It sounds like so much theological gymnastics to me.
Maybe the most telling sign that it is theological gymnastics, is that you say the priest administering it has to declare not just “this is His body” but an actual transubstantiation, otherwise you don’t have a valid communion. The making of this extra claim is a step absent from the bible narrative.
Patristic writings are often very devout, but they have never equaled scripture in status and often appear distorted so as to exalt the churchmen.
Visit a Catholic Mass one day. The Eucharistic prayer is, of course, a prayer that is spoken on behalf of the faithful present and has a few variations. However, the Eucharist is consecrated by a close paraphrase of the words of Christ:
Take this, all of you, and eat of it:
for this is my body which will be given up for you.
Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
for this is the chalice of my blood,
the blood of the new and eternal covenant.
which will be poured out for you and for many
for the forgiveness of sins.
Do this in memory of me.
Surely you recognize the scripture behind each word.
Transubstantiation is a theory favored by Catholics, but it is not itself the doctrine of the Real Presence. Transubstantiation is one way to explain how what is bread and wine according to every physical test is nevertheless the Presence of Christ. The Orthodox don't explain the Real Presence at all; Lutherans offer a variation called co-substantiation. The transubstantiation is based on the medieval, even Aristotelian concept that things have substance and they have appearance (called more precisely in medieval philosophy "accidents"). Usually, the appearance follows substance, but there is nothing that by logical necessity ties accidents to substance. "Transubstantiation" is simply a way to say that in the Eucharist the appearance of bread and wine do not change, but the substance change. This is supported by the Emmaus episode when Christ breaks bread and then the disciples see Him.
The early Church did not teach transubstantiation but it taught Real Presence. St. Paul teaches Real Presence in 1 Cor. 11:29. Transubstantiation is a way to explain a miracle in rational terms. Maybe a next generation's Stephen Hawkins comes up one day with something in string/multiverse/quantum entanglement theory that explains how one thing becomes another internally but not externally, perhaps gradually the Church will accept that explanation as she accepted St. Thomas'. That will change very little, if it happens.