The problem with that 1954 W quote is that they drew conclusions from Paul's words.
Paul wrote in the context to which he intended. He was not writing in a manner to answer our questions.
And then there is the assumption that Paul actually knew what he was writing about. Just because Paul saw Jesus in a vision and angels acted upon him does not mean that everything that he thought and wrote was correct.
And the problem with associating the breaking of bread to the not breaking of his bones, is irrelevant. Breaking of bread was to give it to each person.
And back in the days of the 1954W, they assumed things because it was taught prior; and those things were taught prior, not because it was true, but because it seperated them from other religions.
Their changing and adopting a new understanding is not bad thing. It is like the supreme court looks at a law and facts in one point of view, then a later supreme court reverses that because it looks at it in a broader sense. Both are right, but the later is more right because it has more information.