Unleavened or Leavened Bread?

[WarriorAngel]

The early Church used unleavened to meet the criteria of the Passover Christ instituted as His New Covenant.

As did Melchizedek..

The West has always used Unleavened bread and the East reverted to Leavened bread in the 5th Century.

Is there a reason for this?


Mark 14
12 Now on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the pasch, the disciples say to him: Whither wilt thou that we go, and prepare for thee to eat the pasch?

Luke 22
1 Now the feast of unleavened bread, which is called the pasch, was at hand.

Luke 22
7 And the day of the unleavened bread came, on which it was necessary that the pasch should be killed.

1 Corinthians 5
8 Therefore let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

 

[RobNJ]

From the OCA website:

QUESTION:

Why does the Orthodox church use leavened bread and most Protestant fellowships use unleavened bread? I am a member of the Church of Christ (Restoration Movement) and we use unleavened bread because we assume that is the type of bread used at the Last Supper. When was unleavened bread brought introduced to the church?


ANSWER:

Actually, leavened bread has always been used in the Eastern Church. In fact, at one point in time, a great controversy raged over the fact that in the Eastern Church leavened bread was used, while in the Christian West unleavened bread was the norm.

In the Christian East there is no concern for using the exact type of bread used at the Last Supper -- known in the Orthodox Church as the "Mystical Supper." Christ "leavens" our lives, so to speak, and the purpose of the Eucharistic celebration is not to "recreate" or "reproduce" a past event but, rather, to participate in an event that is beyond time and space and which, in fact, continues to happen each time the Eucharist is celebrated in fulfillment of Our Lord's command.


http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=108&SID=3

 

[WarriorAngel]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200181.htm

Homilies on Matthew (Chrysostom) > Homily 81



ALSO;
The earliest documentary evidence that the altar-breads were made in thin wafers is the answer which Cardinal Humbert, legate of St. Leo IX, made at the middle of the eleventh century to Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople. These wafers were sometimes very large, as from them small pieces were broken for the Communion of the laity, hence the word "particle" for the small host; but smaller ones were used when only the celebrant communicated.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01349d.htm

Can a wafer be leavened?

 

[prodromos]

The early Church used unleavened to meet the criteria of the Passover Christ instituted as His New Covenant.

As did Melchizedek..

The West has always used Unleavened bread and the East reverted to Leavened bread in the 5th Century.

Is there a reason for this?

You have got this completely reversed WA. Both the Church in the East and the West used leavened bread from the beginning then Rome later changed to using unleavened bread. You need to check your sources.
<Edit>
I was going to point you to a couple of threads on the Catholic Answers forum, but the powers that be have decided that:
1. They no longer want Eastern Orthodox freely discussing things with Catholics and have removed the "Eastern Christianity" forum.
2. They don't want Catholics reading the content of the many excellent threads which developed in that forum, and have now wiped those threads from the archive as well.

Oh well.
I unfortunately do not have the time or resources to demonstrate to you how the Latin church changed from its traditional use of leavened bread to unleavened bread, but this is the truth of the matter. At Holy Communion we are not celebrating the Jewish passover, rather we are celebrating the incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Albion]

So in the West, re-enacting the supper Christ and his apostles ate and doing "this" in response to Christ's command to "Do this...in commemoration," etc. governs the type of bread used. By comparison, the East uses leavened bread to symbolize an important truth about Christ--that he is risen.

But if you check, I believe you will find that it is not just the symbolism that has led to the EO practice of using leavened bread, but also a conviction that the Last Supper wasn't
actually a Passover meal (although it was intended to be that). If it was not a Passover meal, we cannot say that the bread to be used certainly was Passover-style and unleavened.

Otherwise, you are left to argue that the EO, which in its Divine Liturgy retains far more of the OT Hebrew practice than is the case in any Western liturgy, departs from it with this one but critically important item, the kind of bread to use.

 

[zhilan]

This reminds me of how the West accused the East of changing the Creed and condemned them for that....only to realize centuries later they they actually were the ones that changed!

