There is such bitter blood among som Orthodox, especially over the percevied "Western Captivity" of the Eastern Church after the fall of Constantinople New Rome that it is difficult to trust these sort of polemical "I define myself as not being like you" arguments. Please lend ears a moment while I dismantle this Priest's letter:
Since the time of Scholastics, the Western Church using Aristotelian logic, which stated that a thing can only be in one place at one time, did the false premise which divides reality and symbol come into existence. This is what started the debates concerning the eucharist, either it is symbol (stands in place of the reality) or it is real. Thus the controversy of Berangarius of Tours and the Scholastic answer of "Transubstantiation."
This simply doesn't make sense based on dating or wording. The controversy with Berengarius ended at the Roman Council of AD 1079, where he was forced to take a profession of faith stating:
"... the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are substantially changed into the true and proper and living flesh and blood of Jesus Christ ... not only through sign and power of the sacrament, but in its property of nature and in truth of substance ..." (Denzinger 355)
So rather than being a division of symbol and reality, the Profession of Berengarius in renunciation of his heresy upholds the union of both symbol (sign) and reality and the reality of the substantial change (important words meaning essentially transubstantiation).
AD 1079 is of interest because it is the year of the BIRTH of the first Scholastic - Peter Abelard. Aristotle and Aristotelean logic only begin to repenetrate the west after the regrettable sack of Constantinople in AD 1204.
Therefore, we can conclude that the Roman terminology of transubstantiation or substantial change springs out of the commonly held Christian faith of the 11th century and before (the most common Patristic terms for it were "changed", "transformed", "becomes", "confected", "made over", as used by St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyr, and St. John Damascene - the same terms used in the Divine Liturgy at the Epiklesis, etc.) and that it has nothing to do with scholasticism or Aristotlean logic.
St. Gregory of Nyssa in "The Great Catechism", 37, [post AD 383] actually uses the phrases "that Flesh, the substance of which is from bread and wine" and "the blessing which transforms the nature of the visible things to that [of the Immortal One]". Its difficult to not see the concept of substantial change/transubstantiation in such phrases.
In other words, this priest is blowing smoke.
To be more precise in the words of St. John of Damascus, "The bread and the wine become the body and blood of Christ without ceasing to be bread and wine, just as He became man without ceasing to be God." (quotation is by memory, so it might not be precise).
No, it isn't precise. In fact, the quote is flat out wrong. He is the relevant excerpt from "The Orthodox Faith", Book 4, Chapter 13:
If then the Word of God is quick and energising, and the Lord did all that He willed; if He said, Let there be light and there was light, let there be a firmament and there was a firmament; if the heavens were established by the Word of the Lord and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth; if the heaven and the earth, water and fire and air and the whole glory of these, and, in sooth, this most noble creature, man, were perfected by the Word of the Lord; if God the Word of His own will became man and the pure and undefiled blood of the holy and ever-virginal One made His flesh without the aid of seed, can He not then make the bread His body and the wine and water His blood? He said in the beginning, Let the earth bring forth grass, and even until this present day, when the rain comes it brings forth its proper fruits, urged on and strengthened by the divine command. God said, "This is My body", and "This is My blood, and this do ye in remembrance of Me." And so it is at His omnipotent command until He come: for it was in this sense that He said until He come: and the overshadowing power of the Holy Spirit becomes through the invocation the rain to this new tillage. For just as God made all that He made by the energy of the Holy Spirit, so also now the energy of the Spirit performs those things that are supernatural and which it is not possible to comprehend unless by faith alone. "How shall this be," said the holy Virgin, "seeing I know not a man?" And the archangel Gabriel answered her: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee." And now you ask, how the bread became Christ's body and the wine and water Christ's blood. And I say unto thee, "The Holy Spirit is present and does those things which surpass reason and thought."Further, bread and wine are employed: for God knoweth man's infirmity: for in general man turns away discontentedly from what is not well-worn by custom: and so with His usual indulgence He performs His supernatural works through familiar objects: and just as, in the case of baptism, since it is man's custom to wash himself with water and anoint himself with oil, He connected the grace of the Spirit with the oil and the water and made it the water of regeneration, in like manner since it is man's custom to eat and to drink water and wine, He connected His divinity with these and made them His body and blood in order that we may rise to what is supernatural through what is familiar and natural.
The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God's body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is true and energises and is omnipotent, but the manner of this cannot be searched out. But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature the bread by the eating and the wine and the water by the drinking are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not become a different body from the former one, so the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two but one and the same.
Wherefore to those who partake worthily with faith, it is for the remission of sins and for life everlasting and for the safeguarding of soul and body; but to those who partake unworthily without faith, it is for chastisement and punishment, just as also the death of the Lord became to those who believe life and incorruption for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, while to those who do not believe and to the murderers of the Lord it is for everlasting chastisement and punishment.
The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, "This is My body," not, this is a figure of My body: and "My blood," not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed." And again, "He that eateth Me, shall live."
