It will be simpler if you supply literal quotes and references.
However, I will simply grant that they did speak thus for prosecuting the point: the Reformers left (some of) the language of the early church behind. And?
And they went back to Scriptural language. Moreover, the ECFs don't speak in only one mode, as if such sacrificial terms are all they use.
We might say: the Reformers chose the ECFs' better language, and dropped that which was unhelpful. Development can go in a bad direction, and often did. Which is why we have to keep coming back to Scripture and checking our progress. The early church is a mixed bag; so it has to be measured against the inerrant Word.
Furthermore, early church teaching (such as we have of it) would often simply borrow biblical language and employ it to make their point. This has up-and-down side. If the exegesis behind the borrowing is fine, the language is well used, though quoting doesn't replace teaching the substance of the theology the words are meant to convey. You still must teach the truth embodied in the verses.
However, the background exegesis was frequently lacking. Often (as will happen in any age, even our own) the apostles' intent by their words was evacuated, and in its place was substituted Greek philosophy, Gnostic ideas, or any number of errors. We have people today who read some verse of Scripture, and without skipping a beat assign it an anachronistic meaning that would never have occurred to the inspired writer; but actually reflects certain naïve linguistic assumptions of a 20th century interpreter.
Nor is the problem a function of "which century" either, but the early church was just as susceptible as any age. It became even more susceptible when Gentiles not only outstripped the Jews coming into the nascent NT church; but when Jewish entry slowed to a trickle.
An immediate benefit of practical acquaintance with the OT in the apostolic age (in the way of converts straight out of synagogues, many of which were already "elders," ready made for church-leadership, and lost in the following century) was the substantial presence of a "biblical mentality" coming out of an early counter-culture (Jewish flavored) to the dominant one (Greco-Roman).
All which to say: we value the ECFs, but we don't simply prefer a thought because it is old, as if all the ancients said has equal value. Not even Rome thinks that, but cherry-picks them for their own purposes--while claiming to be the ones who take them seriously (and use them correctly, etc.). But Rome also thinks of the Bible as her project, and the Fathers and the whole Magisterium as more of the same. We aren't going to give in on this point, nor assume Rome's "choice quotes" are properly contextualized (which they often are not).
So, again, please offer some specific ECF statement, and its source; and then there's something concrete to work with. But in any case, whatever we think of it, it isn't the Bible itself; and as Presbyterian and Reformed we're beholden to the Word.
Separation is what we're doing (I don't know what you mean by "neatly"), that is distinguishing the one from another; even if we insist on maintaining the connection between them. The correct questions being: "is it legitimate?" and "what sort of connection?" Furthermore, in your quote I'm not sure why Paschal Lamb is capitalized--unless you are referring to Christ, and in particular the Last Passover.
On that occasion it's obvious Jesus is not handing the disciples "sacrificial residue," when he hasn't even been slain yet; nor (as he is physically whole before them) does what they partake of actually function as his ritual sacrifice. What we consume (as a general observation) becomes part of us; and a shared meal means that those participating are united in the essence of what they share. In the Supper, the Lord eats with his people and shares himself with them as he connects the elements with his whole Person--who lived, died, and rose again.
The cross is central to this sharing; but the meal is not the sacrifice. It is the sign of the thing that was done, and the union that the done-thing made sure. Without the cross, there would be no people united to Christ; who are united to him chiefly at the point his death (on account of our acute need), but also to his righteous life, and to his resurrection. We are united to Christ, and to his particulars as explained in the gospel.
If all you wish to say is that the Final sacrifice of Christ, over past and done, he sets before you and says, "Peace;" that's consistent with language such as 1Cor.5:7 or Heb.9:11-15. But anything more challenges Heb.10:10-12 and the finished work of Christ. The pastor is not working priestcraft, the people are not finding acceptance with God with the immanent breaking of the body and shedding of the blood of the Savior. But it was (past tense) broken and shed, and we are seated by invitation of Him who loved us and washed us from stain.
The cross is where he was offered up; of course it was an "altar" of sorts. But Jesus is the Temple (Jn.2:21), all the furnishings are signs pointing to himself; so then the earthly instrument rots, burns, is overturned--it's gone; but the true altar is wherever he is. He's already gone into the Holy of Holies and made atonement, Heb.10:19. Now, we draw near, v22, at a Table in the sacred Presence (not at an altar without) in order to eat. These furnishings have very different functions.
I don't know if you understand what I was getting at. Ex.13:11-16 describes the consecration of every firstborn to God, e.g. done to Jesus Lk.2:22ff, as soon as his mother was purified. This ritual is distinct from the annual memorial Passover celebration; but this place in the Law of Moses was an ideal place to describe it. The Feast of Unleavened Bread mentioned very briefly in vv6-7 is connected to the memorial Passover (followed immediately in the Jewish calendar).
The offering for the Passover was not precisely the same as the peace-offering brought at will by members of the covenant community. However, such offerings were of the same nature, and were governed by the same general rules of the altar. There's a reason why the Passover had to be celebrated in the vicinity of Jerusalem; because, the priests killed the lambs and sprinkled their blood, and then the beasts were taken bodily, roasted, and eaten immediately.
We may observe the parts of the Israelite ceremonial system, and the whole of it distinctly. Israel's single altar was a focal point of unification for the whole panoply. The death of Christ is tied not merely to one aspect of Israel's typological worship; but to the entirety. But to reduce our field of vision once more to just the Passover as type: our Supper Table is to the death of Christ as the Israelite Passover Meal was to their passage out of Egypt, even unto the Red Sea passage. That is, sign compared to thing signified.
All this gets a bit distracted from my original point: that Israel's in memoriam Passover was not for the purpose of being taken again out of Egypt; or that without rehearsing the sacrifice again, the people would be sent back thither. It was to recall how they had been brought out already, and had received the promises made to Abraham.
You may need to define your terms. But to me, it's rather basic to describe the Lord's Supper as a "cultic meal." It is called "the Lord's Supper" in 1Cor.11:20. It was inaugurated on the occasion of one of Israel's primary feasts, not as a one-to-one replacement but essentially to supplant the entire ceremonial raft.
Inasmuch as Jesus sweeps aside the whole typological prefigurement, and puts himself in its place, he fulfills the whole. He has either done this all, and set Moses aside forever; or else... perhaps Rome has struck upon the proper course, and making an "altar" the centerpiece of her ritual she improves the participants, seeking thereby to justify them.
