[MarMema]

I will tell the Greek Orthodox priest, whose words I copied verbatim above to you, that he should "revisit Orthodoxy" and "get back on the right track". I'll let him know that he is teaching that "which is not of the Orthodox faith" and especially that you know better than he does.
If you visit the website for the OCA, you will find the same statements made. But I suppose they should "revisit Orthodoxy" as well.

Have a nice Lent and Pascha.

[kosta50]

Read again what Metropolitan Philaret says in #123 and tell me if that fits what you are saying in #121. Is he wrong or is he just not telling the whole truth?

Then maybe your priest can explain why is Orthodox teaching different from consubstantiation, as defined and explained in #124.

And then finally you can tell you your priest why you are using his words verbatim without giving him credit or without giving specific sources.

[kosta50]

One more thing: I never mentioned the Council of Trent. You did. All I said is that the OC and RCC teach essentially the same thing. FYI, this is what the RCC teaches:

(from Wikipedia)

According to Roman Catholic dogma, transubstantiation is the change of the substance of the Eucharistic elements -- bread and wine -- into the body and blood of Christ (although they retain the physical "accidents" -- i.e. appearance, taste, texture, etc. -- of bread and wine). In more colloquial use, the term refers to any belief that the elements of the Eucharist become the body and blood of Christ, with or without reference to "accidents" or other technical details specific to transubstantiation, strictly speaking.

The "physical accidents", the created elements, can either be

(1) fully substantial, i.e. true bread and wine, in which case the Body and Blood of Christ "reside" with them, which is the doctrine of consubstantiation practiced by Lutherans,

or

(2) the bread and wine are altered or changed and only appear as such, and the Eucharistic bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus, seen and tasted as bread and wine (an illusion of bread and wine), but no longer real bread and wine, which the doctrine of transubstantiation or alteration (metavole).

There is no third possibility: the bread/wine are either an illusion or real, period. So which, is the teaching of the OC?

This of why the former is plasphemy, and you will know the answer.