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

Should I bother to get quotes from St Ireneaus and St Justin on the sacrificial nature of the mass?

Read their commentaries on Malachi 1:11 off the top of my head for quotes from both

@Wrath the issue with the definition you sent is that it makes out Consubstantiation to be less than what it is

And it lies

Lutheran Scholastics are clear in their rejection of the term in historical context

The Divine Liturgy which utilizes ancient elements written by St Chrysostom is clearly sacrificial in nature also, Lutherans would object to the Divine Liturgy