` ::What the Council of Trent defined with regard to transubstantiation was not just the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which, as I said, even an upholder of consubstantiation would believe in, but ``that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation`` (Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, chapter 4); and ``If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood - the species only of the bread and wine remaining - which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema (canon 2 of the same decree).  That is the idea or doctrine that is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church, of all sections of the Catholic Church, part of ``the global viewpoint of all Churches in communion with Rome``.  Whatever names are given to an idea or doctrine - Theotokos or Mater Dei - they should not be used to suggest that they indicate a disagreement in teaching between the different Churches in communion with Rome.  Even the terminology ``transubstantiation`` is used by the Eastern Catholic Churches, as I have shown.  When and where the term was coined is of no more importance than when and where the term ``Trinity`` was coined. ::Note that I am not saying that the term ``transubstantiation`` should be used in the lead of the article.  I am only commenting on what I consider to be inaccurate statements here on the Talk page.    `