@orio679 Whatever site your reading online about the fathers and communion doctrine is taking quotes out of context and/or not reading the entire corpus of said authors. An author talking about communion with a spiritual emphasis in one spot does not negate their writing of physical emphasis in another

Long stort short, Tertullian is the only father perhaps where scholars really debate if he had a more Calvinist view of the supper

Calvin cites Augustine for the spiritual view, but most Reformed today recognize that Calvin wasn't taking the entirety of Augustine's corpus when forming communion doctrine

In the spots where you see fathers emphasizing the supernatural or spiritual presence in communion, it is usually in context of refuting a "corporeal" presence and/or in apologetics refuting accusation of cannibalism

That being said, a few different views can be found in the fathers. EO and Lutheran have a nearly identical view known as "mystical union," though the Lutheran view is more scholastic. This view is that it is both body and blood and bread and wine. Transubstantiation rather refers to the RC doctrine that it changes substance to be the body and blood, so bread and wine only appear to remain. There is also the Wesleyan view which is seemingly in between the Reformed Spiritual view and mystical union

The Eastern Orthodox believe in metousiosis, which is change in ousia/substance

Yes, but the bread and wine continue to remain

This is found all throughout the Eastern fathers

I disagree it is not found throughout the Eastern fathers

@Daniil care to comment?

The ousia of the bread and ousia of the wine change while retaining the external characteristics what Latins would call accidents

The Eastern fathers may say these accidents remain in the phrasing of their time but they do not deny the change of ousia

The Greek term metousiosis translates literally as change of essence

Far as I know it checks out

Yes, but I mean to say that transubstantiation as the RC doctrine is more narrowly defined than the definition of the term

Sure but we are speaking of generalities of the bread changing substance

Which both believe

The Eastern Fathers would not be able to agree with the specific doctrine as it is defined in the West

Which part? They already did at Florence we breezed right through the sacraments there was almost no debate on them

In fact our understanding of the sacraments are so close there are treatise between our two churches for providing the Eucharist in cases of grave danger, while intercommunion is controversial we basically declared the other denominations understanding of the sacrament is sufficient and in agreement

Would the EO make that concession to a Lutheran? Never

>tfw I'm not in an autistic conversation for once

life is good

Don't worry, you'll be dragged into another one soon enough

@Deleted User didnt you watch Most Holy Family Monastery :^)

@Astro can't say I have

Im familiar with that format and background lol

@Christus obnube Liberatoris namely, the agreement to the specific philosophical distinctions, though I digress. The Roman view is simply more narrow than the Eastern view since the East is more mystical about doctrine and tends to avoid the more scholastic ideas

Though I'm not sure why you would say the EO and Lutherans disagree on presence in the Eucharist in any way

Line II is a quote from Irenaeus

We would disagree on notion of sacrifice likely

And on what goes on for the recipient

Wait, maybe it's Martyr

I forget now

Irenaeus Adervsus Haeresis IV.18

@Quarantine_Zone is the Lutheran view consubstantiation

No

Because we reject such philosophical distinctions

But like, is this what y'all believe @Quarantine_Zone