Eastern Orthodox Eucharist

[WT1]

It should also be noted that there isn’t a single Protestant view as implied in the OP. Evangelicals and Pentecostals typically see the Eucharist as strictly symbolic, but Methodists, Lutherans, and Anglicans often hold some understanding of a Real Presence.

Methodist view communion as symbolic and will allow just about anyone to administer it. I was Methodist for years and it bothered me greatly how casual they were about communion.

 

[ChadS]

Methodist view communion as symbolic and will allow just about anyone to administer it. I was Methodist for years and it bothered me greatly how casual they were about communion.

That was pretty much my experience too having been born and raised UM.

ChadS

 

[dvdjs]

At most I would suggest they believe in a spiritual presence that then is apparently gone after the service (they have absolulassidion. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piscinately no problem putting the remaining grape juice back with the rest and the communion bread cubes are put back in the bag with the leftovers).

This is an interesting test of meaning. If it was viewed as truly transformational one would follow the Catholic practice. If purely symbolic, why not stick them back in the plastic bag or even toss them in the trash when they are stale.

What is the Eastern Orthodox practice here?

Same as Catholic and some Protestants. See the wiki article on piscina, sacrarium, and thalassidion. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piscina

 

[dvdjs]

Transubstantiation is Catholic dogma with all of its Aristotelian metaphysics. Just because Catholics still call it a mystery does not mean they understand the mystery in the same exact way as an Orthodox would. A lot of specific and complicated alternative theories were condemned throughout the centuries beginning the High Middle Ages, even though they too essentially argued that the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ literally. They were condemned on the basis that Transubstantiation was correct, which was eventually proclaimed dogma.

Just to be clear:
Aristotelian metaphysics is not dogma.
“Mystery” means there is no exact way of understanding.
Orthodox are renown for developing specifc and complicated language to circumscribe thinking on Mysteries - on the Trinity, Christology, etc.
However out of fashion it is among modern Orthodox, an Orthodox council and theologians of the time did endorse the use of the word transubstantiation for the change of bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood.
"A lot of specific and complicated alternative theories were condemned ". This claim would benefit from examples of many, specific, and complicated theories that essentially argued for the Real Presence. My suspicion is that alternative theories did not the essentially argue for the Real Presence.