So the celebration depends upon 1) human words and 2) the “proper” understanding of those words? Otherwise the Real Presence Jesus doesn’t show up?
My understanding is a bit more nuanced than that, perhaps too nuanced for your taste. When we gather for the Lord's Supper, the words of institution are not some form of magical incantation that when intoned produce the effect of the real presence of Christ in the sacramental elements. Rather, what the verba do is to serve as a reminder of the promise that Jesus made when He first gave this meal to His people, with the further command to do this, and an indication that it is that which we are intending to do. Thus, it is not necessary for the verba to be spoken in the Greek as it was originally stated, nor in the exact work order. It is not magic hocus pocus words. However, if by their confession of faith, those who preside change the meanings of the words to something other than what Jesus promised (as, for example, no longer "This is my body" but rather "This symbolizes my body") then arguable they are no longer intending to participate in what Jesus offered and offers.
It's more likely that Jesus spoke the words in Aramaic, the language of the people, or Hebrew, the language of Jewish worship. Greek was the language of commerce and more easily written than the others.
When Jesus instituted the Supper, was he "in, with, and under" the bread and cup; or was he sitting at the table with the disciples? When we celebrate the Supper, how is Jesus "sitting at the right side of Power,"* and "in, with, and under" the bread and cup?
*Matthew 22:44 (quoting Ps 110:1); 26:64; Mark 12:36 (quoting Ps 110:1); 14:62; 16:19; Luke 20:42 (quoting Ps 110:1); 22:69; Acts 2:33, 34 (quoting Ps 110:1); 5:31; 7:55, 56; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3 (quoting Ps 110:1), 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22.
Biblical, there are more passages affirming Christ's presence at the right side of God.
In addition, Paul is clear that the resurrected body has to be a different type of body than the one we have on earth. Paul uses a number of different contrasts in 1 Corinthians 15:
perishable || imperishable (vv. 42, 50, 52, 54) (φθορά/φθαρτός || ἀφθαρσία)
dishonor || glory (v. 43) (ἀτιμά || δόξα)
weak || power (v. 43) (ἀσθενεία || δυνάμις)
physical || spiritual (v. 44) (ψυχικόν || πνευθματικόν)
of earth/dust || of heaven (vv. 47ff.) (ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός || ἐψ ούρανοῦ)
mortal || immortality (v. 54) (θνητός || ἀθανασία)
It seems perfectly logical to talk about Jesus' resurrected body as a "spiritual body." So, what's wrong with talking about Jesus' bodily presence in the sacrament as his "resurrected, spiritual body"?