor of Sacred Scripture long before he rebelled. Second, he came up with all sorts of new doctrines when he began to substitute his own personal beliefs for what had always been believed by Christians. To do this, he even went so far as (among other things) to insert the word "alone" after "faith" in Romans 3:28 in his German translation of the New Testament--which, by the way, was far from being the first German translation of the NT. (For some reason, I guess, the Holy Spirit was unable to make that verse sufficiently clear for the uneducated to understand with out Dr. Luther's help.) Of course, the only place where the phrase "faith alone" actually exists in the New Testament is James 2:24, where the efficacy of "faith alone" is flatly denied.
Moreover, Martin Luther believed all his life that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly present in the elements of Holy Communion, as Lutherans do to this day, though in his later years he departed from strict conformity with Catholic doctrine in that regard.
On this topic more generally, the Catholic (and Orthodox) doctrine of the Real Presence of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist is so clearly spelled out in the Bible in numerous places (the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, St. Paul's account and reflections on it, and the Lord's own teaching at the Synagogue in Capernaum, related by St. John in his Gospel) that one can only be persuaded to explain them away by the desire to conform to some prejudiced belief, springing from false traditions of men that arose in the sixteenth century, contrary to the plain meaning of plain words in the Bible.
I suppose that is all in your perspective. Luther was attempting to restore the Catholic church but he soon found out that she was unreformable.
As for your plain words, I suppose that all depends upon how you take Jesus' literal words "This IS my body." I think it unreasonable to suggest that he literally meant that the bread he was holding in his hands would turn into his body. He literally indicated that he was referring to the present state of the bread, not its future state. And, I notice that the disciples didn't make any note that they were eating man flesh. Same thing with the wine. Not a single comment that they were drinking human blood. It does have a distinct flavor and I would have expected at least one comment, especially since it was EXPRESSLY forbid in the Law.
Christian.
Oh? How so? (Asked in genuine curiosity)