“I would also point out that there were many church fathers who wrote of it being symbolic, or completely true by faith, but not actually transubstantiation waiting for the Magisterium to unfold the meaning.”
So far as I know, no Father taught transubstantiation; that was a Latin Church concept unknown to the Pre-Schism Church and still not taught by the Orthodox Church, though some Russians in the past have used the term if not the concept. Which Fathers are you referring to?
Your understanding of what happened at the Last Supper and at a Divine Liturgy or a Latin Mass is very modern among Christians. Until after the Reformation, no one in The Church, to my knowledge, believed that Christ was speaking metaphorically. What The Church believes was given expression as early as the end of the 1st century or withn a few years of the dawn of the 2nd century and by +Ignatius of Antioch who was +Peter’s second successor as bishop of Antioch. He was a disciple of +John and by tradition was the child who sat on Christ’s lap.
+Ignatius wrote:
“”Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” Letter to the Smyrneans
“”I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.” Letter to the Romans
And finally and perhaps most tellingly:
“”Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.” Letter to the Philadelphians
Pretty early stuff, Mr. R. Its one thing to reject the Latin dogma of transubstantiation, an innovation in itself. It is quite another to deny the Real Presence.
What is meant by ‘real presence’ vs transubstantiation?
For example, the Baptist approach includes:
“The supper of our Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night he was betrayed, to be observed in his churches until the end of the world as a perpetual remembrance [of him] and to show forth the sacrifice of himself in his death. It was also instituted to confirm the faith of believers in all the benefits in Christ’s death, for their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, for their further engagement in and commitment to all the duties they owe him, and to be a bond and pledge of their fellowship with him and with one another...
Worthy recipients, when outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, also receive them inwardly by faith, truly and in fact, not as flesh and body but spiritually. In so doing they feed upon Christ crucified, and receive all the benefits of his death. The body and blood of Christ are not present physically, but spiritually by the faith of believers in the ordinance, just as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
All ignorant and ungodly people who are unfit to enjoy fellowship with Christ, are equally unworthy of the Lord’s table, and cannot, without great sin against him, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted to them while they remain as they are. Indeed, whoever participates unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment on themselves.”
How does that differ from the Orthodox understanding?
And how does that differ from Catholic understanding?
Thank you, Kolokotronis, for this clarification. The Real Presence is the fundamental belief of the Undivided Church. The Transubstantiation is how the Catholic Church explains the Real Presence in terms of rational philosophy. Our beliefs don't differ on the matter, our ways of talking about them differ. We have statues, you have icons. Two lungs, same air.