Nay, your affirmation that it is a community-building sacrament is consistent with the interpretation you deny, as you must, to replace it with one that is based upon supposing that “this” means “turned into” rather than “represents.”
However, as said before, the latter of which is what the immediate and larger context and allegorical use of eating/drinking most warrants, rather than having normally inquisitive apostles simply drinking blood, without a word of explanation for such a novel, radical miracle, and which they had to understand was such in order for it to be efficacious.
And in which believers sppdly receive life in them by literally eating and drinking a cup, which they must continually do, rather than the Scripturally proven means of believing the gospel and becoming born again before ever eating anything.
And which, unlike what RCs overall daily show by eating the wafer and drinking the cup, results in manifest change. And who live that life out as Jesus did, by the scriptures, (Mt. 4:4) which was Jesus example of how to live by eating him in Jn. 6:57, and the doing of which was His “bread.”(Jn. 4:34)
Rather than go one and explain this more, as has been done, it is obvious you cannot even consider any other explanation so i must leave you to Rome’s ritual and its developed doctrine.
The Eucharist is both communion with God and one another;; I deny that it is ONLY communion with one another. Further, both directions of the communion occur sacramentally rather than on a purely social plane and so they are communion not with the memory but rather with the actual blood shed for us by Christ.