Replies

The two individuals whom I pinged are far more qualified to speak to Orthodox theology than I am. Rather than either of us speculating on Orthodox attitudes on the Real Presence and/ or Transubstantiation, I think we should ask two individuals who would be in a position to know.

In the 17th century Latin terminology appear in in Eastern Orthodoxy by way of pat. Cyril Lucaris, who studied in Geneva and was infuenced by Calvinism, and in Ukraine following the 1596 Union of Brest-Litovsk which resulted in millions of Eastern Orthodox accepting communion with Rome, and the establishment of the Unkrainian Greek-Catholic Church.

Met. Peter Mogila (Mohyla) of Kiev uses the term "transubstantiation" around 1640 for that reason, and in 1672 the Council of Jerusalem states:

Article XVII.—The Eucharist is both a sacrament and a sacrifice, in which the very body and blood of Christ are truly and really (ἀληθῶς καὶ πραγματικῶς) present under the figure and type (ἐν εἴδει καὶ τύπῳ) of bread and wine, are offered to God by the hands of the priest as a real though unbloody sacrifice for all the faithful, whether living or dead (ὑπὲρ πάντων τῶν εὐσεβῶν ζώντων καὶ τεθνεώτων), and are received by the hand and the mouth of unworthy as well as worthy communicants, though with opposite effects.

The Lutheran doctrine is rejected, and the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation (μεταβολή, μετουσίωσις) is taught as strongly as words can make it but it is disclaimed to give an explanation of the mode in which this mysterious and miraculous change of the elements takes place. [Confession of Dositheius, Synod of Jerusalem, 1672]

Several years later a local Council in Constantinople uses the word "transubtsantiation" in a similar manner. However, the term is not encountered in source earlier than 17th century, and probably not much if at all in the 18th century onward.

This comes mainly from the fact that Orthodoxy treats the Eucharist as real Presence and change from brea dnad wine into true Body and Blood, but wihtout elaboration or suggestion as to whta the mechanism of that is.

Today, the EOC uses the term "change" rather than transubstantiation.

Thanks Kosta.

I’ve nothing to add to Kosta’s fine explanation save these words from the Divine Liturgy of +John Chrysostomos, called the “epiklesis” when the change actually takes place. Note that it is the Holy Spirit Which makes the change, not the priest:

“Priest (in a low voice):
Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we ask, pray, and entreat You: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented.

And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.

(He blesses the holy Bread.)

Deacon (in a low voice):
Amen.

Priest (in a low voice):
And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ.

(He blesses the holy Cup.)

Deacon (in a low voice):
Amen.

Priest (in a low voice):
Changing them by Your Holy Spirit.

(He blesses them both.)

Deacon (in a low voice):
Amen. Amen. Amen.

Priest (in a low voice):
So that they may be to those who partake of them for vigilance of soul, forgiveness of sins, communion of Your Holy Spirit, fulfillment of the kingdom of heaven, confidence before You, and not in judgment or condemnation. Again, we offer this spiritual worship for those who repose in the faith, forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and for every righteous spirit made perfect in faith....”

This comes mainly from the fact that Orthodoxy treats the Eucharist as real Presence and change from brea dnad wine into true Body and Blood, but wihtout elaboration or suggestion as to whta the mechanism of that is.

Lutherans treat the Eucharist as real Presence and the bread and wine changes into true Body and Blood, but without elaboration or suggestion as to what the mechanism of that is. However, the visible elements are bread and wine.