www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Questions, questions, questions

I am assuming that all the Dogmas of the Latin rite are also the Dogmas of the other rites. Is this so?

Does anyone have links to authentic Eastern Rite writings that help to explain the discipline, spiritualism of the Eastern Rite?

Also, why is it so important in the Latin rite for the communion host to be unleavened and only of wheat flour and water, while the "host" in the Eastern Rite is leavened? Can it have more to it than the flour , water and yeast and still remain valid?

Thank-you!

Island Seeker

In the Latin Rite , missing mass on Sunday is a mortal or grave sin.

In the Eastern Catholic rite, is missing liturgy (is that the right word) on Sunday a grave sin?

I mean willfully, not because you are sick, or the church is very far away etc.

If it is a grave sin in one rite, and not in another, is it because it is considered a "discipline" or cannon, and not a Dogma?

Thank-you very much!

IslandSeeker

Dear Island Seeker,

Your first question comes from different deposits of faith.

The Latin Church focuses on the death, the curcifixion of Christ. Therefore you have the unlevend Host.

The Eastern Churches focus on the Ressurection of Christ. Therefore you have levened bread.

Also, with very few exceptions, you will not see anyone other than the priest or deacon giving Communion to the people. There are no extrodinary ministers of the Eucharist in the East.

There are others who can answer your second question better than I do, as well as the first. But basically we participate in the Divine Liturgy because we LOVE JESUS. Not because the law tells us we have to be there, or we have to do such and such.

If you search for the writings of the Early Church Fathers they will help with understanding. Here is a discussion going on now https://www.byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001047

Dear Island Seeker,

As I understand it, both churches used LEAVENED bread the first eight hundred years or so. It was only out of reverence for the Sacred Species that the West started to use unleavened bread (less crumbs). One anecdotal piece of evidence comes from the time of St. Gregory the Great, where he tells of a women laughing irreverently during Mass because she recognized a loaf of bread (obviously leavened) that she herself had made. This opinion is that of most liturgists, but someone can correct me if I am wrong. But all the medieval justifications of the superiority of the Latin practice seem to stem from historical amnesia on the part of Latin theologians.

As for the issue of Latin dogma, East and West, it must be said that, in a certain way, our way of reception of the dogmas must be different, because our ecclesial being is distinct. This stems from a different liturgical, spiritual, theological, and canonical formation and way of life that the Byzantine Church lives. Scholastic and Counter-Reformation debates about transubstantiation and justification often make little sense to the Eastern Church, since these problems, solutions, and even ways to address the issue never came up in the Eastern Church. Thus, the Western Church has often has doctrinal struggles, beats the war drum, and plasters such and such a doctrine everywhere, where the Eastern Christian can often be left wondering: "What's the big deal? Why all the fuss?" Does this mean that the Eastern Church is heretical, that it believes something different? No, it merely means that through our Tradition, we have often viewed the same Mystery in a different light, that is all.
As for the issue of papal primacy, no one can deny that the office has changed substantially since the eleventh century. Unless one wants to hold to some quasi-Hegelian doctrine that the Church of the first thousand years understood ecclesiology less well than the Church of the last thousand years, one cannot deny that change is possible, that we can go back to thinking of the Pope less as king and more as the Supreme Court where issues between the Churches can be resolved. The truth is, the real role of the Papacy lies right smack in the middle of what the Orthodox and Catholics think it is (not a dictatorship, but neither a toothless "primus inter pares").
At least that is my opinion.

God bless,
Arturo

Dear Islandseeker,

Didn't someone say that no man is an island?

The West developed the tradition of using unleavened bread or "azymes" in imitation of what it thought was the "true type" of bread used for the Jewish Passover.

By the time of St Photios of Constantinople, Western Catholics were already being called "azymites" for their use of unleavened bread and were being condemned for what it considered to be a Judaizing practice.

During the Sack of Constantinople, by tradition, the marauding crusaders broke into the patriarchal vaults where very sacred relics were kept - among them, a portion of the actual bread used during the Mystical or Last Supper. It is said that this was leavened and not unleavened - to the horror of the Latin clerics who saw this.

However this may be, the East uses leavened bread to signify the Risen Christ as this is bread that has "risen." And the East commingles the Consecrated Bread with the Wine (which is always red, the colour of blood) to signify the Resurrection of Christ as well.

Also, the understanding of "symbol" in the East is that a symbol is something that "re-presents" something else - but only if it itself IS what it "re-presents."

