Bread and Wine vs. Wafer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pravoslavac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pravoslavac

Guest
I never understood why this is the case.

In the EO church, the Eucharist is in the form of bread and wine, just as during the Last Supper…

Why do the RCC not offer wine and when did it become just a wafer???

Thank you for clarification.
 
as has been explained dozens of times on this forum the liturgy of the Latirn rite permits the faithful to be offered communion both under the form of the consecrated bread and of the consecrated wine, however, it is not necessary for the faithful to receive both, receiving under either species, they receive the complete, entire Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. It is necessary for the priest to consume under both forms for a valid liturgy.

the reasons for the form of bread used in Eastern and Western rites, and for the variance throughout history in the manner of receiving communion, are more historical than doctrinal.

you will find these forums very helpful and useful if you first do a search on FAQs and topics

also, if you have a question about the Latin Rite, ask it on the proper forum, in this case, liturgy and sacraments, which is also where your search will be most productive. This forum is for discussing Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine and practice.
 
as has been explained dozens of times on this forum the liturgy of the Latirn rite permits the faithful to be offered communion both under the form of the consecrated bread and of the consecrated wine, however, it is not necessary for the faithful to receive both, receiving under either species, they receive the complete, entire Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. It is necessary for the priest to consume under both forms for a valid liturgy.

the reasons for the form of bread used in Eastern and Western rites, and for the variance throughout history in the manner of receiving communion, are more historical than doctrinal.

you will find these forums very helpful and useful if you first do a search on FAQs and topics

also, if you have a question about the Latin Rite, ask it on the proper forum, in this case, liturgy and sacraments, which is also where your search will be most productive. This forum is for discussing Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine and practice.
On second thought this is about Eastern Christianity (not only Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) and 99.999% of this forum has been discussing differences between EO vs RCC and East vs. West, Latin Rite vs. Eastern Rite.

I don’t think I was that far off…
 
you might then, have a more profitable discussion if you pose your question in the framework of the Eastern practice, rather than posing it as a question about the Western practice.
 
you might then, have a more profitable discussion if you pose your question in the framework of the Eastern practice, rather than posing it as a question about the Western practice.
The 1 million threads questioning papal authority on this area of the forum seem to fit your point…👍
 
as has been explained dozens of times on this forum the liturgy of the Latirn rite permits the faithful to be offered communion both under the form of the consecrated bread and of the consecrated wine, however, it is not necessary for the faithful to receive both, receiving under either species, they receive the complete, entire Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. It is necessary for the priest to consume under both forms for a valid liturgy.
The last sentence cannot be right?

Let’s assume that a priest does not consume under both forms. So the Mass in invalid. Does that mean that the consecration which took place 5 minutes previously is somehow “undone”?! The consecrated elements are deconsecrated? How is this deconsecration effected?
also, if you have a question about the Latin Rite, ask it on the proper forum, in this case, liturgy and sacraments, which is also where your search will be most productive. This forum is for discussing Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine and practice.
You will note that the OP is Orthodox and is juxtaposing the Orthodox and Roman Catholic practices. It seems to be a legitimate topic for this Forum. This is certainly a question which is discussed at Catholic-Orthodox symposiums.
 
Okay, okay. Post helpful responses and ask the moderator to move it if it needs to be.

If a person wasn’t allowed to start a thread on a topic already discussed, there’d hardly be any threads. If it is that common, post a link to one of them as a starting point.

Pravo, one difference is that the west and east disagree if the Last Supper used leavened bread. The synoptics lead one to believe the Last Supper was on the day of Passover, which would have meant no leavening. The Gospel of John leads us to believe it was the day before Passover, which means there could have been leavening. Some then argue Jesus being a first born wouldn’t have been allowed leavening on the day before, either.

The east ties the leavened bread to three things: Risen Christ, unleavened bread being viewed as a bread of sorrow in Judaism, and the pre-Passover Last Supper.

The west ties the unleavened bread to different things: the fulfillment of the Jewish law and the anemnesis event of the Eucharistic liturgy and the Passover supper.
 
you might then, have a more profitable discussion if you pose your question in the framework of the Eastern practice, rather than posing it as a question about the Western practice.
Dear puzzleannie,

I am sure that everybody here knows what the OP means and will discuss it accordingly. Don’t sweat the small stuff.
 
Okay, okay. Post helpful responses and ask the moderator to move it if it needs to be.

If a person wasn’t allowed to start a thread on a topic already discussed, there’d hardly be any threads. If it is that common, post a link to one of them as a starting point.

Pravo, one difference is that the west and east disagree if the Last Supper used leavened bread. The synoptics lead one to believe the Last Supper was on the day of Passover, which would have meant no leavening. The Gospel of John leads us to believe it was the day before Passover, which means there could have been leavening. Some then argue Jesus being a first born wouldn’t have been allowed leavening on the day before, either.

