It appears that Serge and I are on the "same page" on this topic.
This statement is both bizarre, and just plain wrong. I don't have the hours it would require to explain out all the differences, but they are numerous and deep. The Western Captivity of the Russian Church aside, the Eucharistic theology of East and West has been growing apart for 1200 years. Rome teaches, for example, that each element in the Eucharist becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. This is why historically she offered communion in one species only. This is also why Rome teaches that the Host, as the whole Christ, can be rightly worshipped. This then led to the development of Eucharistic adoration, which flies in the face of the Seventh Ecumenical Council which clearly declared: The Eucharist is not an Icon. This is just one major difference among many.
Mmm, no sir, I think it is you who are just plain wrong, and in a whole assortment of ways.
#1 "Concommitance" : "Concommitance" is the RC teaching (elevated to a dogma in the RCC) that because Christ is Risen, while it is true that the bread and wine are consecrated to become the Body and Blood of Christ (respectively), because He is Risen, the reality is that each is "joined" to the one, single Christ. Christ can no longer suffer or be physically divided - the reason why the Body and Blood are "seperately consecrated" as it were (why there is His Body and His Blood, under the forms of bread and wine), is to sacramentally
re-enact the Sacrifice of Golgotha, to renew and return to the one
bloody, sacrificial death of our Lord Jesus Christ. Though the multiplicity of Temples and Priests gives the impression of "many oblations", in reality the Holy Oblation, and the Priest, are one
Though the Orthodox Church rejects as an unnecessary innovation the now discarded Latin practice of forbidding
the laity from receiving under "both kinds", the reality is that the Orthodox Church communicates infants
in precisely this way (but in reverse) - by giving them only the Precious Blood of our Lord. Is this a "partial" communion? Of course not - because Christ is Risen, so the child does not receive the spilled separated blood of a man who is
dead, but the living Precious Blood of He Who is very much alive.
This is the basic driving import of the Latin teaching - to put it perhaps a little crudely, you cannot receive part of Christ, without by connection receiving the rest of Him. This does not change however, that strictly speaking what is in the chalice is "His Blood", and what is consecrated from the bread is "His Body."
The Orthodox Church has not dogmatized on this matter in any universal/ecumenical fashion, for the simple reason it's not a controversy, nor do we have any practice to justify before the accusation of heretics (since only infants are typically communed under "one kind", nor would the Church deny the manner of communion Christ enjoined to all who can so receive.)
#2 "Western Capitivity" of the Russian Orthodox Church - there is some truth to this notion, but my experience is that it is more often than not exagerated (by both self styled traditionalists and modernists, strangely enough) in such a way as to actually justify ideas which are contrary
to the real
Orthodox Church in time and history (as opposed to the idealized, imagined "real" Orthodox Church of both misguided zealots and equally misguided modernists/neo-renovationists). For example, every time you hear complaints about "overly realistic" Russian Icons from recent centuries, keep this in mind - that prior to Iconoclast heresy, many many
Icons were commonly written in this fashion (take a look at some of the pre-Iconoclast images which survived at St.Catherine's monastery on Mt.Sinai if you want evidence of this - most famously the Icons of Christ and St.Peter, which can hardly be distinguished from the "realistic style" of funerary art you find in ancient Alexandria.) The same can be said of complaints about "Westernized Russian Church music", etc. As for the issue of theology, the subject is once again "overblown" - for while it is true that the term "transubstantiation" does come from the Latins, the reality is that it adequately describes what the Orthodox Church has always believed about the transmutation of the Holy Gifts.
Just like other areas where extremists/modernists chide the Russian Church's "westernization", the real agenda in getting after the use of the term "transubstatiation" by some Orthodox (not simply in Russia, but it also appears in Jerusalem as well) is not a better adherance to the "mind of the Fathers", but more often than not the promotion of views which are actually heretical
. After treading the murky waters of these kind of arguments before, what you often find out is that the so called "zealots of purity" who frown on the term "transubstantiation" really believe is some form of "consubstantiation" ala Martin Luther, or worse yet something akin to the "transignification" theories you find amongst Roman Catholic
liberals/modernists. Obviously there are some opponents of the term "transubstantiation" that do not fit this mold (some are just distrustful of anything Latin, and to an extent I can understand this - though not if it means we start spitting on legitimate parts of our Orthodox tradition), but I'd say most of the one's I've come across do.
I've also noticed the same thing amongst those who go to extremes in criticizing the "legalistic" way of speaking of the dogma of redemption - very often such persons are not defending the more holistic and sober way of reasoning about these things embodied by the Orthodox tradition, but they themselves in fact entertain ideas on this topic which are un-Orthodox (since any number of Fathers, both ancient and newer, speak of redemption in a distinctly judicial paradigm - not to mention that the New Testament itself often does the same thing!)
#3 Adoration of the Holy Gifts - While I agree that the Latin practice of using the "monstrance" is out of keeping with the Orthodox tradition (and only exists as a reaction to a heresy they encountered, which essentially denied that the Holy Gifts really are the Body and Blood of the Lord), this is not because I do not believe the Holy Gifts are to be adored; simply because their primary
"use" is to be consumed
. The truth is that Christ is never remote from us - He can be adored anywhere, there is no "relative distance" between His "substantial presence" which is of any consequence. IMHO, the Latin practice creates the impression amongst the simple of "Christ in a box", rather than the majestic Pantokrator
Who is Lord of all, "above us" as it were, though I think this is more a subconscious/psychological issue than something that would ever be articulated conciously or formally (since it's obvious Roman Catholics, even the most simple amongst them, would never formally profess this.)
However, according to the Fathers Christ is to be received in Holy Communion with adoration. You are actually incorrectly citing the import of the Second Council of Nicea on the subject of Holy Icons - the import was to state that the Icons themselves are not essentially/substantially participants of Christ (or their Saint-subject), and thus were not to be adored in the way we'd adore the Holy Gifts upon receiving them (precisely because ultimatly the Icon always will remain paint and wood - where as the Holy Gifts have become, really and truly, the Body and Blood of Christ our God.) The Icons are venerated in varying degrees, because they contain the likeness of Christ and the Saints - the Holy Gifts however are adored, because they are the Lord Jesus. This is part of the reason why the Altar is reverenced upon entering a Church (though not the only
Luther argued the contrary point, based on other Church Fathers (whom Thomas acknowledged, btw), that after the consecration, the substance of bread and wine remains, and is received around, with, and over the Body and Blood of Christ. You gave a good example of this view, commonly known as Consubstantiation, though you added an element of Platonic participation.
You've aptly demonstrated my point - a lot of "purging Orthodoxy of Latinisms" is really a front for preaching heresy and neo-modernism.