1965 Orthodox-Catholic meeting

[FireDragon76]

actually, it's an example of the Apollinarian heresy. and it has nothing to do with idolatry, since leavened vs unleavened has nothing to do with idols.

I am familiar with the Apollinarian heresy. How does using unleavened bread amount to denying that Jesus had two minds, one human and one divine?

 

[Lukaris]

I am familiar with the Apollinarian heresy. How does using unleavened bread amount to denying that Jesus had two minds, one human and one divine?

Many differences preceded the schism but the Vatican codified what was problematic to us & tried to force us to accept it (filioque etc...). This was not the fault of 99.9% if anyone but problems expanded.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I am familiar with the Apollinarian heresy. How does using unleavened bread amount to denying that Jesus had two minds, one human and one divine?

that's not the Apollinarian heresy

 

[ArmyMatt]

the Apollinarian heresy is that the Logos took the place of Christ's soul, and He thus had no rational mind and no nous. thus, a full human nature was not risen.

 

[FireDragon76]

What does that have to do with leavened bread?

 

[☦Marius☦]

The mentality among some is there, that if we rescind one anathema, then maybe we have to rethink other things in our religion. Orthodoxy for these people is less a pillar of truth and more a delicate tapistry or some kind of fragile organism that cannot withstand scrutiny.

First off I think this thread is derailing into unchristian attitudes. We all after all I'm sure wish the church had not split to begin with. But to put my own personal input:

Orthodoxy has changed in surface tradition. Some of our rite changes over time, a maturing if you will. But we only accept a change if the entire church accepts it. Then it is tradition. We have not however changed theological dogma without a church council, whcih that has not happened in centuries.

The problem with lifting anathema or anything pronounced at a church council is that it puts in question the timeless authority of the councils, and therefore anything else the council decided. Since we believe council's decisions are led by the Holy Spirit, it is not a simple matter to simply declare an old council's decisions wrong.

The main issue with Rome is Papal primacy. It was the original issue, and you can take away every other difference and leave that one, and we would still find it enough to not unite. For us it is a matter of principle. We see Rome as having too much authority. For us councils lead the church, and the unity of multiple patriarchs. Rome in 1054 showed that it believed itself to be more than just "first among equals" a title we hesitantly gave them in the first place. Rome wanted dogmatic power within the church, and it was evident from the way things were becoming politically. This has not changed. Pope Francis is a living example of this, as well as Vatican II. Half the catholics I know go on endlessly about how much they hate Vatican II. Bringing new Tradition into the church radically like that would never happen in the Orthodox church because we believe our tradition comes from the slow influence of the Holy Spirit, and to go against the will of the people is wrong in our eyes, as the people are just important as the hierarchs as we are all in communion with one another.

Fundamentally for us we see Papal Primacy as the Roman Church stepping away from having Christ lead the doctrine of the church (through councils as the apostles did) and letting a man lead it instead. That has been the root of everything we are against.

 

[☦Marius☦]

What does that have to do with leavened bread?

We see Christ as the leaven to the Jews unleavened prophecies. Jews did not have a fulfillment of the sacrificial system hence no leaven, a bread made in haste. We have that fulfillment, the completion of the sacrificial system, hence Christ being the "yeast" of the system. Its kind of hard to word I hope you get what I am trying to portray.

 

[FireDragon76]

OK, so the leaven has a spiritual meaning. I guess we are more pragmatic and we do not expect our worship to have to have the same spiritual meaning for all Christians. As a Lutheran, we would consider it wrong to have this be a divisive issue, as the Scriptures do not specify what type of bread Jesus used, nor did he leave us with any command pertaining to the type of bread.

We are free to use leavened bread, in fact we have done so at my church in the past on special occasions. Many Protestant churches use leavened bread as well. We simply choose to use unleavened bread because it is easy to obtain and convenient to use (and it lasts a long time stored in the sacristy).

 

[☦Marius☦]

I wouldn't say the issue itself is divisive, unless one side is trying to force the other into it. I think the argument between greeks, copts, and catholics over this issue has more to do with already separated churches finding further reasons to nitpick at each other. That being said I do agree with the Greek view (obviously), but do not see it as a reason to judge those who do not, or be separate from them.

I mean different branches of Orthodoxy believe some different things, we are still all orthodox though. Don't believe we are all one homogeneous blob of one belief. Orthodoxy is diverse almost to an insane point for someone like myself who is looking for one answer. But I think that diversity is also the point. All the differences and we still commune.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What does that have to do with leavened bread?

and, in addition to what aluke said, if Christ is not fully human as we are, full humanity did not rise from the grave. the risened bread represents a fully risen human nature.

 

[ArmyMatt]

OK, so the leaven has a spiritual meaning. I guess we are more pragmatic and we do not expect our worship to have to have the same spiritual meaning for all Christians. As a Lutheran, we would consider it wrong to have this be a divisive issue, as the Scriptures do not specify what type of bread Jesus used, nor did he leave us with any command pertaining to the type of bread.

actually, the Scripture says artos which the early Fathers, East and West, used to defend leavened bread, since it means leavened bread. as opposed to anzimos which means unleavened bread.