The Eucharistic doctrine of the 39 Articles is the same as that of the Continental Reformed, and this was by design. The correspondence between the English bishops and their Swiss counterparts substantiates this. The Anglican commentary tradition upholds it. It is not my opinion; it is undeniable historical fact. I’m just going by what their Catechism actually says, along with what’s been compiled in the Denzinger collection or summarized by Ott or Garrigou-Lagrange, and careful study of what the terminology itself meant at the time. All the attributes that we would call “physical” fall on the ‘accident’ side of the substance/accident distinction that the Roman Catholic Church used to craft its conciliar definition of transubstantiation. When it stated that the ‘substance’ of Christ’s humanity replaces that of the bread and wine, while the accidents of the bread and wine remain, this meant that none of Jesus’ physical characteristics were involved in the transformation. The “whole Christ” being indivisibly present in each and every particle of the Host is simply incompatible with medieval and modern notions of physicality, as I explained above. That’s the plain meaning of the conciliar text as it would have been understood at the time. What this core of essential humanity (that is nevertheless distinct from Christ’s soul, which is also said to be present), is supposed to be, I have no idea. But it is in any case a straightforward denial of any physical change. It is instead presented as something supernatural, beyond the reach of the senses and thus beyond imagination and comprehension, a mystery.