www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Azymes? A Problem?

Is the fact that the Roman Church (I think others do as well) uses unleavened bread in the Eucharist a big barrier to unity?

Is it that big of a deal?

Dear Dr. Eric,

I don't think that it should be.

There was a difference in interpretation of what bread should be used for the Eucharist even while we were a united church.

Apparently, even while we were one, in Constantinople, the Latins used unleavened and the Byzantines didn't.

Ofcourse, not that this means that the inevitable ego of man didn't nit pick about it, even back then!!! (I can just hear the echoes of "we are right" from both the East and the West
resonating through the winds of time--the joys of living in a 'fallen' world! LOL )

Regards,
Alice

Anyway, doesn't the Armenian Church use unleaved bread as well? Not that the Eastern Orthodox are in communion with the Armenians, but there you have it: an Eastern (non-Catholic) Church that uses unleavened bread as well.

I think I'm right on that?

Come to think of it (and I have in the past), the Armenian Church seems to have a lot of similarities with the Latin Catholic Church: direction of the Sign of the Cross, unleavened bread (I think), mitres, and some other things, I think...

Alexis

Alexis,

Given that St. Paul's teaching on the Eucharist seems to suggest that unleavened bread was originally used by the earliest Church, I would think that it shouldn't be a problem at all. In my opinion (for what it is worth) the Latin tradition probably expresses more literally what is referred to in Scripture whereas the Byzantine tradition seems to be based on post-biblical theological reflection. If I had to put money it, I would bet that the use of unleavened bread was the original practice in all of the Churches and the use of leavened bread in some churches only came later. I am not an expert on this issue though, so I'm sure there is historical evidence that I'm not taking into account.

Joe

Also, by the way, I believe that it is the case that the old believers in Russia made the sign of the cross using two fingers rather than three. And that the use of three fingers was a later practice. I am only going from my very imperfect memory but I think this was the case. Folks, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Joe

Some Orthodox Christians (not on this Forum, I believe) make a big deal about the Roman Church (and others) who use unleavened bread, how this violates Scripture (artos?) and that Our Lord used leavened bread at the Last Supper, etc...

And Joe, the Old Believers do use the 2 finger Sign of the Cross. My Icon from St. Catherine's (not literally) of the Lord has Him holding his fingers in the 2 Finger Sign, not the ICXC which is in other Icons.

I believe the Diache records that in the very early Church we crossed ourselves on the forehead with our thumbs like the people do at the reading of the Gospel in the Latin Church, except the Latins cross the lips and heart as well.

Oh, so am I being controversial? Well, I stated from the first time I ever came to this forum that I am probably on the liberal end of my Church (if liberal is the right word). I mean no offense to anyone, but I suppose I have a C.S. Lewis "Mere Christianity" attitude toward these things; though I certainly believe that "Mere Christianity" entails more than Lewis thought that it did.

Joe

And I would add that this evidence from the Didache shows that there was never strict uniformity in the Church with regard to these things.

Joe

This is all so terribly UNimportant in the realm of things.

It is nothing but idle talk...as well as the perpetual 'I am right, you are wrong' syndrome! ARGH!

Alice

Did you make a big deal about this, Joe?

I was referring to another Antiochian Christian on the Catholic Answers Website.

From what I gather you are very open minded and easy going. My post wasn't meant to offend anyone, I was just asking if anyone here at byzcath thought azymes were a stumbling block.

Aye, I agree Alice. I believe in preservation of the ancient traditions and Liturgy as much as anyone. But, we must be careful that we do not fall into the trap of the pharisees. It is a good thing to be right. It is even better to love our neighbor as ourselves the way we are commanded.

joe

Yes, I agree.

Oh goodness, I would never make a big deal out of this. I was wondering if I was being controversial because I perhaps, was taking things too lightly. I confess though that I am a newbie to Orthodoxy and have much to learn. No, I wasn't offended in the least. I was just afraid that maybe I was being offensive to some if they do take this issue very seriously.

Joe

I was always told that Our Lord was performing (and changing) a Jewish Seder. So He would have used unleavened bread. But others have said that he used leavened bread as it was a different ceremony than a Seder. (The Deacon who converted from Orthodoxy to Catholicism on EWTN tonight touched a bit on this.)

An earlier topic seems to allude to the fact that maybe the latter is more in line with the Gospels. (Something about the Pope changing "Passover.")

I am not sure, but this is the way I have always thought of it. That there are different deposits of faith. The West on the Crucifixion, so the unlevened bread. The East on the Resurrection, so the levened bread. But, then from this simple Southern Baptist convert, I guess simple works, wel for me anyway.