>> Not according to Paul <<
So do you now believe in consubstantiation, or is this another time-waster? I’m going off on my own here, but:
Was Paul referring to bread as a substance, or as an accident of substance? Bread is formed from baking dough; bread isn’t bread if it isn’t baked. Hence, I would propose that what we mean by bread refers to an accident. Taking this to an extreme, I suppose you could propose that all of energy-matter is of a single substance, since all of energy and matter can be transmuted without being transubstantiated. But even at that apparently ridiculous extreme of the definition, the transubstantiation upholds its definition: even if all of matter is but of one substance, then the Eucharist still is transubstantiated, because what was simply matter is now Spiritual.
It is the same "bread" that is referred to as "bread" or "loaves" of bread throughout the entire NT. It had the substance and accidents of "bread" and nothing but "bread" before and after consecration.