Sorry guys. I'm stubborn. It's based on a made up term (concomitance) with what I believe where infiltrators of the church.
Cletus.D.Yokel,
"Continued discussion will not bring good fruit." said,
"Nope, you’re wrong both on the subject matter and your assessment of Aquinas." "My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." Therefore, only the flesh and blood of Christ are contained in this sacrament. But there are many other parts of Christ's body, for instance, the nerves, bones, and such like. Therefore the entire Christ is not contained under this sacrament."
-- From Thomas Aquinas book summa theologica.
Because the change of the bread and wine is not terminated at the Godhead or the soul of Christ, it follows as a consequence that the Godhead or the soul of Christ is in this sacrament not by the power of the sacrament, but from real concomitance.
-- From Thomas Aquinas book summa theologica.
concomitance (Catholic word used in the 12th century): The doctrine states that since Christ is indivisible, no one part of Christ's substance can be divided
https://aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/st-iiia-q-76#TPQ76A2THEP1 Transubstantiation w/ Fr. Thomas Joseph White, O.P. (Aquinas 101)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93lauv161ks The logic.
If I have a piece of steak from a cow. I'm eating part of the cow.
If I have a piece of steak from a cow. I didn't eat the whole cow.
using concomitance regarding body-bread of christ
If I have a piece of body-bread of Christ. I'm not eating part of Christ because it's not the whole of Christ.
I believe I have this right. Given concomitance was a term made up by people that is justifying eating the body-bread of Christ.
I believe Queen Elizabeth the first was correct in understanding what it means. I believe Christ was using that as a representation of him and not meant to be the actual body-bread of Christ. It was likely infiltrators that twisted it's meaning to weaken the church which it did.