Do you have anything you would care to add concerning discernment of the body? It was integral to question which you asked (of another) concerning as you put it "the Real Presence", yet you seem to not have been willing to come to any agreement upon that aspect of the wider discussion, nor have offered anything of your own to the contrary, leaving us all to guess, while you demand answers to yet more questions.
Was my own expose' as to discernment of the body not enough answer? What of the links? And from catholic legate as they call themselves --- what would you imagine they were speaking of there?
So just what is it that you are seeking? Do you not know yourself what He said to do in memory of Him, or need instruction on how to chew?
See here Article XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper and be responsible for knowing...
Or have your questions been as 21st century Inquisition, not intended to seek discussion or information either, but instead the questioning a seeking out of how to bring or establish some unspoken charge of theological crime -- of others (those pesky, other-than-Roman Catholic- Christians) having improper thoughts concerning the body of Christ?
If otherwise, you are in honest search for answers, then let us first establish precisely what it is we are talking about.
To assist us in reaching that precision, there is a question I will ask you to ask yourself. It is;
This flesh & blood said to be Real Presence in Eucharist; is that flesh and blood human, or (here's the meat of the question>---> has that flesh & blood which was His own human form been transformed in the Heavenlies to be that of Spirit? John 4:24
Chew on that, as the saying goes, then let me know and we can proceed from there.
First, and obviously, the answer to the question you entered the discussion to answer. The question is: Do what in memory of Him? Your answer was: "This do" in memory of Him.
Not a real answer.
The rest of your post obfuscates, avoids and goes off on other tangents. Tangents are fine - if one first answers the most pertinent question. Until then tangents are merely deflections.
The point of the question is to reveal the problems in wrong answers. Some try to have it that doing something "in memory of" means you don't really do it. Some try to substitute the memory of for the doing itself.
Some try to substitute something else entirely for what is to be done - as we saw in the conversation with the previous poster.
Applying the wrong interpretation in answering the question reveals the problem by being reduced to absurdity.
I think this is likely why their answer is avoided by some.