“”Moreover, the Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this transubstantiation — certainly, a monstrous word for a monstrous idea — until the pseudo-philosophy of Aristotle became rampant in the Church these last three hundred years.
To understand transubstantiation one must understand the stoic idea of substance. Aristotle proposed that all things had two substances, the accident, that which you see and a deeper Platonic substance. Consider for example a hand-drawn circle. People instinctively recognise it as a circle if it is vaguely round line, however it is not an actually circle, it is the accident of a circle. A circle is defined mathematical as the set of points an equal distance away from a central point (this is metric independent). Nobody has ever seen a true circle, but we instinctively know what a circle is. Aristotle philosophised that all the hand-drawn circles were accidents of a higher ontological circle. These sort of "accidents" are most common in children's drawings, where they draw a picture based on the properties it posses, such as a tree is a tall brown stick with green leaves on top.
In the theological concept of transubstantiation, it is taught by the Roman Catholic Church that during the consecration of the host this deeper ontological substance changes from being a cracker to being Jesus' body, whilst the accident remains a rather tasteless cracker.
<insert objections here>