Christ's Presence in the Eucharist

I read an article today from Grace to You detailing what they consider the "gruesome" and "biblically indefensible" idea of Transubstantiation (the Catholic doctrine that the Lord's Supper, during Mass, becomes the literal body and blood of Christ, while maintaining the physical appearance and attributes of bread and wine). The problem with the whole article, and indeed with many a protestant's objection to the idea, is that the argument is presented with bold, emotional language while very light on scriptural support, as though saying that it ought to be plain to any sane man that Jesus certainly could not have meant it literally when he said "Take this and eat it, for this is my body." (Matthew 26:26, NLT)

The typical protestant line is to regard the Eucharist entirely as a memorial, as though Christ had set up a figurative tombstone for himself by so that believers everywhere could see and remember his sacrifice.  That alone strikes me as puzzling, since the whole of the Gospel that we preach is entirely consumed by the death and resurrection.  Why, if it is no more significant than a ritualistic act of remembrance, would such a thing be bothered with?  Especially why, if this is all that it is, is it treated with such gravity in the rest of the scriptures?  Why does Paul, when writing to the Corinthians say "So anyone who eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." and "That is why many of you are weak and sick and some have even died." (see 1st Corinthians 27-30)?  Why the stress upon this particular act of sacrilege, as though of all the manners in which one might lightly deal with the things of God, beware lest you deal lightly with this?

I do not know that I believe in the strictly Catholic view of transubstantiation, but I do consider that the weakest support of all lies with the doctrine that the Eucharist is nothing more than symbols, no more than a memorial.  There is too much stress, too much significance placed upon the thing in scripture.  There is some manner of mystery present within the Eucharist, and I stand with Martin Luther who wrote:

"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? Or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.” (Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391)