If Orthodox Christians wanted to get some Catholic converts, I suppose the Orthodox Church could start their own "western rite" churches that followed the Roman rituals but were under the authority of Constantinople, if they wanted to.
I think the whole reason why the Orthodox church doesn't take a stance on how the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ is because the schism occurred before the Catholics weighed in on the matter and tried to explain what happens physically. I think the Lutherans accept the same doctrine and have their own version (it was mentioned earlier on this thread -- the idea that the body and blood of Jesus is UNDER the bread and wine). As a Catholic I probably side more with the Orthodox on this one -- the question of HOW God makes the bread and wine become his body and blood while retaining its original appearance is something that cannot be fully explained by human minds and remains a mystery.
As you can see from my thread above, I complained on these threads how some Protestants seem to lump the entire Christian community as accepting their doctrines. For example they constantly claim the veneration of Mary is a "Catholic thing" and the real presence of Jesus at communion is a "Catholic thing", both supposedly rejected by "non-Catholics", when in fact this and many other doctrine are accepted by both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, and in fact the only ones rejecting it are the bulk of protestant churches (and not even all of them, since Lutherans and Anglicians tend to support the traditional POV). As an Orthodox Christian would you agree on that point?
Finally regarding the Agape feast, I think the reason for that was the early communion ceremonies were simply extended versions of Passover dinners, since the early Christians came from a Jewish background. Eventually they decided to make the passover meal a separate thing from the communion event, and soon did away with the passover meal all together.
There is a western Orthodox "rite" that comes from medieval Scotland before that country was forcibly Latinized, and is currently being practiced under the Antiochan Orthodox jurisdiction. But the churches are few and far in between, and congregations are small.
If you go to church only where congregations are big then stay with your Novus Ordo Mass. The Catholic Church waited way too long to try to resuscitate the traditional Mass. Even though this Mass is made to appear bigger than life on these forums, it is really a periphery of the Catholic world. Numbers speak more then hearts desire.
For instance a cursory search of TLM churches in Florida reveals about 15! In Jackosnville, FL, with about 800,000 people, there are 87 Catholic churches, and only ONE offers Traditional Latin Mass at 8 AM! On a Sunday? Yet, believe it or not, the church is full, perhaps 200-300 people.
Yet, assuming one quarter of the population being Catholic, there must be at least 200,000 Catholics in Jacksonville and if statistics hold true about 22% of Catholics attend Mass every Sunday, that means some 44,000 Catholics are in church every Sunday, of which about 300 (or less than 1 percent) attend the Traditional Latin Mass!
No, the Latin Church did not "discover" yet "how" the bread changes. That required adoption of the pagan Aristotelian philosophy first and the development of the scholastic mindset, which came way after the schism. The Orthodox Church teaches what the eastern Liturgy has proclaimed for the last 1,700 years at least, namely that the Holy Spirit changes the Gifts mysteriously and that's where our "understanding" ends.
You are right. The rejection comes from the Baptists and Presbyterians, and various flavors of Lutherans and Anglicans. You do have essentially "catholic-like" groups embedded in Anglican and Lutheran communities but there are Lutherans and Anglicans where women are "bishops" and "priests," so even if they do venerate Mary what good is that?
Sure, the Passover (Seder) meal is one of those "types" prefiguring Christ in the Old Testament. The Orthodox Church does not read the OT literally but in terms of types that prefigure or announce Christ. Obviously things that don't announce Christ are not considered as "types," so large amounts of the OT are actually ignored in practice, unless someone can "figure out" how smashing babies against rocks "prefigures" Christ!
The Christians simply combined the Mystical (Last) Supper with the Passover meal. So, the elements of what later became the sacrament of the communion was part of the agape meal or feast. There is no apparent sacrament in the way Paul describes it in 1 Cor 11.
Roman records from the turn of the century (about 67 years after Christ died) indicate that Christians gathered in the morning for what appears to be eucharistic prayers and worship and then in the afternoon again for the agape meal. When this started is unknown. Certainly when Paul wrote to the Corinthians (about 50-52 AD) the two were still part of the one and the same event, and the breaking of the bread does not seem to be part of any liturgical sacrament, but the occasion seems to be marred by people getting drunk and food-binging, getting sick and passing out.
I think it's interesting and problematic to speak of transubstantiation being about "what happens physically." I wouldn't describe the change as a physical change (except in some of the more spectacular miracles). Nothing changes physically.
At least as I use the word, that would be about what measurable and analyzable changes happen to the "elements". But as I understand the doctrine it is pretty much a declaration that nothing perceptible to sense, even to senses augmented and refined by instrumentation, happens.
So then the question is, "What is changed?" And the answer is "The what-it-is is changed," as distinct from what-it-looks-like or what-it-is-made of or things of that kind.
And I don't think that reduces the sheer mystery of the thing. It just is an effort to say precisely something about the mystery, to assert the mystery less vaguely.