The idea that Christ is at the right hand of God has often been used as an argument against His Presence in the Host. I don’t think it’s terribly compelling, partly because the Eucharistic miracle is a supernatural one, not a natural one. And a supernatural body has properties that are not found in a natural one—else why was Christ able to move through walls and locked doors after His Resurrection?
God certainly could do such a thing if He wanted to. The only question is, did He? And to that both Scripture and the constant teaching of the Church since day one offer a resounding “yes”.
“God certainly could do such a thing if He wanted to”
That is a the clincher, isn’t it? But the Scriptures do not speak of Christ being omnipresent. He is spoken of as being either here or there or somewhere but not in several places at once, i.e., he has a particular location at a particular time and so the Scriptures describe him. So he is one or the other but not divided amongst numerous places and meals.
As to “compelling” the notion that bread and wine are changed into flesh and blood but still look, feel, taste and otherwise retain all the physical qualities of bread and wine, well compelling it is not.
Even the description, “His Presence in the Host” assigns location in some confused way since the bread and wine is supposed to actually BE his flesh and blood not just a thing he resides in. Maybe that bread and wine can pass through walls and locked doors?
But according to Jesus own words the only thing it will pass through is the gut and end up in the sewer since it really is bread and wine.