“JND Kelly disagrees with you”
JND Kelly doesn’t disagree with me, since you’re quoting him speaking on the Real Presence, not transubstantiation. That is, that despite their belief in the distinction between the symbol and the reality, that the reality was, in some way, present in the symbol. In his chapter on the development of doctrine on the Eucharist:
“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realistic... Among theologians, however, this identity [realism] was interpreted in our period in at least two different ways, and these interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic, were often allowed to overlap. In the first place, the figurative or symbolic view, which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and reality they represented, still claimed a measure of support. It harked back, as we have seen, to Tertullian and Cyrpian... Secondly, however, a new and increasingly potent tendency becomes observable to explain the identity as being the result of an actual change or conversion in the bread and wine.”(JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine pg 440)
Kelly asserts that an actual change in the elements, IOW, such as transubstantiation, is the later view, whereas the earlier view is the symbolic view, or the consubstantiation view. Keep in mind, what you’re looking for is evidence of transubstantiation. That is, that the symbols aren’t symbols at all, but actually become the real physical body of Jesus Christ. Consubstantiation or a spiritual presence within the Eucharist does not aid you. Kelly is an Anglo-Catholic, so I do disagree with him a great deal, but he does not support Roman theology.
That is simply an exercise in double talk. Anyone competent enough in philosophy to write credibly on Catholic teaching, particularly a professor at Oxford, would not discuss elemental change in the context of transubstantiation. Elemental changes would be limited to the properties of the Eucharist.
Peace be to you
Note that J.N.D. Kelly also states that Ireneaus, Tertullian, and Origen all felt Mary had sinned and doubted Christ. (Early Christian Doctrines, 493)
And that,
“Cyprian made plain, that each bishop is entitled to hold his own views and to administer his own diocese accordingly...[In Cyprian’s view] There is no suggestion that he [Peter] possessed any superiority to, much less jurisdiction over, the other apostles...While he [Cyprian] is prepared, in a well-known passage, to speak of Rome as ‘the leading church’, the primacy he has in mind seems to be one of honour.” (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], pp. 205-206)