Thus, Holy Communion in the East is BOTH Symbol And the Reality of the Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

I would recommend Fr. Michael Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" and Fr. John Meyendorff's "Ways of Byzantine Theology" that show how and why Eastern teaching differs from Western.

Eastern Catholics hold that the differences are not differencs of faith but differences about the way each side looks at the same faith.

The Orthodox would disagree.

But in every which way, the East differs from the West in the way it understands faith, morality and spirituality.

Alex

Hello IslandSeeker�

Allow me to answer from a Roman Catholic perspective.

Unleavened bread is used in those churches united to Rome as a general way of uniformity and because it is an ancient tradition. There is nothing special about it being leavened or unleavened - in a theological way. The bread Jesus used at Passover for the first Eucharist was unleavened as was the original Passover bread of Exodus and the �showbread� of the Temple services. It is probably that the earliest Christians used ordinary loafs of leaven household bread as the Eucharist was celebrated more as the closing of a community meal and had not yet been shaped into the dedicated rituals of ceremony.

Unleavened bread tended to keep longer and store easier, this could have been a reason that it was widely used in the West where Mass was said every day and throngs of people received communion. The Roman world was growing while the Eastern was waning - and so by a few centuries the churches in Rome and elsewhere in the Roman world were chuck full and overflowing with people. For example you can fit a few hundred wafers into a chalices but only a few dozen leavened cubes. It just seems more logistical to bake individual wafers than to bake a loaf and break it up - when you are talking about serving thousands of people in short times - every day. That way you can bake them only a few days of the week and not have to bake them every day for the next morning.

Records indicate that Rome used both leavened and unleavened bread up until the eleventh century� but in the fifteen century (after some Eastern church broke from the Pope in the tenth) it now became an important political matter. A thing to argue. It was also argued that only priests dressed in proper ritual clothing had the authority to bake the bread (as it was done in Eastern monasteries) and no one else, any other bread was invalid. If unleavened bread for all these years now suddenly became invalid then countless people who had received communion of unleavened bread for all these centuries - did not received Jesus. The attempt was made to argue that Rome was involved in invalid sacraments - a heretical church and that would have worked if leavened bread now became the only valid bread. Rome declared that both leavened and unleavened were valid to use and that the Church of Roman would standardize on unleavened.

I believe there are some rites of Eastern tradition in union with Rome that use leavened bread (the Melkites?) and the Catholic church recognizes the validity of the Eucharistic sacrament of the Orthodox church which uses leavened bread. So being leavened or unleavened has nothing to do with the validity of the sacrament but does have something to do with following the guidelines set down by the bishop who has charge.

In any event - there is no huge theological weight to it for the West - it is more a matter of tradition which goes back at least o the eighth century and among the non-Chalcedonian Armenians back to the late 4th or early 5th century and then back to the unleavened bread Jesus himself used.

It is not the technical elements or ingredience of the bread that make the sacrament valid - it is not a magic formula that fails or is invalid if not done just right - there is not one specific language that must be used� it is Jesus acting within the priest officiating. The uniformity has to do with the rites and ceremonies being a way of preaching the gospel - so there is symbolic meaning also. The church has always been careful not to let people imagine that it is magic or formular that �produces� sacraments rather but Jesus himself.

It is also a practical matter of uniformity otherwise you may have someone using raisin bread or hot dog buns. Under extreme situations any bread will do. In the concentration camps of WWII any bread - did do - although some might argue that the priests who served so many last communions and the men who received them - did not receive Jesus because the - break was wrong.

The Dogmas of East and West are essentially the same - just expressed in different ways due to cultural differences. The Western church is has its roots in Eastern theology. Any dogma further developed in the West (very few, only three I think in all these centuries) has is origin in the early days of the Church. .. For example� the early days of the church has always recognized that Mary was conceived without the stain of sin � meaning that from the instant of her conception she was without sin (that is the meaning of �Full of grace�). And in the vast Roman Catholic world (do not forget it is huge and composed of varied rites and languages etc..) it was wise to define that in a way so that it was understood in a similar way across all the many countries, languages, cultures and rites etc.. under the care of Rome.

