I think what you are referring to is the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation.
While this has been a church-splitting matter in the west, no such distinction is made in the east. Orthodox would not bat an eye over the idea. Also…
- Orthodox do not even have a precise point in time where they understand the Holy Gifts become the precious Body and Blood of Christ. Orthodox only know that it happens and that the Holy Spirit is involved.
- Orthodox do not see that receiving in one species alone is sufficient, not do they see it as insufficient.
- Orthodox do not require the recipient of the Holy Eucharist, or any other sacrament, to reach the “age of reason” (which would be considered an excommunication of sorts). It is contrary to earlier church practice. Sacraments are beneficial and effective at any age and regardless of whether the recipient understands them.
At various times in the past, when able, the Latin church has tried to impose it’s own understanding upon the eastern churches in these matters, but to no lasting effect.
None of the Non-Papal ancient Apostolic churches (neither Holy Orthodoxy nor the Oriental Orthodox nor the Church of the East) prefer one explanation to the exclusion of the other or pursue this line of thinking. Transubstantiation is a term straight out of the Scholastic era in the west alone, more than 1000 years after Christ.
We do what we do because Christ commands it, He demands it, we do not modify or limit or otherwise frustrate the Divine Will.
Our Lord did say “
DO this…”
One way to prevent the various schisms over time, or possibly heal them…east and west…is to stop “developing” Christian theology and try harder to live it instead.
Michael