What part of RC practice does
monstrosity (or something like that) to protect it, er - God,..
reveal?
the main question is that of veracity - not style.
True enough. But if veracity is your goal, why hinder its pursuit with such a style?
As touching veracity, truthfulness, it is hard to distinguish practice from thought, because practices have intentions. While we may speak of solicitude for the Body and Blood of our Lord, our reverence, at the least, is more to protect ourselves from the sin of profanation than to protect God. We believe that God can take care of Himself.
Taking that one phrase out of its context strips its meaning from it.
All authors use style to make points (”brood of vipers” comes to mind) - why would anyone denude themselves of it? My intent is not to give the impression that I have a mere difference of opinion on this issue. I stand with the reformers in thinking it is central to the issue of defining Christianity.
While actions are based on thoughts, one can see only the actions and can merely guess at the motives and thoughts.
As I do not see Biblical warrant for thinking that crackers and wine are Christ, I am not bound to honor or worship those bits of produce. I see in Scripture how the Lord released Himself from the teachings of the church in His day and had no sensitivity for the leaders thereof. His apostles followed suit.
Christ teaches grace to the humble, law and rebuke to the proud. People bound up in religion need to be freed from those shackles. Christ is not a religion - He is life for those whom He has redeemed.