Peace be with you.
-ray

>>>Unleavened bread is used in those churches united to Rome as a general way of uniformity and because it is an ancient tradition<<<

ouch


>>>The Roman world was growing while the Eastern was waning - and so by a few centuries the churches in Rome and elsewhere in the Roman world were chuck full and overflowing with people.<<<

ouch

>>Records indicate that Rome used both leavened and unleavened bread up until the eleventh century&#8230; (after some Eastern church broke from the Pope in the tenth) <<<

Double ouch

>>>I believe there are some rites of Eastern tradition in union with Rome that use leavened bread (the Melkites?) and the Catholic church recognizes the validity of the Eucharistic sacrament of the Orthodox church which uses leavened bread. <<<

Yes, there are some.

>>>And in the vast Roman Catholic world (do not forget it is huge and composed of varied rites and languages etc..)<<<

Rite.

>>>Peace be with you.<<<

And also with you.

Sam

Unleavened bread tended to keep longer and store easier, this could have been a reason that it was widely used in the West where Mass was said every day and throngs of people received communion

no, it wasn't. Daily Mass with Communion was only common in monasteries. Even religious (nuns and non-ordained members of religious communities weren't allowed to receive every day.) Daily reception of Communion is only popular in the begining of the 20th century. The Holy Name Society was popular because it allowed its members (laymen) to receive Commuion ONCE A MONTH; an unheard of idea until recently. Most Catholics only received Commuion 4 times a year until recently.

Yes, the matter is necessary. I remember 25 years ago attending a Mass where a "Jesus cookie" was used. It is like the Eastern bread but with honey and choclate chips added in. THIS IS NOT VALID MATTER!!!! It is very common in RC churches today!

In concentration camps if ordinary bread was used it was valid matter; they had nothing else. I remember reading books about the experiences of the priests in those camps. If they could get hold of a couple of graps they crushed them to make wine. I believe this is called "mustum". It is valid. It is a matter of the priests intention. If he want to celebrate Mass or the Liturgy and tries to conform as best to the rules it is valid. But if he deviates and does not intend to follow the rules (using "Jesus cookies") then it is not valid matter.

But basically we participate in the Divine Liturgy because we LOVE JESUS. Not because the law tells us we have to be there, or we have to do such and such.


That is basically why we attend mass. But what if you love Jesus, but you don't feel like putting out the effort to get to Divine Liturgy? Is it a sin (grave) or is it up to each person if they go to Divine Liturgy or not without having to worry if they have committed a sin?

I wish there was a barf smiley here!

Mike C, what on earth could you mean by "very common" that would make your sentence true?

Yes a barf smiley, indeed.

IslandSeeker:

May I ask how can one love Jesus and not make the effort to come into Communion with Him at the Liturgy?

Maybe you haven't yet gotten to the point where you have a glimpse of what the Liturgy is about. If people did, they would have to expand every church because there wouldn't be enough space on earth to hold everyone.

In the Liturgy we come to experience Jesus in a way that can be experienced nowhere else on earth. So why would I not want to go? I can have Him absorb Himself into every fiber of my being and take Him with me everywhere I go after Holy Communion. So, miss Liturgy? Not if I have a breath of air and the will to crawl there!!! As I have told my children and the young people of my parish on many occasions: the Liturgy is the most important work, experience, participatory event that any of us will do this side of eternity. Beside it nothing is important. Nothing.

It's a little like saying I love my wife but don't want to be around her at home. It's like saying I can love someone without establishing and nourishing a relationship. Relationships take work and the Liturgy is the way we nourish our relationship with Christ in its most primary, important, and intimate way.

In Christ,

BOB

Really? I wouldn't say that.

IslandSeeker:

When I teach religious classes, I define "sin" as an acronym: "separation/selfishness/self-centeredness IS nice/normal/normative." Take the first letter from each word and make up the combination you wish. The result is still the same--I tell God I don't need Him. His Son asked us to participate in His Saving Action and Victory with His Community, the Church. Do I "sin" by not participating? He saves us in community, in the Church. There are no rugged individualists amond Christians. So, if I set myself up as one who is "separate," what would you say?

I'd prefer to look at the issue of "sin" as some pattern wherein I tell God, "hey, DAD, I can do it my own way, thank You very much." So if the Lord tells us to do something as a re-presentation of Him and we decide we don't need to do so, what do we call it? Separation? Self-centeredness? Selfishness? And is it "normal" or "nice" or "normative"?

If you send me your email address, I'll upload to you a copy of an introduction to the Liturgy that I use in teaching adults. It might help explain what we are about in the Liturgy. Myself, the more I have studied what the great minds of the Catholic Church--Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Latin--have written and preached about the Liturgy the more I want to be there. I never cease to get something new out of participation wherever I go, whether to my Latin parish or to an Orthodox parish near me. To me, trying to absorb everything that the Lord can teach me in the Liturgy is like trying to soak up the ocean with a hand sponge.

