However I will add one more thing, the truth is the truth no matter who says it. In the end the truth speaks for it self weather you choose to believe it or not.

If you are Orthodox, then I will add your opinion to the mix of all the rest I have gathered. Otherwise, I won’t give it much weight. I can’t see any place where you have said whether or not you are Orthodox. I’m sorry if that sounds harsh, but if you are not Orthodox, then your opinion about what the Orthodox believe just doesn’t mean much to me.

Orthodox Church at the Synod of Jerusalem (date 1643 A.n.) used the word metousiosis–a change of ousia–to translate the Latin Transubstantiatio. The longer Catechism of the Orthodox Greek Church says:

“As to the manner in which the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord, none but God can understand: only this much is signified, that the Bread really and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the Wine the very Blood of the Lord.”

Thirty years later Council of Jerusalem 1672 a different Orthodox Patriarch the same response.

“In the celebration of this we believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is present, not figuratively, or in an image, or by superabundant grace, as in the other mysteries, nor by a simple presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, nor by conjunction, as that the Deity of the Word is personally united to the bread of the Eucharist which is set forth, as the Lutherans most ignorantly and miserably think; but really and actually, so that after the consecration of the bread and the wine the bread is changed, TRANSUBSTANTIATED, transmade, and reordered, into the real body of the Lord itself, which was born in Bethlehem of the Ever-Virgin, was baptized in Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose, ascended, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, and will come on the clouds of heaven; and the wine is transmade and TRANSUBSTANTIATED into the real blood of the Lord itself, which was poured forth for the life of the world when He hung on the cross.

On as far as adoration is concerned:

Council of Jerusalem (1672)

“Further, that the body itself and the blood of the Lord which are in the mystery of the Eucharist ought to be honored in the highest way, and WORSHIPPED WITH DIVINE ADORATION.”

Council of Jerusalem (1642)

“Where it is fitting to WORSHIP and ADORE the Holy Eucharist even as our Savior Jesus Himself.

I am sorry if it feels that I am hammering on you but this is something that is very important and can not let be open to speculation.

Council of Constantinople (1727)

“TRANSUBSTANTIATION” is “the most fitting statement of this mystery” and the “most accurately significant declaration of this change” in the elements.

Obviesly these defenitions are not binding to all the Orthodox churches these are mayor pronouncements that hold important parts of the faith. I hope this was helpful.

There is only two things that separate Catholics from Orthodox and that is the recognition of the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff and the filioque clause.

That is not to say that there aren’t any other differences 1000 years of separation will do that. However the understanding of the Eucharist as containing the body and divinity of our risen Lord is not one of them.

Jesus didn’t say to understand this, to dissect this, to come to some meeting of the minds about this. He said “DO this” and that is what matters most, that we do it, whether we understand or agree about it. Does the foot understand the ear? Does the hand understand the eye?

I have been Methodist. I have been Baptist. I have been Pentecostal. I have been non-denominational, which in some respects is the most denominational of all.

You are what you eat. Food becomes muscle, sinew, bones, thoughts, actions — “thought, word, and deed”, if you will. If you do not eat His flesh and drink His blood, whatever you understand that to mean, you have no part in Him. He said so Himself.

To some I speak as a crazy man.

(I’m neither Roman Catholic nor Orthodox, but have paid a great deal of attention to this question especially when I discovered how recent in origin the Baptist adaptation of Zwingli’s perspective really was.)

Though the Eastern Church (both Orthodox and Catholics) do refrain from calling the process as “transubstantiation” not because of it is inacurate but because they do not like refering to the process as a process. They prefer to view it as a mystery.

The Lord’s Supper, unlike other Christian activities, is restricted, by its very nature and meaning, to those occasions when the “body” is together. It is a group function. According to the New Testament, it was an important part of the purpose for which Christians assembled. In 1 Cor. 11:20 Paul’s criticism, “when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper,” implies that it should be.

