No, I don't miss this. I realize this is their
belief, and recognize it as such. I don't recognize that it actually happens.
You mean in Thomas Aquinas' explanation. In Catholic
theology, the eucharist is wholly Jesus.
Catholic Catechism states repeatedly that the "real presence" is total and absolute -
including the appearance of bread and wine, justified in that Jesus took on and became that "species" during the Last Supper. The "accident" isn't something that really or functionally enters into Catholic theology, as all gathered there agree that it's no longer bread and wine
at all. So much so that according to doctrine and catechism a eucharist
isn't a eucharist unless it's consecrated during mass. So in the video that started this all, and what that dude torched? Just a wafer, more likely than not.
I recognize their world view. I do not owe them agreeing with it, or acknowledging it as true.
Others manage to marry religion and science - even incursions of supernatural into the natural - just fine without contradiction. Personally, I would have less issue if it wasn't insisted that it's
actually flesh and blood, and in the same breath denying eating flesh and drinking blood. It's not mysterious, it's hiding behind symbolism.