I twisted nothing but your ugliness remains true. Admit defeat to what? LOL He came out with trash talking again. Show me where I attacked the Orthodox church. I merely cautioned assigning a place between heaven and Hell to Orthodox. That is an attack? LOL Then your jerk husband came out with all kinds of insulting commentary along with rubbish. Truly expected from loving humble people like yourself.<quoted text>Boy, you love to twist things around to jusify a continue attack with you being the victim. Please don't ever admit defeat. It just wouldn't be in your nature would it...learn the faults of your own church before attacking us......
What I asked for was a straight answer not a bunch of mumbo jumbo. But I can assure you that if you go Orthodox forums you will find Orthodox who do not subscribe to consubstantiation nor will they call the Church arrogant for expressing transubstaniation. I have seen Orthodox priests argue for it. I have also seen them using the language of councils to back it up. Their may be a difference at when the change occurs and as I said it we accept that the Eucharist is a mystery but in faith accept it is the body blood soul and divinity of the Lord, but no it is not the standard Orthodox position to subscribe to Hermes view of Consubstantiation nor did many of the Eastern Fathers. In fact nothing was more unanimous than the Eucharist in the early church this attested to by Renowned Protestant Scholar JND Kelley.
Paul asked, "Is this not the body of Christ?" I wont argue about the semantics as long as its not a cracker snack or a symbolic geusture that need not be done or on occasion. Receiving Christ in the Eucharist is huge. He who eats my body and drinks my blood shall be raised up on the last day.
Ireaneus roundly decclared the Eucharist in very real terms. You have free will to believe what you wish. However not all Orthodox would agree with consubstantiation and neither do all Protestants.