It may well be the Lord’s Supper that gives special meaning to Sunday as a day of meeting. Although the evidence is not conclusive, Oscar Cullman has made a case for viewing the Sunday meals which Christ shared with his disciples after the resurrection as a necessary background for understanding the joyous Agape-Lord’s Supper celebrations of the early Christians (Early Christian Worship, pp. 14ff.). The apparent reference to Sunday as “the Lord’s day” in Revelation 1:9 may indicate a connection with the Lord’s Supper, since these are the only two phrases in which the word kuriakos (“Lord’s”) is used.
What is the meaning and purpose of the Lord’s Supper, according to the New Testament? Although Protestants have generally rejected the traditional Catholic view of the Lord’s Supper as a sacrifice, the sacramental concept of “Holy Communion” has certainly influenced the thinking of the whole Christian world. An attitude toward “the elements” as holy or consecrated is not uncommon. The table, in many instances today, has been elevated to a kind of altar. The whole “Communion Service” as a special act of worship has taken on the character of sacred ceremony. This is not how the Lord’s Supper is characterized in the New Testament.

The Lord’s Supper is rightly accompanied by prayers of thanksgiving (1 Cor. 10:16; 11:24) and certainly evokes a response of praise. However, its purposes, as they are presented in the New Testament, are not basically God-directed, but are rather aimed toward the edification of the body. Both Luke and Paul present the remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice as a basic aim of the Supper (Lk. 22:19,20; 1 Cor. 11:24). As a weekly “reminder” (anamnesis) of the central truth of the “new covenant” — that Jesus died as the payment for our sins — it serves to strengthen our faith and renew our hope. Contrary to the view implied by the traditional treatment of the Lord’s Supper as an offering or a sacrifice, it is we who need to be reminded, not God.

Secondly, Paul says that the Lord’s Supper is a proclamation (1 Cor. 11:26). Sharing in this visual proclamation of the gospel serves as an open confession of our faith in the Lord’s death and in its meaning for us. It is an expression of faith that is mutually edifying to all who are present.

Thirdly, we can recognize the idea of anticipation in the words “until he comes” (1 Cor. 10:26). The Lord’s Supper should intensify our expectation and hope of Christ’s second coming.

“Recognizing the Body”

Finally, Paul sees the Lord’s Supper as communion (koinonia, fellowship), not only with Christ (1 Cor. 10:16), but also with his body, the church. Paul writes, “Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread” (10:17). The Lord’s Supper should manifest the unity of those who share the cup and bread, which represent the blood and body of Christ. But this was precisely the problem at Corinth! There were “divisions” among the members of the body there (1 Cor. 11:18; cf. 1:10ff.; 3:3ff.; 12:25), and this is the problem to which Paul addresses himself. Paul’s criticism is not so much directed at the way in which they were actually partaking of the Lord’s Supper as at the way in which they were completely disregarding each other in the meal preceding it (vv. 21, 22). By thus “despising the church of God” (v. 22) they were failing to “discern” or “recognize” it as “the body” of Christ (v. 29; for the meaning of “body” here, compare 10:17; 12:12ff., 27).

Their actual attitude toward “the body” (the church) made the Lord’s Supper as “communion” impossible (v. 20). Their hypocrisy destroyed its meaning. Paul admonished each one to “examine” his own attitude toward “the body” before he took part in the Lord’s Supper, so that he might do it in a way “worthy” of its intended meaning (vv. 27-29). Paul insisted that the Corinthians change their attitude and demonstrate this change by eliminating their practice of discriminating against certain people at their common meals (vv. 33, 34).

Otherwise, their coming together would result in “judgment” (v. 34; cf. v. 29).
In summary, the Lord’s Supper, in its Biblical meaning, epitomizes the very character and purpose of the Christian assembly. As “communion” it portrays the spirit of mutual love and fellowship that should characterize Christian assemblies, and all of its purposes coincide with the primary aim of these meetings, which we have seen to be the “building up” of the body of Christ. The end result of such edification is that God is glorified in the lives of his people.