Wherefore with all fear and a pure conscience and certain faith let us draw near and it will assuredly be to us as we believe, doubting nothing. Let us pay homage to it in all purity both of soul and body: for it is twofold. Let us draw near to it with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form of the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One: and let us apply our eyes and lips and brows and partake of the divine coal, in order that the fire of the longing, that is in us, with the additional heat derived from the coal may utterly consume our sins and illumine our hearts, and that we may be inflamed and deified by the participation in the divine fire. Isaiah saw the coal. But coal is not plain wood but wood united with fire: in like manner also the bread of the communion is not plain bread but bread united with divinity. But a body which is united with divinity is not one nature, but has one nature belonging to the body and another belonging to the divinity that is united to it, so that the compound is not one nature but two.
Looks like the Priest took the last sentence and ran with it, unfortunately for him utterly out of context.
We should clarify at this point that although we hold that the symbol is united with its prototype we do not confuse or equate the two. (I hope this is now getting at the heart of your question). If an icon for instance, which is Holy, becomes damaged, it can reverently be burned for it is not the object (or better put the subject) of worship. In the same way the priest although he may manifest Christ to us in many ways is not Christ. The Divine Liturgy although it is heavenly worship and gives us a foretaste of what is to come, transporting us and connecting us to heaven is not heaven.
This is perhaps the most useless statement he makes, because one thing both the Church and the Fathers are perfectly clear about is that the symbols of bread and wine ARE really the Flesh and Blood of Christ after their consecration. No, an Icon is not the subject of worship, no the Priest is not Christ, but the Eucharistic elements really are the same Lord Jesus who hung on the Cross for our salvation, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven.
Otherwise, the Priest in the Divine Liturgy of St. John would not bless the people after Holy Communion with the Eucharistic elements and sing "Save your people O God and bless your inheritance." Nor would the people profess before Communion "I believe also that this is really your spotless body and that this is really your precious blood." Nor would adoration and worship be given the sacrament.
I should note, however, that I am unable to find the "John of Damascus" quotation which the priest is referencing; on the other hand, I don't have a full library of John Damascene, and priest Maxwell probably does.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers has most of the works of the Fathers in a readily accessible format.
To the extent, then, that the Eastern Orthodox may be generally closer to "transubstantiation" than I had thought -- I plead ignorance on the grounds that the Eastern Orthodox in the Oklahoma area (one of my old stomping grounds) are apparently less fond of the term "transubstantiation" than the Confession which you posted above.
If the Eastern Orthodox are rejecting the word transubstantiation, they are rejecting their own common heritage both with us Catholics and with their own ancestors since the 11th century, and they are creating a strange new heresy.
Looks like the Priest took the last sentence and ran with it, unfortunately for him utterly out of context.
You are not only confused but disrespectful. The priest was exactly correct and perfectly in line with Orthodox teachings.
It says, "is not plain bread but bread united with divinity." It is exactly what the priest said and what I have said as well, because it goes on to discuss the exact same concepts we both mentioned. Just as Christ did, the compound now has "not one nature but two".
I don't know what you think is missing from this summary but it is all there for me. Likewise it all matches the discussion on the OCA site I posted the link for.
When I read the post from the priest I felt like I had come home. It was that powerful for me and that true.
We are clearly from two very different churches with very different ways. BTW, just so you know and for future reference..... Your beloved patriarch is just that, a patriarch, while Khomiakov is a theologian and one who is considered to have contributed a great deal to the church.
In particulular Khomiakov characterized for us the definition of the church, which is the community, a union of souls.
This idea is so essential that we teach it every year in Sunday school to the kids, even the youngest ones.
The reason I am posting it for you Hermann is to counter your position on authority and your apparent disdain for Khomiakov.
"We both believe that defending and living the Faith is the province of the whole People of God and not merely the clergy. It is the whole People of God also who are ultimately responsible for the legitimacy of any ministry or teaching which is exercised in its midst."
"Orthodoxy's ecclesiastical polity is based on the Council and conciliarity. This is how the mind of the Church emerges as the Holy Spirit speaks to the assembled faithful."
To help you understand that Khomiakov's view is the view of the church. As I just recently posted, in the Orthodox church, we are all popes. One patriarch does not make a church nor have any authority to define anything other than his beliefs.
After much searching, I am compelled to admit that Hermann is absolutely right -- the quotation cited by Fr. John Maxwell is, as far as I can find, nowhere offered by John Damascene.
Father John Maxwell has inappropriately attributed his citation to John of Damascus. The actual (approximate) quotation is found in the works of another Church Father entirely:
In regard to my own misunderstanding as a Protestant, and on behalf of my mistaken friends in the Saint Gabriel OKC Mission of the Orthodox Church in America, I must apologize for Father John Maxwell's incorrect citation of John of Damascus.
The doctrine that "The substance of bread and wine in the Eucharist does not cease, but remains; just as the nature and substance of man remains united to the Godhead in the Lord Jesus Christ" should not be attributed to John Damascene, but in fact is the teaching of Pope Gelasius, the Bishop of Rome.
I plead ignorance and oversight on my part for not having corrected Fr. Maxwell's incorrect attribution of the quotation to John of Damascus. The quotation in dispute is actually the teaching of the Pope of Rome.
Mea Maxima Culpa.
Best, OP