[Claud]

I apologize for the delay in replying. Sick kids and a busy schedule.

In this hypothetical dialog, Orthodoxos represents what was widely accepted as orthodox Christian belief at the time of this writing (5th Century, I believe).

That's the quote I was remembering, thank you! But see this from Book 2: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27032.htm

Eran.— As, then, the symbols of the Lord's body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing; so the Lord's body after the assumption is changed into the divine substance.

Orth.— You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they have become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord.

Now I'll grant you that his use of "substance" here seems to mitigate against transubstantiation. However, I'm not sure what Greek terms he's using, and there could well be some translation issues there (remember the Orthodox don't particularly like our formulation of "transubstantiation" anyway). But let's suppose you're right. See what he nonetheless says next in bold?

Does your Sunday liturgy have a consecration? Do you regard the Eucharistic elements "as what they have become"? Do you "worship" the elements "as being what they are believed to be?"

[Springfield Reformer]

As a plain, old school Baptist, I am not a sacramentalist at all, and neither are most Baptist fellowships.  Grace comes to us Baptists not by sacerdotal mediation of rituals, but by the ministry of the Holy Spirit working in conjunction with the word of God. We observe baptism and the Lord's Supper for the purposes stated in Scripture, but not as means to secure more grace, as if God doled out saving grace on the installment plan. You could characterize us as Zwinglian and be right most of the time.

And I am well aware that Theodoret and many others of that period had drifted away from the simplicity of Scripture into sacramental realism.  My point being, as you have already identified, that these views were not yet transubstantive, not even close. The Neoplatonism in Augustine and others in that middle period does seem to have led a sense of worship toward the Eucharistic elements, but not for what they are in themselves, but for what the archetype is that lies behind their type.  That they "become" a different kind of type by consecration is a change in frame of reference, not substance. Before consecration, they are types only for mere food. After consecration, they are said to be in a new typological relationship, pointing to Christ. I still regard that as a serious departure from the pristine Scriptural model of memorial metaphor, but I understand it to be several steps behind the more serious error of transubstantiation.

Your point about the Greek for Theodoret is well taken.  I am not sure where to find that but it certainly would be worth taking a look at.  Something I can poke around at later.

BTW, I note your accomplishments in linguistic publishing.  Kudos!  No doubt good resources for authors writing localized fiction.  I'm playing around with a children's story myself, and maybe you could give me a word of advice.  Though as you might suspect, my purpose in writing is adverse to your views and if you declined to involve yourself it wouldn't offend me at all.  But the question is this:  What would be the common spoken language of a Roman individual living in Northern Italy late in the second Century?  And what would be a good guide to what it would sound like audibly, what sort of expressions he might use, etc.?  Again, this is, I admit, a bit of an unusual request, and if you're not interested, no harm no foul.  But you seemed like a uniquely well qualified person to ask, so I'm asking. :)

Peace,

SR