As one who elevates the consecrated Body and Blood of Christ, and who genuflects after the consecration Verba (and one who reserves the Sacrament for use later in the week with shut-ins (and does recidt the Verba as declaratory, though some ask simply to receive as they know if comes from the altar) or the next celebration, I do draw the line on Exposition of the Eucharist, as it is specifically mentioned in our Confessions as an abuse.
I still encounter " receptionism", particularly at our Circuit Pastor Conferences, where most of my brothers simply regard the remaining elements mere bread and wine after the appointed " use" is completed.
We must acknowledge that our practice and theology of the Real Presence continues to be inconsistent amongst us.
When I introduced the use of an Aumbry (and I also accept Tabernacle as equivalent) as a place to reserve the consecrated Body and Blood of Christ in simple, dignified reverence (as opposed to a return to common use or as bird food), some of our members expressed wonder, but as I have consistently catechized a Real Presence that is not merely rhetorical, even my most polemical have respect that I am being consistent.
The lack of consistency amongst us is, in my judgement, the main reason why the retrieval of a Trent-era phrase affects us in different ways. I am more troubled by the genesis of such descriptors from the Trent era to be more of a "stick in the eye" to Vatican II emphasizing Roman Catholics than to Lutherans, who in EWTN sensibilities are totally inconsequential and worthy of simple ignoring.