 

[Rhamiel]

where is the evidance that the early Church in the east or west used leavened bread?

 

[prodromos]

where is the evidance that the early Church in the east or west used leavened bread?

Origines Ecclesiasticæ: The Antiquities of the Christian Church by Joseph Bingham

Fourthly, we are to observe upon this head, That so long as the people continued to make oblations of bread and wine, the elements for the use of the eucharist were usually taken out of them ; and by consequence, so long the bread was that common leavened bread, which they used upon other occasions ; and the use of wafers and unleavened bread was not known in the church till the eleventh or twelfth centuries, when the oblations of common bread began to be left off by the people. This will seem a great paradox to all who look no further than the schoolmen, and only read their disputes with the Greeks about leavened and unleavened bread, which are fierce enough on both sides, and have little of truth on either : as commonly such disputes evaporate into smoke, and end in bitter and false reproaches ; the Greeks terming the Latins Azymites, for consecrating in azymis, that is, unleavened bread ; and the Latins, on the other hand, charging the Greeks with deviating from the example of Christ, and the practice of the ancient church. I will not enter into the detail of the arguments on both sides, which belongs not to this place ; but only acquaint the reader, that now the most wise and learned men in the Roman church, who have more exactly scanned and examined this matter, think fit to desert the schoolmen, and maintain, that the whole primitive church, and the Roman church herself for many ages, never consecrated the eucharist in any other but common and leavened bread.

REFLECTIONS ON EUCHARISTIC BREAD AND WINE

The requirement of unleavened bread is for liceity. In the early centuries, both Eastern and Western Churches used leavened bread for the Eucharist, but in the eighth and ninth centuries the use of unleavened bread became the general custom in the West. In keeping with the scope of the Code, the canon properly addresses only the practice of the Latin Rite... (“The Code of Canon Law, Text and Commentary,” page 659).

If you could be bothered to make the effort yourself, I'm sure you could find many more references.

 

[Fish and Bread]

I'm not sure that there is a right or wrong answer to this question. The history of the issue isn't entirely clear to me, but it seems likely to me that Jesus used unleavened bread because it was Passover, and then the early Church may have used leavened bread because it wasn't Passover. Some people wanted to do exactly what Jesus did, some people wanted to stick with the Apostolic tradition. Both have different interesting symbolic reasons for their choices, and both have established venerable traditions of using the type of bread they use. If Jesus did it one way and the Apostles did it another, and he gave them authority to make decisions like that, I'm not sure we can really say either way is wrong intrinsically. Each way is true to it's own tradition and each way is true to the Church and to God. As long as rites aren't mixed, and those conducting the western liturgy use unleavened bread and those conducting the eastern liturgy use leavened bread, I'm not so sure this is a big issue.

 

[zhilan]

For the record, I don't think that using unleavened bread or leavened bread is a matter of salvation or of making one a "better" Christian. It's honestly not an issue that has ever bothered me either way and I think it's sort of a silly thing to argue over.

 

[WarriorAngel]

The Church maintains an easier position in the controversy respecting the use of fermented or unfermented bread. By leavened bread (fermentum, zymos) is meant such wheaten bread as requires leaven or yeast in its preparation and baking, while unleavened bread (azyma, azymon) is formed from a mixture of wheaten flour and water, which has been kneaded to dough and then baked. After the Greek Patriarch Michael Cærularius of Constantinople had sought in 1053 to palliate the renewed rupture with Rome by means of the controversy, concerning unleavened bread, the two Churches, in the Decree of Union at Florence, in 1439, came to the unanimous dogmatic decision, that the distinction between leavened and unleavened bread did not interfere with the confection of the sacrament, though for just reasons based upon the Church's discipline and practice, the Latins were obliged to retain unleavened bread, while the Greeks still held on to the use of leavened

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm

1053, Michael Cærularius ordered all the Latin churches in the Byzantine capital to be closed, and the Latin monks to be expelled. As a dogmatic justification of this violent rupture with the past, he advanced the novel tenet that the unleavened oblation of the "Franks" was not a valid Mass

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02172a.htm

Well, as I am showing you from the CC...
The use of unleavened was retained...
While the year 1053 brought in leavened.
My mistake, i thot it was the 5th Century.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I am not arguing..I was interest in where the use of leavened bread came from.
And why the East uses it.

