www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Reflections on the Separation of Western and Eastern Christendom

Not a particularly balanced account, I would think.

Whose "Dark Ages" is the archpriest talking about? How can a serious ecclesiatic and thinker perpetuate such misconceptions and myths about the Latin church, not to mention the history of western Europe and call it a "Reflection"? But I'm getting used to such drivel from provoslavie.ru. There'll be no diversity in a united Church if such as Archpriest Phillip have their way. If only Rome had gotten rid of all that Frankishness and unleavened bread.

It is generally well thought of.

It would be a part of the movement "ad fontes."

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, conservative as always, did not change to unleavened bread until a few decades after the schism.]
~ JosephJungman, 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."

Even if we grant, arguendo that the exclusive use of unleavened bread is that late (and even that says nothing about the common use of unleavened bread earlier), that something is a relatively late development is not enough to make it wrong per se.

This is kind of a silly thing to argue about, since in no serious way does it stand in the way of reunion. There are priests in the Russian Church who offered the Divine Liturgy with unleavened bread this very day in the "Western Rite".

I agree with Stuart that this article is terrible. It sounds, for one thing, like the author has never actually read Aquinas. To say that the scholastics get all their views from Augustine is ridiculous.

It hasn't been discussed yet in the bilateral dialogue. Not really. It is absolutely forbidden for our Western Rite priests to use unleavened bread/hosts.

This is from an Antiochian Bishop:---

“The ancient question that continues to divide the Roman Catholic and Western Churches from the Orthodox Church regarding the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist had to be resolved when the Western Rite parishes were received into the Orthodox Church. The host used in Western Rite liturgies resembles the unleavened wafer used by Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, but in fact it is leavened—although flattened—bread. The use of leavened bread in accordance with Orthodox theology, was required by Metropolitan Philip when he received these parishes into Orthodoxy.”

http://www.stgregoryoc.org/article/article-archive/metropolitan-isaiah-on-the-western-rite/

It hasn't been discussed yet in the bilateral dialogue.

So?

There is wide agreement that this does not stand in the way of reunion. If nothing else, because if it came down to it, Rome would probably cave rather than nix a deal on this basis. Perhaps that's part of WHY it hasn't been discussed yet, because no one sees it as pressing.

Thanks for your correction on unleavened bread in the Orthodox Western Rite Churches, I had seen that at least some of them use "hosts," but apparently they are leavened ones.

Let me put it the other way then... the Pope is in Communion with millions of people who celebrated using leavened bread this morning. I'm sure he'd be happy to switch if it meant universal union.

I note that you haven't responded regarding the articles ludicrous misreading/unreading of the scholastics.

We really don’t know that until it comes under consideration at the dialogue. But I hope you are right. Things can stick in the craw of the Orthodox. Did you notice that the Antiochoan bishop sees it as a theological matter.

Me!!! Take on matters scholastical in a forum full of Catholics! Flay me alive!

I agree for the most part--generalizations like this are nearly always avoided in good scholarship, while polemics abound with them.

That said, however, I would like to point out that there are certain neo-Platonic philosophical assumptions that are common to both Augustine and the Scholastics, and these include such things as "all sin is the result of passion," with the implicit converse being that "all righteousness is the result of reason."


Peace,
Deacon Richard

"The seat of the Christian Universe had been fixed in New Rome, the City of Constantine." Reflections, Archpriest Phillip

I don't think St. Gregory I (540 - 604), Bishop of Rome, would agree with this. Is there anyone in the east at this time who can match this man's missionary outreach and zeal? Unformed, immature, even crude theological outlook, indeed. In four hundred years we'd have the even cruder St. Anselm of Canterbury, but no mention of him.

Pope Saint Gregory the Great believed that the Blessed Peter had established three Petrine Sees of equal authority - Rome, Alexandria, Antioch. This Triptarchy existed prior to the now familiar Pentarchy, and it is connected with a belief in a Petrine foundation for each of these three major Sees.

Note well what the Pope says here in his letter to Eulogius of Alexandria:
1. The parts where the Pope speaks of Alexandria and Antioch sharing the keys with Rome
2. The parts where the Pope speaks of the equality of Rome and
Alexandria and Antioch
3. The parts where the Pope says that all three of these Sees form one See of Peter over which the three bishops preside.

-oOo-
St Gregory I, Pope of Rome, Epistle XL, writing to Pope Eulogius
Patriarch of Alexandria.

"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius of Alexandria] has spoken
much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince
of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the
persons of his successors.

"And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the
dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair. …And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, "To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matth. xvi. 19). And again it is said to him, "And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep" (Joh. xxi. 17).

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the
principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.

"For he himself [Peter] exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”

(Book VII, Epistle XL)

The statistics bear witness that the East was more successful in evangelisation.

In the East 7 out of 10 were Christians.
In the West 3 out of 10 were Christians.

Is that your estimate, or is out of the 586 AD edition of "Annuario Pontificio"? Does this matter?

[quote=Utroque][quote=Hieromonk Ambrose]
In the East 7 out of 10 were Christians.
In the West 3 out of 10 were Christians. [/quote]

Is that your estimate, or is out of the 586 AD edition of "Annuario Pontificio"? Does this matter? [/quote]It came from reading although I do not recall the book. But it stayed in my mind as an interesting fact.