That’s correct. These were terms that the church catholic, gathered in ecumenical council, used to describe the Trinity— and inadequately, at that! (Do not forget that the Trinity is a mystery and our preferred explanations will always fall incomplete!) Accordingly, it does not follow that a different situation on a different topic in a different era should be expected to use the same terms and formulas. Cultures change. Philosophies come and go. Only the Truth remains.
And so nothing can be divorced from its context and remain properly understood. Frankly, it must be considered that had the church developed in some other culture (say, the Far East, where the Buddhism-influenced culture is less concerned with the “being” and “essence” of Greek Thought than it is with “desire” and “suffering”), it would very likely formulate the Truth of the Trinity in a drastically different way, yet no less compatible with Truth. Perhaps in a more relational way than Greek labels permit.
This is comparable to the Lutheran’s understanding of the Supper to the Roman Catholic’s. They’re speaking different languages, yet professing the same Truth: the Real Presence of Christ.
This is why Lutherans frankly see “Transubstantiation” as a minor concern. Not even secondary or tertiary. In fact, the only objections Lutherans really have to it is that it can, in some instances, be understood to lend credence to the idea that the Mass is a sacrifice. Yet even here, there is some agreement (see section 1b and 2.).