The context of the passage is the question of table fellowship and the hypocrisy of the church ritually symbolizing their unity in eating the bread while their praxis was social division. It was not a theological teaching; just a practical remonstrance to a chaotic church.
From Paul's Jewish tradition, he looked at communion as he did the Passover feast. Both symbolized freedom from bondage. The lamb of the first Passover did not mysteriously become the lamb of each celebration and the Lamb of the first Lord's Supper did not mysteriously become the bread of each communion celebration. Both continuous celebrations actualize the first in that the celebrants relive the first celebrations.
“Protestant desacralized theology”
There is no “Protestant desacralized theology”. We believe just as Jesus promised that where two or three are gathered together in His name there He is in the midst of them.
Which is why, incidentally, an Orthodox priest cannot chant a Divine Liturgy all alone.
You may infer all that, but like I said, the actual wording of the passage refers to the historical physical body of Christ in no uncertain terms right when it gets to talk about receiving unworthily. So what you say is true, but it is not the entire truth of that passage.
I do not see an evidence that Paul carried through the Jewish theology of commemorative yet distinct lambs into his Christian conversion. This passage, for sure, provides evidence to the contrary, since of course, there is but one sacrifice of Christ.