I keep trying to tell people that the battle is being fought at the level of language. Yes, you are correct in discerning that seemingly subtle but very important distinction. To omit the article “the” transforms the word “Eucharist” into a dynamic ever-changing action, one that we effect or bring about rather than something that is static and fixed in time impervious to change. I’ve actually heard a person in my parish (as opposed to faith community, which is another semantically-challenged word) refer to the Eucharist as a verb; the title of the talk was “Eucharist As Verb.” My question was, “What’s the past tense?” But yes, using the word like that without the article places the Eucharist as something that we do rather than something that is. That’s erroneous. We are not Eucharist. Instead, we come to the Eucharist to receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. Remember this: “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi”; as we pray is as we worship. Changing the words changes the perception, changing the perception changes the habit, and changing the habit changes the worldview. So “Eucharist” is really the ostensibly innocuous wording that’s the Trojan horse for a dissenting world view of the Eucharist, what it is and what it does.
