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.