Both teachings say the same thing -- bread is Flesh and wine is Blood. We "know" it in ways we know of God -- we simply don't know.
The difference between the East and the West is that we save paper and energy trying to "figure out" God through philosophy and logic (!), and spend that energy in adoration od his Glory, because the Truth revealed to the Apostles that has been passed on to their successors is unchangeable and our lack of understanding doesn't make it less true. But our rendering of that Truth is not perfect and is subject to scrutiny.
By the way, I had the incredible opportuniy to attend the Holy Liturgy in Tokyo of all places. It was a three-hour pontifical liturgy, with the Metropolitan leading the bishops. No words could explain the beauty that it was. There must have been a thousand beeswax candles lit in the Cathedral and the singing, which was absolutely intoxicating, was in Japanese with an occasional Slavonic introjection -- especially the Trisagion. Except for the very, very old, everyone stood throughout the service. There were many prostrations. It was simply divine for the lack of a better word.
Suit yourself. :-)
Orthodoxy is above all, an experiential faith, so I cannot even conceive of why you would say what you have said above.
"Genuine Orthodox theologizing is theologizing on the basis of spiritual experience."
"Where shall we seek criteria of truth? All too often men seek these criteria in what is lower than truth, in the objective world with its compulsions, seek criteria for spirit in the material world. And they fall into a vicious circle. Discursive truth can provide no criteria for final truth: it is only at the half-way mark, and knows neither the beginning nor the end. Every proof rests upon the unproven, the postulate, the created. There is risk, and no guarantee. The very search for guarantee is wrong and really means subjecting the higher to the lower. Freedom of the spirit knows no guarantees. The sole criterion of truth is truth itself, the light which streams out of it. All other criteria exist only for the every-day, objective world, for social communication."
Nikolai Berdyaev
What is described above is the RC doctrine of transubstantiation, particularly the statement that the bread and wine cease to exist. This is not Orthodox doctrine.
Orthodox doctrine does not negate the created nature of the bread and wine. Instead, the Eucharist is understood as symbol (symbolon) but in the original Greek meaning of the term. A symbol is the place at which two disparate meet, in this case the Uncreated and created.
The Uncreated does not negate the created.
The break and wine, then, remain bread and wine while also becoming the body and blood of Christ. The Holy Spirit transforms the gifts, but does not change the gifts' created nature. Rather, the created and Uncreated coexist, they become one. The created becomes the means by which the Uncreated is revealed.
Hope this helps. It is basic Orthodox teaching. I am surprised that you would find the Council of Trent to be of greater authority than the teachings of your own church. This is all in line with our underlying theme of the Incarnation.
I am finished debating this issue. I have debated it here many, *countless*, hundreds of times, perhaps. Ask any older freeper how often we have done this debate here on the religion forum.....
I have spoken to clergy in Russian, Greek, and Romanian churches in this area and rec'd the above same answer from them all, as I have from the OCA clergy. Your opinion does not carry the weight of their teachings. I am very sorry if that offends you.