But I have discovered it.
And I have received both. I attended the Byzantine Mass.

 

[zhilan]

But I have discovered it.
And I have received both. I attended the Byzantine Mass.

Why not ask your Byzantine priest then? He can probably explain it just as well as we can, as well as most of the other questions you have about the differences between RC and OO. I'd be interested to know if you have found the needle in the haystack ER priest who believes as the Catholic Church does or if he's like every one that I've met and is entirely Orthodox in his theology.

Anyhoo, I'm glad to hear that. Maybe one of these days you will become Orthodox!

 

[WarriorAngel]

zhilan, I will never become Orthodox. My allegiance is as it was with the early writers, is with the Pope of Rome.

Secondly, the priests did talk to me from the Byzantine Church and he said they fully trust and follow the Pope...
But they have Eastern culture.

Meaning... THEY kept the early Eastern Traditions [which are cultural] but follow the understandings as the Pope guides the Church to do so. And has always done so.


IE... as it was in the beginning between the two.

 

[zhilan]

zhilan, I will never become Orthodox. My allegiance is as it was with the early writers, is with the Pope of Rome.

You never know where the Holy Spirit will lead you. If you told me 7 years ago that I would become Orthodox I would find you the address of the local loony bin. I was more hard core Catholic than you, and if you don't believe me I can try to find some posts of mine from old forums I used to go to. I also went to programs at Christendom College, which you may know is an extremely conservative Catholic college, so you would never, never suspect that I would become Orthodox. And I've met many Catholics who followed the same path. So I still have hope for you! I never would give up on the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, the priests did talk to me from the Byzantine Church and he said they fully trust and follow the Pope...
But they have Eastern culture.

Cool. Well I guess you've found a unique one that does believe in all the doctrines. That's actually the first ER priest/person I've met that believes in the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, etc.

Meaning... THEY kept the early Eastern Traditions [which are cultural] but follow the understandings as the Pope guides the Church to do so. And has always done so.

So they do accept all the teachings.

IE... as it was in the beginning between the two.

Yes, the ones I've met I would say are pretty much how it was in the beginning, in that they believe the Pope is the first among equals and do not follow any of the added doctrines. In my experience their reasons for being Catholic rather than Orthodox are political and / or cultural.

But to each his own.

 

[prodromos]

The Church's Liturgy By Michael Kunzler
Read section 3.8.3. The Fraction, Agnus Dei and Commingling.
It speaks of the West's former traditional use of leavened bread for the eucharist.

Primary Readings on the Eucharist By Thomas Fisch
This goes into the reason why the West introduced unleavened bread for the eucharist around the 800's

 

[WarriorAngel]

At the time of the Schism, Photius and Cerularius hurled against Latin rites and customs every conceivable absurd accusation. The Latin fast on Saturday, Lenten fare, law of celibacy, confirmation by a bishop, and especially the use of unleavened bread for the Holy Eucharist were their accusations against the West

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm


zhilan...here is an answer about the filoque in the EC's right to not say it.

