BlueDragon:
No, I don’t think Protestants secretly altered the words with respect to Priests. Never said that. That would be a false accusation.
The quote you use from the Eastern Orthodox Church is not a problem for the Catholic Church. Transubstantiation is clearly only a Latin Theological term. In this sense, Rome would not ever require the Orthodox to use that term to describe what happens during the Eucharistic prayer. For the record, what you are describing with the quote
“In the East, however, the culminating point of the prayer is not in the remembrance of Christ’s act but in the invocation of the Holy Spirit, which immediately follows: “Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts here spread forth, and make this bread to be the precious Body of Thy Christ... .” Thus, the central mystery of Christianity is seen as being performed by the prayer of the church and through an invocation of the Spirit. The nature of the mystery that occurs in the bread and wine is signified by the term metabole (”sacramental change”). The Western term transubstantiation occurs only in some confessions of faith after the 17th century.”
is the Epiclesis [calling upon the Holy Spirit. If you read the links below under the label “epiclesis”, you will see the same notion of calling upon the Holy Spirit in all Catholic Liturgical prayers.
http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/RM3-EP1-4.htm
Where Catholic Theology differs from the Eastern Orthodox, only in degree, not substance, is that Catholic theology uses the term “transubstantiation” to describe the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Orthodoxy does not attempt to define it, but leaves it in the realm of Holy Mystery.
Below are links to one of the chief Liturgies of the Orthodox Church, the first 1 is the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrystostem. The 2nd Link is a theological explanation from the Orthodox Church of America on the Eucharist. Nothing in it that I was a Catholic disagree with. The 3rd link is from the Orthodox Church of America regarding Holy Orders [Bishops/Priests/Deacons]. Again, nothing that I disagree with as a Catholic. The 4th link is an Orthodox explanation of the epiclesis, which I linked earlier in the context of the Roman Liturgy and Catholic Church. Link is one on the Eucharistic prayer. Nothing again that presents a problem for me as a Catholic. In fact, the Orthodox priest is saying the Eucharist ad orientalem, which is the classic posture in the Roman Rite before the change at Vatican II whereby the Priest faced the assembly vs facing “allegorical East”
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-eucharist
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-orders
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-divine-liturgy/epiklesis
http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-divine-liturgy/eucharistic-canon-anaphora
The Catholic Liturgy is linked below, if you look at it, the basic structure of the Roman Liturgy is the same as the Orthodox Liturgy. Where the Eucharistic Rite is in the following link, the Eucharistic prayers that I linked earlier are what is said at that part of the Liturgy.
http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/Mass.htm#Introductory
Now in closing, I do see you are moving more and more to a Liturgical and sacramental understanding of the Eucharist. That is a good thing. I have read every Liturgical writing in the patristic period and all of them are in the basic structure and in fact, have specifically the same prayers, as the Roman Liturgy of today. The Didache, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome and Cyril of Jerusalem all have Liturgical writings. So proper worship is Liturgical, and for me Catholic Liturgy, which is centered on the Eucharist and a set order of prayers that conveys the “symbola” of faith [Creeds, etc] and the public reading of scriptures, all together is true worship. Orthodox have true worship and for that reason, the Catholic Church sees the Orthodox as having valid Eucharist. Now, among the Protestants, the Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed all are closer to historic worship than the rest of Protestants. All of them retain some degree of Liturgy with Eucharist, Creed, Scripture. Protestantism beyond those 3 and what they call worship is only partially worship. All it really involves in Teaching a sermon and songs. That is partially worship but not Liturgy. Now, those who go to those types of Protestant churches I am sure are going in good faith, but the early Church was a Church that viewed Liturgy as the most important action of the Church, the worship of God a the public Liturgy and the celebration of the Eucharist.
So, I think while you and I will not totally agree, I do detect in you and stronger belief in the Eucharist and Sacramental Presence of Christ than maybe you had earlier in your life. Assuming that is true, then one thing that can help is for some of the more Liturgical Protestants who actually do read the Church Fathers and say the Creed to call out the Protestants here who attack Catholics and our doctrine of the Eucharist. Things like Killing Christ again or re-sacrificing Christ and cannibalism, etc, is excessive rhetoric that makes this place a zoo at times.
I think any honest reading of the NT Gospels and Saint Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians will see a strong foundation for Eucharistic Doctrine. A reading of the early Church Fathers will only reinforce that an indicates how men who new the Apostles viewed the Liturgy [i.e. Clement of Rome most likely new Saint Paul], Saint Polycarp was a disciple of Saint John, and Igantius of Antioch was a pupil of Polycarp, etc. and thus the Eucharist. The Liturgy and Eucharist are continually written about throughout the Patristic period and the Canons of all the Councils have in their canons teachings about the Eucharist and other sacraments.
So the Catholic position on the Eucharist is well founded as is the Orthodox. For protestants who have a view of real presence of the Eucharist that is not quite 100% the Catholic view or even the Orthodox view [I believe theirs is 100% consistent with ours], yet still hold to sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist [as many Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed actually do], I have no problem with you guys stating something to the effect that I think the Catholic view of the Eucharist has a basis in the NT and Church Fathers [we also see a sacramental or real presence], I just think that Catholic theologians of the 2nd millennium in trying to define what happens during the “epiclesis” was not something that needed to happen because any term you use [in this case Transubstantiation] would never be adequate enough to fully define it. That is a fair criticism and one that I think the Orthodox actually hold to. They just leave it as a Holy Mystery, don’t define what happens in the epiclesis, but again, they end up in the same place as we Catholics do in terms how they understand the Real Presence of Christ, it is under the forms of bread and wine, his true Body and Blood.
Save it.
Where I'm at with this, I have been for a long time (like since '83 or so) -- for what I much base this on is my own experience also, far from the narrow confines of Romanist or Orthodox so-termed "liturgy" which so many are so wrong in believing even that be entirely necessary; to be transmitted by only those whom yourself or others (Roman Catholic or some form of 'Orthodox') approve of, much less there needing be a sacerdotal priesthood to "confect" Christ's presence into the bread and the wine -- or else I myself was made one of those "priests", even by the breath of God Himself.
I wrote to encourage the brethren whom I also pinged, not writing to indicate myself to be joining in with the rest of the bondage which can so often (too often?) be found coiled around the feet of that which is otherwise truly holy -- which holiness some, but not all do find, regardless of all the oh-so-cherished by some others obstacles and distractions which they set up to block off finding Him there (in Catholic setting, as elsewhere also) for sake of or fear that an unqualified-to-their-own eyes individual my find the freely provided Grace of Christ Himself.
He seeks persons out, not because of or for sake of perfection in liturgical presentation, but for sake of His own righteousness despite our own lack of possessing our own righteousness, just as it has been (that the case has been as the brutal truth of the matter) from the time of Moses.