It is a caucus thread, as I don’t want it to lose focus, but your questions are welcome.
Forest Keeper, you asked me once to ping you to whatever Orthodox writings I translate, and this is the first time I undertook such a task since then.
One thing I do not have a handle on about the Eucharist is where the line is between the literal and the symbolic. My initial reaction to the above is that it is NOT intended to be a direct comparison to the Eucharist because it sounds much more symbolic. I base that on:
Let us now imagine the moment when the sacrament of the Eucharist is taking place. Again, this is incarnation! Again, the power of God not invisibly, not purely spiritually, but in full reality enters the feast of the offering, which in a short while will become a part of our own substance. The power feeds us, we commune with the flesh and blood, bread and wine, wheat and the vine. Christ Himself enters our flesh and blood. When He said All power is given to me in heaven and in earth, He became everywhere.
...... This is not a spiritual, symbolic, or, far worse, ideological communion. He said that the sacred feast will be He Himself and in the end it turns out that He incarnates into us! The summit and center of the Eucharist is incarnation of Christ in us.
So am I on the right line? Is the correct interpretation of this last passage that the communion is all literal? (I know he said earlier not to worry about the bread being actual flesh, etc.) Further, what is the difference between a spiritual communion and this kind? I don't understand why a spiritual communion would be "bad", as the author seems to imply.