Exceptions don't prove the rule. Any number of explanations can be given for what supposedly happened in those few incidences, but it should always be happening if it were really true that, when the priest consecrates the bread and wine, they truly change into the real human flesh and blood of Jesus. If one were being honest, she/he would admit that they don't change in any observable way and that it MUST mean a spiritual representation. Even when Jesus first initiated the observance, he spoke symbolically and he was understood that way.
It was only centuries later that those who thought some sort of miracle MUST be going on in order for the "sacrament" to be a measure of grace decided to develop the doctrine of transubstantiation. It wasn't until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, that the Catholic Church formally adopted the doctrine of transubstantiation as its official teaching. This was confirmed by the Council of Trent (1545), which also asserted that the Lord’s Supper was a propitiatory sacrifice for sin.
If you would like more information about the development of the doctrines and the writings of early church theologians concerning it, please see The Eucharist.
Any number of explanations can be given for what supposedly happened in those few incidences, but it should always be happening if it were really true that, when the priest consecrates the bread and wine, they truly change into the real human flesh and blood of Jesus.If people remain ignorant to His miracles ("Who painted that?" said Hillary Clinton in regard to Juan Diego's tilma), what more can He possibly do? Today at Mass (at our "country" parish, located in an area where the deer and the antelope play, or at least the deer do) there were over 50 in attendance, from a child as young as three with her mother, to a home-schooled family that took up the pew, a UIllinois college student home on spring break, many middle-aged peeps, both male and female, and oldsters too (some with canes or crutches).