Imposing Aristotle, his thought and words, upon Scripture is an error. On top of everything else, it introduced a tertium quid, a third thing, into the Supper.The ethyl alcohol is not the substance. Nowadays we call it the substance because we are materialists. But in the middle ages and at the Council of Trent in the 1500s, they meant substance as what lies underneath (sub-stance). They used the language of Aristotle.
For example, a house can be made out of bricks. The house is the substance. The substance is the answer to the question, "What is it?" Answer: a house. It has the form of a house. It functions as a house. It has the properties of a house. And what material is this particular house made out of? In this case, bricks. The bricks are simply the "material out of which the thing is made."
For wine, the ethyl alcohol (and water and other physical and chemical components) is the material out of which it is made. But what form is this liquid filling out? What is the substance? In a word, what is it? It is wine.
You get drunk from the consecrated wine because the ethyl alcohol remains the same. It is simply the material. But what it is has changed.
We also know from Scripture that it is an erroe because nowhere did the Lord tell His disciples anything like, "I know some of you guys are fishermen, some of you are unlettered, and all of you are basically ordinary Joes, but if in the future you find my words regarding the Supper to be inadequate then turn to an ancient pagan philosopher who can explain them better than I."
We also know it is an error from Scripture because nowhere does it state or imply that the disciples later considered the Lord's words to be inadequate and then turn to the thoughts and words of an ancient pagan philosopher for a better explanation.
In the same way, we know from history that the early Gentile converts of whom we have some writings, and who also previously wore the philosopher's robe, did not find the Lord's words regarding the Supper inadequate and consequently turn to an ancient pagan philosopher for a better explanation.
It wasn't until the thirteenth century that Aristotle's thoughts and words gained some currency through a misguided Pope, Aquinas, and others. In the sixteenth century at Trent they were anathematizing those who did not affirm their misguided and unnecessary novelty.
For basically the same reasons consubstantiation is also excluded. The disingenuous propagandists who assert it as a teaching of the Evangelical or Lutheran church are piling error upon error.