I think the Orthodox problem with the scholastic notion of transubstantiation is at root the Orthodox problem with the admissibility of applying any binary distinction (as between 'substance' and 'accidents' or between 'real' and 'symbolic') to the Uncreated. The Holy Mysteries are first and foremost the 'normal' ways in which the Uncreated God manifests Himself in His Church. Thus, although 'substance' and 'accidents' may apply to bread and wine (if one is an Aristotelian, which, incidentally I am not for a variety of reasons, only some of which have to do with the Holy Orthodox Faith), they do not apply to Christ as truely present in His Body and Blood.
The quotation from Bishop Nikolai of Ochrid is probably due to bad translation in one direction or the other. The Confession of Peter of Moghila used the word 'transubstantiation' in connection with the action of the Holy Spirit at the eclepsis, but only received conciliar approval (at I've forgotten which council, only that it was held in what was then Moldova, though the site may be in modern Romania or modern Moldova) with an explanation which held that the word as used should not be taken as accepting the scholastic distinction between substance and accidents, but only as strongly expressing the reality of the change.