BlueDragon, if you are seriously looking to get into an intelligent discussion of how the Latin wording of a Church Council document got translated into specific archaic Shakespearean English terminology during the 1500's, it would be better for you to seek some kind of expert in Latin and Church history, like a professor in Church history at one of the good Catholic universities or seminaries, not me.
However, rather than allowing yourself to get bogged down with confusion about various philosophical terms, and some specific translations of terms from Latin into the archaic Shakespearean English of roughly that same time, it would be much easier and more profitable for you to simply read what Our Lord said directly about the Eucharist, and what the Church taught about the Eucharist right from the beginning, and what the Gospels say about it, and what the Apostle Paul says about it.
Start with these references from the Bible:
- Matthew 26:26-30
- Mark 14:22-26
- Luke 22:14-20
- John 6:32-69
- 1 Corinthians 11:23-29
In the following generalized brief overview of the Eucharist from various points of belief (including Catholic, Orthodox, various other Eastern churches, and various Protestant denominations, you can see a couple quick references to early teachings on the Eucharist, including from some of the Early Church Fathers and the reference to the "Didache" talking about the Eucharist.
(It is quite easy to do additional research in each of these areas to go as deep as one wishes to go on the subject of the Holy Eucharist.)
Of course, we only can grasp a very small, microscopic bit of the mysteries of God (such as the Eucharist or the Resurrection), through His Teaching and Revelation chosen specifically by His Holy Will to share with us.
There is a veritable goldmine of books written about the Holy Eucharist, and it would be quite worthwhile for all of us to read a number of them. Keep in mind, though, that at the very best, we humans always see ALL these things "through a glass darkly", as the Apostle Paul said, and that we can only discern ANYTHING spoken of in the Bible by using the eyes of faith, enlightened by our reading of the "Written Word", such as those references given above, since none of us was alive back then, or gained direct personal knowledge about any of those things.
With that in mind, please take a look at this expanded description of "transubstantiation" (also written by Frank Sheed) which does explain this unique mystery of God in about as clear a way as I think can be achieved within our very limited human understanding of the mystery:
There is also a lot written about the Eucharist in 
The Catechism of the Catholic Church available here or here
I hope this is helpful for you. (I have to go now, so I probably won't be able to respond to you for a while if you do post a response. Another long day tomorrow. And, like I said in a previous post, this thread seems to be getting a bit "long in the tooth" already anyway, and is just barely hanging by a thread.) :-)
Hope these reading references help.
BlueDragon, if you are seriously looking to get into an intelligent discussion of how the Latin wording of a Church Council document...
I would settle for "honest", and did get a bit of that from another.
However, rather than allowing yourself to get bogged down with confusion about various philosophical terms...
Bogged down? No, I understand the terms well enough, and they were not exactly "Latin" terms, for it was Aristotelian philosophical terminology which was employed by Aquinas, which explanation those at Trent borrowed from, but changed the wording slightly. Then --- there is the aspect of those words themselves having present day connotative meanings which if casually allowed to apply, results in positive error, expanding or extending the description of the transformation. But--- it does appear to me that that is the way Roman Catholics today like it to be. Purposely "fuzzy", and utterly dependent upon their own priesthood, with all others excluded. I smell desperation, from Trent onwards, to continue to hold Christ ransom. One would have thought that after losing five crusades against the Hussites, somebody would have learned that God was not with them, was not in full agreement with their overweening need and desire for "control".
I already know the scripture references, too. What I don't really need is to be patronized concerning the issue.
So no, nothing you have brought actually "helps". I didn't need "help", nor was asking for it. But what a way to entirely dodge addressing the questions yourself, while pretending I was in need of your own assistance. I seriously doubt there is all that much you could "show" me. So far, you haven't yet...
Some Roman Catholics around here, act as if the "species" itself changes. That would be a significant progression since Trent. The question was --- do you agree that there is no outwardly discernible change to the bread and the wine. I did expand upon that enough, to have made it perfectly clear what the question was. But--- you didn't touch that but with a ten foot pole...
From the overall tone of your reply, I don't think you understand what I was talking about, much at all, or if so, cannot admit it. I can only guess...since your reply is less than honest in my eyes, and as far as I can tell, coming from your own place of comfort as RC (RCIA?) "instructor" to others. But I am no catechumen or "convert" to Roman Catholicism, nor will ever be. I merely a Christian, instead.
I am a person --- not an opportunity for internet advertisement of Roman Catholic promotional materials.
But I do know a secret concerning discerning the presence of the Lord in association with with taking communion. It is an open secret, hidden in plain sight, spoken directly by the Christ when he first broke and offered the bread. It is the reason it was given, broken for us. Find that, and one may find Him. Attach other meanings or conditions --- and He will not be there, or else if so, in much lesser realization for those whom partake of Him.
For those who may struggle to sense Him there, perhaps that may help?
One must believe in Him who was sent. One must accept Him as sacrifice for our own sins. He is our propitiation, the sacrifice, the ransom paid for many. He is not Himself to be held ransom. He gives of himself freely. Repentance is desired, even required, yet He is the one whom decides when and where there is "enough".
All the other medieval "do penance" self-flagellation type of thing which *some* Roman Catholics of old (and still to this day?) engage in, or else seek to assert that others must continually do, to somehow earn His favor, to make us good enough by being punished enough --- well, those sort of things ARE the "doctrines of demons", to work the subject title of this FR thread into this reply...