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

Dear Pani Rose,

What you have offered is quite profound and probably correct in the ways in which East and West differ culturally in their emphasis of Christ's crucifixion vs. His resurrection.

Regards,
Alice

Say, that is actually quite good... !

So, then that means the East and the West are both of great complimentary to each other.

I wish that we see that on many doctrinial issues...it's all a matter of semantics and cultural background.

Pani Rose made a good point where I never thought of that before. Thanks, Pani Rose!

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

I have NEVER heard that explanation before! How marvellously intuitive!

I cannot think of anything LESS important than the Azymes controversy. (That is not to say anything bad about the good Doc for bringing it to our attention.)It is amazing to me how some would see this (or make this) a divisive issue. Talk about majoring in the minors...!

Gordo, who prefers his martinis shaken, not stirred (is that an issue, too?)

Judging from certain recent threads on this Forum, East and West posters hardly have been complimentary to each other, although many outside observers would see the Churches very complementary!

Gordon, absolutely not! But, I just have one other question: Gin or Vodka?

Joe

As I said, it is not an issue for me. I can imagine though that some would see this as a doctrinal matter (unfortunately).

Joe

VODKA!

Dear Friends,

Well, we Easterners have been more open to the Western Azymites of late . . .

Fr. John Meyendorff once wrote that the whole controversy is moot because after the Consecration there is no more Azymes or any other kind of bread, but the Body and Blood of OLGS Jesus Christ on the Altar!

However, the historic controversy makes for interesting bed-time reading . . .

When the Crusaders (are we going to do a "let's forgive and forget" with them too? ;)) came into Constantinople they opened the special vault in Haghia Sophia and found the Relics of the Mystical Supper - no azymes. According to Orthodox tradition, the prelates with the Crusaders hid those relics.

The Assyrian Church of the East has an interesting tradition. Whenever they prepare new Communion bread, they take a portion for the next "batch" and they say they've been doing this since the Last Supper (!).

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church likewise uses unleavened bread. They have taken much from Judaism and this is one of the items.

Alex

Yes, it's a deal breaker for the Eastern Orthodox who make a direct connection between unleavened bread and the heresy of Monophysitism. This relates to the Armenian adoption of unleavened bread as a symbol of the mono- or mia- nature of Christ. It was in these heretical circumstances that the East first encountered unleavened bread.

Dear Father Ambrose and others:

Did all of the original Churches use leavened bread? If so, then when did the Roman Church change and was there any theological justification given for the change?

I confess that in the past I didn't really see this as being a bid deal, but now I'm not sure what to think. But I would like to get my historical facts straight because I think that it is highly relevant to find out whether unleavened bread was used in some churches from the very beginning.

Joe

That is because the Armenians of Cilicia were in communion with Rome from 1198 to 1375. Hence the Latinizations. Of course, no one speaks about these as "corrupting Latinizations" anymore... after all, Armenian vestments are just SO beautiful!

The Armenians adopted the use of unleavened bread rather late and in confirmation of the heresy of monophysitism. Bread without leaven was, in their eyes, a symbolic expression of the ONE nature found in Christ. They did the same with the chalice by ceasing to mix water with the wine - again a symbol of ONE nature, monophysitism.

The insistence of contemporary Orthodox hierarchs that all Western Rite priests must use leavened bread is not forcing them to accept a "Byzantization" for the sake of Eastern Orthodox sensitivities. It is, rather, a return to the authentic first millennium usage of the Western Church. Like their brothers in the East they also used leavened bread.



CATHOLIC SCHOLARS SAY THAT THE CHURCH OF ROME USED LEAVENED BREAD
for the first 800 and more years.

The change to unleavened bread in Rome took place towards the end of the first millennium.


Fr. Joseph Jungman -- in his 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" [Rome itself, the city and diocese, conservative as always, did not change to unleavened bread until a few decades after the schism.]

~ 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."


"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.

ALICE:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

This reminds me of the mention another brother here made about the sharing of the Eucharist in the Soviet Gulag. No less than Metropolitan Laurus of thrice blessed memory told this brother that in the darkest days of the gulag Christians of all stripes shared the Eucharist when they could get the necessary bread and wine for the Liturgy. As I recall, the statement that was made was that when you are facing the firing squad in the morning many of these things that separate us have little meaning--especially when you're being shot together.

In Christ,

BOB