I know that the Eastern Orthodox churches believe that when they receive communion they do receive the body and blood of Christ. However, I understand they disagree with a number of teachings of the Latin (a.k.a. Roman) Catholic Church. I think the Eastern Orthodox reject transubstantiation. This is the belief that when one receives communion the actual substance consumed is the body and blood of Christ but the accidents, i.e. what the human senses can perceive, remain bread and wine. When the Eastern Orthodox receive communion it is obvious that what they receive looks, tastes, smells, feels, etc. like bread and wine. So, how do the Eastern Orthodox explain what they believe has happened? Latin Catholics believe when they receive communion they receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. Do Eastern Orthodox believe the same? Do the Eastern Orthodox only believe they are receiving Christ's body and blood but not his soul and divinity? Latin Catholics also talk about the Real Presence. When the priest has consecrated the elements they believe that the bread in the ciborium or on the paten is Christ and that the wine in the chalice is Christ. They show it due reverence accordingly. Now, I know that the Eastern Orthodox do not have exposition and benediction but do they believe that Christ is present on the altar in the elements consecrated by the priest? Finally, I would like to ask on a slightly different tack is my final questions. I know that in the Latin Catholic Church the elements bread and wine can only be consecrated by a priest during Mass and not outside Mass plus that they can only be consecrated once. For example, in the Anglican Church or, at least, in the Church of England if the priest finds he's running short of bread or wine during the distribution of communion he can consecrate more. The Latin Catholic Church strictly prohibits this. In the Eastern Orthodox churches can the elements only be consecrated during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy? Do Eastern Orthodox also have a strict rule prohibiting the priest consecrating more bread and wine like Latin Catholics or can an Eastern Orthodox priest consecrate more as is done by Anglicans?
Correct. Correct. The Orthodox reject Transubstantiation, essentially on the grounds that it is wrong to reduce the ineffable actions of God to a neat formula that reduces the sacrament (not an orthodox word) to something that needs to be explained physically. The ineffability of the Divine action transcends the physical. The Orthodox may use the Words of Institution in the Liturgy, but without the emphatic significance we place on it in the West, however the Orthodox must use an Epiclesis (the invocation of the Holy Spirit) because the essential part of the liturgy is God's action, not ours. Again the Orthodox will invoke ineffability. The Orthodox don't really speak in these terms, and they would be less than enamoured of dividing Christ's body and blood from his soul and divinity. Some of them are most probably close to but not quite Monophysite, given some of the fine precision that Orthodox theology can embrace. The Orthodox probably prefer Anglican Language of the Real Presence to the Latin connotation of it which means Transubstantiation, however they would utterly reject any form of tokenism, receptionism, transignification, or any other attempt to explain away or reduce the divine involvement in the liturgy. When we speak of Real Presence, they would expect us to mean that the presence of Christ is Real. The most important thing to understand in this is that the Orthodox do not do theology in the way we do in the West. They certainly believe that the table is set in this world and the next and the doors in the iconostasis or regularly referred to as the doors of heaven. The Latic Church sees the Mass as important and hope to get away in 45 minutes or less, whilst the Eastern Church sees the Liturgy (from the Greek words Laos and Ergon - meaning the peoples work) as the very essence of Church and they have enough adjectives to keep them there for 2 or 3 hours, and would think anything less was a bit budget, and often followed by some sort of community meal. I have no idea about the final paragraph, because the distribution of the sacrament is somewhat different to the western mode.
As far as I know, we don't officially reject transubstantiation, or sacramental union, or any hypothesis regarding exactly in what manner Christ manifests himself in the Eucharist. The scriptures and the Divine Liturgy make it clear that participating in the sacrament is participating in Christ's body and blood, but that's as far as we go. There may have been an exception at some point in history, maybe in an extreme circumstance, but I have never heard of a priest celebrating the Eucharist outside of the liturgy. As to consecrating extra bread, I'm not sure. I've never seen it happen. In our Eucharist the bread is chopped into small pieces and mixed with the wine, so we're probably less likely to run out than a church that uses the circular hosts. The priest could just give people very tiny spoonfuls if it came down to it.
I did think of somehow inserting into my question the fact that the Eastern Orthodox receive by what in the West would be called intinction; although, the methods are different. In the West a very dry host is quickly dipped into the wine. I know in the East leavened bread is cut up and mixed in with the wine. Therefore, I should have thought about the priest being able to give each individual a tiny spoonful. Thank you for ointing that out.
I always find it a challenge asking questions about the Eastern Orthodox. I can only ask questions from my perspective but that is a Western one and probably quite a Scholastic one. I am used to answers from the Eastern Orthodox that are basically, 'we do not think like that'. I am aware that they do not find the need to explain things as we do in the West and are often happy to simply accept something is simply a mystery beyond human comprehension. I used the word 'sacrament' although I think the English term preferred by the Eastern Orthodox may be 'mysteries'. There are those of us in the West who think the number is fixed at seven, and others who think there are two and others who think there are two major ones and five minor ones. The East does not, I understand, fix the number of sacraments. They agree that the seven we accept in the West are sacraments but I believe they consider there to be others. For example, I believe the consider the coronation of a monarch and the profession of a monk to be sacraments.