Where there is no suspicion of false doctrine, as in the Byzantine Rite, the only change made was the restoration of the name of the pope where the schismatics had erased it. Although the question of the procession of the Holy Ghost has been so fruitful a source of dispute between Rome and Constantinople the Filioque clause was certainly not contained in the original creed, nor did the Roman authorities insist on its addition. So Rome is content that Eastern Catholics should keep their traditional form unchanged, though they believe the Catholic doctrine. The Filioque is only sung by those Byzantine Uniats who wish it themselves, as the Ruthenians. Other rites were altered in places, not to romanize but only to eradicate passages suspected of heresy. All other Uniats came from Nestorian, Monophysite, or Monothelete sects, whose rites had been used for centuries by heretics. Hence, when bodies of these people wished to return to the Catholic Church their services were keenly studied at Rome for possible heresy. In most cases corrections were absolutely necessary. The Nestorian Liturgy, for instance, did not contain the words of institution, which had to be added to the Liturgy of the converted Chaldees. The Monophysite Jacobites, Copts, and Armenians have in the Trisagion the fateful clause: "who wast crucified for us", which has been the watchword of Monophysitism ever since Peter the Dyer of Antioch added it (470-88). If only because of its associations this could not remain in a Catholic Liturgy.

 

[zhilan]

1. truthiness (noun)
1 : "truth that comes from the gut, not books" (Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," October 2005)
2 : "the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true" (American Dialect Society, January 2006)

 

[prodromos]

Here are a few more references courtesy of Fr Ambrose in Middle Earth (AKA New Zealand)

Fr. Joseph Jungman -- in his book The Mass of the Roman Rite -- states that:

"In the West, various ordinances appeared from the ninth century on, all demanding the exclusive use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist. A growing solicitude for the Blessed Sacrament and a desire to employ only the best and whitest bread, along with various scriptural considerations -- all favored this development.

"Still, the new custom did not come into exclusive vogue until the middle of the eleventh century. Particularly in Rome it was not universally accepted till after the general infiltration of various usages from the North" [Joseph Jungman, The Mass of the Roman Rite, volume II, pages 33-34]

Fr. Jungman goes on to say that, ". . . the opinion put forward by J. Mabillon, Dissertatio de pane eucharistia, in his answer to the Jesuit J. Sirmond, Disquisitio de azymo, namely, that in the West it was always the practice to use only unleavened bread, is no longer tenable" [Jungman, The Mass of the Roman Rite, volume II, page 33]

"Now, the fact that the West changed its practice and began using unleavened bread in the 8th and 9th century -- instead of the traditional leavened bread -- is confirmed by the research of Fr. William O'Shea, who noted that along with various other innovative practices from Northern Europe, the use of unleavened bread began to infiltrate into the Roman liturgy at the end of the first millennium, because as he put it, "Another change introduced into the Roman Rite in France and Germany at the time [i.e., 8th - 9th century] was the use of unleavened bread and of thin white wafers or hosts instead of the loaves of leavened bread used hitherto" [Fr. William O'Shea, The Worship of the Church, page 128].

"Moreover, this change in Western liturgical practice was also noted by Dr. Johannes H. Emminghaus in his book, The Eucharist: Essence, Form, Celebration, because as he said: "The Eucharistic bread has been unleavened in the Latin rite since the 8th century -- that is, it is prepared simply from flour and water, without the addition of leaven or yeast. . . . in the first millennium of the Church's history, both in East and West, the bread normally used for the Eucharist was ordinary 'daily bread,' that is, leavened bread, and the Eastern Church uses it still today; for the most part, they strictly forbid the use of unleavened bread. The Latin Church, by contrast, has not considered this question very important." [Dr. Johannes H. Emminghaus, The Eucharist: Essence, Form, Celebration, page 162]

"Thus, with the foregoing information in mind, it is clear that the use of leavened bread by the Eastern Churches represents the ancient practice of the undivided Church, while the use of unleavened bread by the Western Church was an innovation introduced near the end of the first millennium."

 

[prodromos]

and before someone brings up the fact that the Armenians use unleavened bread.

http://books.google.com/books?id=f8...ts=02DXlzGRUM&sig=Idzt97Jkygf6QpeWNwWzSYVjplA

The two mosty striking peculiarities in the true Armenian rite - the use of unleavened bread and wine without water - are shown by Le Brun (tom.IV. diss.X a.10) to have been introduced by an Armenian Council about 640, in order to symbolise the Monophysite doctrine that Christ had only one nature