In Christ,

BOB

I try to keep aware that some Catholics in other parts of the Catholic world may have different experiences than I had and have.

I have hear about some horrific experiences. Mostly from the Midwest and West coast. Here on the East coast of the US daily Mass has been available since I was a child (I am 55 - I think!) now. And weekly Mass has been a must since I can remember. Irish and Italian communities most certainly held daily Mass since first coming to this country and bring the Catholic religion here, with its tradition and habit of daily Mass.

I do not know where you are located that you experience most Catholics taking communion only four times a year and chocolate Jesus cookies are common - that sounds like another planet to me. It is not my experience nor do I believe it is the common Catholic experience. For as long as I can remember the rule has been Mass on Sunday unless there was a good reason not� if you missed out of laziness or just did not want to go - that was a sin for the confessional. I am aware that those who do not live a Catholic life but want to remain �card carrying Catholics� just go a few times during the year on the most important holy days. And this may be majority of Catholics here in the US. Times change and as Christianity slips away from the entire world I imagine Europe, and even such dedicated Catholic countries such as Portugal, Spain and Italy, experience less and less coming to any mass at all.

The church I attend daily Mass at (when I get there) has about 50 to 150 people daily throughout the week. It is at 8:30 in the morning. All Catholic churches around her have daily Mass at some time during the morning. It is staggered so if you miss one time here you can go another time there. Most nuns wear habits (unless involved in ministry where it is not appropriate) and there are at least 5 convents in my small town and three monasteries (two cloistered) within 50 miles and two seminaries. Countless parochial schools and two major Catholic hospitals. At Mass yesterday (this one held in the back of a Catholic bookstore) there was three nuns with different habits. One was Dominican, one Fransican, and one Sisters of Mercy. There is a lack of priests so that is why there were there I imagine. A retired priest was the celebrant.

>Most Catholics only received Commuion 4 times a year until recently.
I believe you are talking about the Middle Ages and before when travel was by foot or horse and the attendance of daily Mass was those who were nearby within reasonable distance.

Certainly daily Mass has a long tradition� with the Readings of Daily Mass going way back in tradition. I do not see why there would be daily Mass readings assigned if there was no daily Mass.

In early days it was called �breaking bread�. I do not think that times in which peoples inability to get to daily Mass should mean that there was no daily Mass.

There were certainly times and locations where daily Mass was not wise or practical and places where certain bishops did not allow it for whatever reasons - but that does not represent the general life and desire of the Catholic church.

During the times just before the 19th century - Europe (throwing off the church) was often a dangerous place to be a Catholic. Catholic priests being hunted down and killed in many countries - waves of persecution meant it was dangerous to hold a Mass at all or to even be publicly known as a Catholic. In Spain (a safer place) when there were so many spiritualists and false mystics (around the time of St. John of the Cross) abuses had to be stopped so restrictions were put into place - especially in monasteries.

I am sorry for your Catholic experience which has left you bitter. Your experience is not the fault of the Catholic church but rather the people who should have been representing it to you.

As for ��Yes, the matter is necessary� I think we agree here � the prime necessity is the intention, the availably, and the heart and mind of the church. The crushed grapes of the concentration camps is not fermented wine, so as not to be really �wine� at all but none the less became the sacrament. The chocolate cookies are not the mind of the church and even if a priest say the proper words, because he has cut himself off from the spirit of the church he has also cut off his priesthood from its source. Like turning tap water off.

It is an interesting comment that St. Paul makes - and it goes to the heart of the presence of Christ. The comment is best understood in the Greek and it is to the effect that those who receive the Eucharist with the proper intention and conscience do receive Christ - and those who receive the same host but without good intention of conscience, receive only bread and wine and do not receive Jesus.

Our Newton like mechanical view of the universe does not hold true when it comes to the sacraments of the church. Water is water for whoever drinks it - but the Eucharist is only the Eucharist for those who are prepared to receive it as such. The intentions of the priest and the intentions of the receiver are the defining elements. And a priest faculties are only operative while he remains united in the intentions of his legitimate hierarchy. He is nothing if he does not remain attached to the vine from which his faculties flow.

Nice chat. These are my thougts. Thank you for the opportunity.

-ray