“Appreciate your research, but the above referring to Luther’s view is incorrect.”
I’m aware the Lutherans dislike the word, but I don’t think it’s wrong to continue to use it:
“The fundamental disagreement over the Lord’s Supper focuses on four distinct views. These views include: first, the view of transubstantiation articulated by the Roman Catholic communion; second, the doctrine of consubstantiation articulated by the Lutheran community (We must note, however, that the word consubstantiation, though it is used widely in theological circles to describe the Lutheran view, is not a term that the Lutherans tend to embrace, and so we should honor their attempt to disavow this particular word.); third, the Reformed and Anglican affirmation of the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper; and fourth, the memorial-sign view of the sacrament espoused by Ulrich Zwingli and by the majority of those in the Baptist communities.”
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/battle-table/
I suppose you could continue to use it, but Lutherans object to it not because it is 'disliked', but because it is false representation.
Consubstantiation: that bread and body form 1 substance (a “3d substance”) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner
From your reference: 'the doctrine of consubstantiation articulated by the Lutheran community (We must note, however, that the word consubstantiation, though it is used widely in theological circles to describe the Lutheran view, is not a term that the Lutherans tend to embrace, and so we should honor their attempt to disavow this particular word.)"
In your efforts to present good info then please identify 3rd substance formed.