[quote=StMarkEofE]We dont necessarily reject the word “Transubstantiation” because it is a western terminology of what happens on the altar at Liturgy. We reject it because it is the results of the western mindset to literally disect all the mysteries of the church into some sort of intelligible understanding. It is this incesant scholastic endeavor to explain everything which cannot really be expained. We accept the fact that the species of bread and wine are changed during the Epiclesis by the invocation of the Holy Spirit and for us, thats it. Those Orthodox who clamor for the need to have this explained do not really appreciate their Traditions. Dont get me wrong, I am not saying that the “T” word isnt valid its just that we dont think its a necessary additive to the faith.
I wouldn’t say that the terminology of transustantiation came about as the result of a “western mindset to literally disect all the mysteries of the Church…” In fact the term came about as a result of “Reformed” heresies that denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist (which happened to occur in the West, but not in the East). I would say that it is more properly the result of the Church tradition of only defining things in order to correct heresy.
This is the same process which led to the terminology of homoousion at Nicaea in order to refute Arianism, or the terminology of the hypostatic union promulgated at Chalcedon in order to refute such heresies as Monophysitism or Nestorianism.
Remember, transubstantiation as a definition did not come about until the 16th Century. If there was no heresy to combat there would have been no need to define what happens during consecration, and I’m extremely confident that it would not have been promulgated.
Sorry for the thread hijack, you are now returned to your regularly scheduled discussion…