"I know what Catholics believe about communion and I disagree with it anyway, which I realize is beyond the comprehension of most Catholics."
I think you will find that most Catholics of the Orthodox persuasion understand where you are coming from fully. We're odd that way. We are not, as you have seen here, very "evangelical". You believe what you believe. We believe what we believe. "We have seen the true light; we have received the heavenly Spirit; we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, for the Trinity has saved us." as we chant in the Liturgy. If anyone wants what we have they can have it. If not, that's OK...have another cup of cafe and perhaps a piece of baklava!
"Some people just don't get that I can understand what they're saying and choose not to believe it." Kosta and I do.
"That said, I find plenty of Scriptural support for the conclusion that the elements in communion are and remain simply bread and wine and are representative of Christ, just as they were in the Passover meal. Having them become the LITERAL flesh and blood of Christ violates too many other passages of Scripture and since Scripture doesn't contradict itself, that means that the literal flesh and blood interpretation is wrong."
The belief that the bread and wine on the altar table, through the power of the Holy Spirit, become in some way we do not understand the true Body and Blood of Christ is among the most verifiably ancient beliefs of The Church. Mere antiquity, of course, guarantees nothing. It does mean, however, that the bishops who determined the canon of the NT in the 4th century actually believed it. Why do you suppose they would have canonized scripture which, it appears to you and millions of others, clearly contradicts that fundamental belief? BTW, I can understand questioning the Latin explanations of what happens at the consecration. You know, mysteries are just that, mysteries. And perhaps the less speculation the better about the nature of Divine Mysteries lest in doing so we misunderstand and fall into error.
Perhaps if they knew that the word for sacrament in Greek is μυστήριον (mystérion), or a secret, something hidden and inaccessible to human reason, they wouldn't try to explain it rationally. That's why faith (trust) is required without any proof; it can only be accepted, believed and hoped for—blindly.
What I find interesting, just as an observation, is that the Orthodox beliefs seem to be much closer in doctrine to Protestant and yet the reaction to the two is totally different.
We’re heretics for not believing in transubstantitation, you’re not.
Same with much of the teaching on Mary.
It’s very curious and leaves one with some food for thought as to why.
What is it that you and Kosta believe in common? :-)
BTW, I can understand questioning the Latin explanations of what happens at the consecration. You know, mysteries are just that, mysteries. And perhaps the less speculation the better about the nature of Divine Mysteries lest in doing so we misunderstand and fall into error.
I am having difficulty understanding just what you are saying. 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?