Here is a good example.
Christ's presence in the Eucharist. A person can say He is truly, really, wholly, and continuously present. But you can't say He is physically present. That would be incorrect to a RC. Because to say that Christ is "physically" present would be to imply that He is "locally" present, which He is not.- "A Manual of Dogmatic Theology {New York: Desclee Company, 1959}, vol. II, p. 262.
That is why the Churxch says He is "substantially" present. That is why though Christ is present, He doesn't appear to be present. He is there in a unique way. So unique, says the Church, that there is no parallel in nature. This, of course, makes it difficult (or impossible) for anyone to understand the Eucharist. Or more importantly, TO CRITICIZE IT. _ The Gospel According to Rome. James G. McCarthy.
And that doesn't even scratch the surface. There is the "unbloody sacrifice" of the Mass, where the wine is wholly and completely turned into THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. The unbloody sacrifice? That's the most ridiculous double-speak that has ever been foisted on a pawn. And yet millions, no sorry, BILLIONS swallow it.
There is so much more, as I'm certain you may know. Abandon your lexicon? Bwhahahaha! We should be so lucky that you would have a lexicon with words that actually mean what they say. Of course you can't be wrong when you're on both sides of the issues and words, now can you?
...by you because you fail to understand the meaning of substance (as in transubstantiation). Don't blame your shortcomings on the Church.