What is described above is the RC doctrine of transubstantiation, particularly the statement that the bread and wine cease to exist. This is not Orthodox doctrine.
Orthodox doctrine does not negate the created nature of the bread and wine. Instead, the Eucharist is understood as symbol (symbolon) but in the original Greek meaning of the term. A symbol is the place at which two disparate meet, in this case the Uncreated and created.
The Uncreated does not negate the created.
The break and wine, then, remain bread and wine while also becoming the body and blood of Christ. The Holy Spirit transforms the gifts, but does not change the gifts' created nature. Rather, the created and Uncreated coexist, they become one. The created becomes the means by which the Uncreated is revealed.
Hope this helps. It is basic Orthodox teaching. I am surprised that you would find the Council of Trent to be of greater authority than the teachings of your own church. This is all in line with our underlying theme of the Incarnation.
I am finished debating this issue. I have debated it here many, *countless*, hundreds of times, perhaps. Ask any older freeper how often we have done this debate here on the religion forum.....
I have spoken to clergy in Russian, Greek, and Romanian churches in this area and rec'd the above same answer from them all, as I have from the OCA clergy. Your opinion does not carry the weight of their teachings. I am very sorry if that offends you.
Both coexisted in the person of Christ. He was fully God and fully man - the God/Man.
In the Eucharist, we are joined to Christ by body and blood, we become one with His humanity so that through Him we might encounter divinity. This would not be possible if the bread and wine somehow ceased being a created thing.