I do not believe that the Orthodox reject transubstantiation. We dislike the word "transubstantiation" because of its connotations of Aristotlean philosophy and medieval scholasticism, but very few people today – even Catholics – use the word in the technically Aristotlean sense. Most people mean by transubstantiation simply the doctrine that the substance of bread and wine is changed into the substance of Body and Blood in the Eucharist, which is Orthodox. The Eastern Patriarchs in their Encyclical write that "the bread is changed, transubstantiated, converted, transformed, into the actual true Body of the Lord". They use four words here, including "transubstantiated", to show that they are equivalent in meaning. "Changed", "converted", and "transformed" are the common terms of the Fathers.
I'm still mystified by the current unexplained Orthodox dislike of transubstantiation. Its just a big Latin word which means "change of substance", and the intention in using it is to point out the bread and wine still look and taste like bread and wine, but they are now really the body and blood of Christ.
I'm curious for further explanation of the perceived problem with the term.
I'm still mystified by the current unexplained Orthodox dislike of transubstantiation.I believe we'll find that the Orthodox dislike the way the word has previously been defined. Despite who some may think, we aren't contrary just for the sake of being contrary. There's something represented by the term that the Orthodox see as erroneous.