The east ties the leavened bread to three things: Risen Christ, unleavened bread being viewed as a bread of sorrow in Judaism, and the pre-Passover Last Supper.

The west ties the unleavened bread to different things: the fulfillment of the Jewish law and the anemnesis event of the Eucharistic liturgy and the Passover supper.
Thanks…👍
 
The east ties the leavened bread to three things: Risen Christ, unleavened bread being viewed as a bread of sorrow in Judaism, and the pre-Passover Last Supper.
Yes, unleavened bread is considered by the Jews to be the “bread of affliction and sorrow” (Deut. 16:13.) It is the symbol of their defeat and their exile. It is used only for the seven days of Passover.

The Jewish imagery associated with unleavened bread, of suffering and grief, is very inappropriate for the Christian Eucharist, which is the celebration of Christ’s victory and passover from death to life.

It was also forbidden in the Old Testament to use unleavened bread for any sacrifice - again, a reason why it is inappropriate for the Eucharist and the eternal sacrifice.

Found this on the Net. Have a quick read:
Leavened versus Unleavened Bread:
What’s the difference?


prosphora.org/page27.html
 
<<It was also forbidden in the Old Testament to use unleavened bread for any sacrifice - again, a reason why it is inappropriate for the Eucharist and the eternal sacrifice.>>

Not true.

LEAVENED bread was offered as part of the sacrifices on Pentecost. I don’t have book, chapter, and verse handy.
 
<<It was also forbidden in the Old Testament to use unleavened bread for any sacrifice - again, a reason why it is inappropriate for the Eucharist and the eternal sacrifice.>>

Not true.

LEAVENED bread was offered as part of the sacrifices on Pentecost. I don’t have book, chapter, and verse handy.
Forgive me, Your Grace, but you are not making total sense.

You say that what I wrote is untrue, but then you confirm what I wrote. 🤷
 
Forgive me and ignore my above post.

I totally misread it.

I’m sorry.
 
I never understood why this is the case.

In the EO church, the Eucharist is in the form of bread and wine, just as during the Last Supper…

Why do the RCC not offer wine and when did it become just a wafer???

Thank you for clarification.
Well, lately the Masses I attended offer wine. In my home parish, many years ago. Wine was not offer.
 
Hey, Father Ambrose! Long time no see!
Code:
First, I'd like to thank you for that link. I found it extremely beautiful when it was said that the use of leavened bread has a link to the past because of the yeast. Very profound in my opinion.

 I think the reason Catholics used unleavened bread is because it was used at the Last Supper. As Catholics, we pay heavy attention to Christ's death. At every church, we have a Crucifx above every altar (some "new" churches do not have this, sadly), and we celebrate the sacrifice that Christ made for us at Calvary. We even term the Mass as being the re-representation of Calvary. 

The author of the paper you gave for us to read used many quotes from the ECF's. It's always a good feeling to read from them. As I was reading the ECF's, I got a different interpretation from them. To me, the ECF's were using the word "leaven" as a metaphor for how to live. It didn't really pertain to leavened bread itself. It would have greatly helped if the author included the full text in which the quotes came from so I can read them in context. 

From personal experience, I do find leavened bread more spiritually fulfilling. I attend from time to time the nearby Byzantine Catholic church that uses the Litury of St. John Chrysostom. Very beautiful expression of the Catholic faith (I know that this particular rite didn't re-join the Catholic Church until the 1200's) and I find that mixing the leavened bread with the wine is a wonderful expression of Christ. I have a humble question from an ignorant Latin for you, Father. When did the spoon enter the Liturgy as the instrument for distributing the Eucharist?
 
Why do the RCC not offer wine and when did it become just a wafer???

Thank you for clarification.
I didn’t see that one before. That one probably *would *be best answered on another board since the people who will have studied it are less likely to come over here. Traditional Catholicism would be a good bet for getting the history and defense of it.

I only looked at titles, but these might be good
Recieving the Eucharist under both species
Body AND Blood?
Tridentine Liturgy and the Precious Blood
Eucharist via one species…
 
It is necessary for the priest to consume under both forms for a valid liturgy.
The last sentence cannot be right?
A Mass is licit or illicit. A consecration is valid or invalid. My guess is that the Eucharist would be valid and the Mass illicit under the RC canons. 🤷 A better question for Liturgy and Sacraments where people could answer in a heartbeat.
 
I think the reason Catholics used unleavened bread is because it was used at the Last Supper.
There is great debate about which bread was used at the Last Supper. Scholars believe that the question will never be answered.

But there is no doubt that the Church of Rome used leavened bread, and not unleavened bread, for the first 1000 years while she was in communion with the Churches of the East. The change to the present use of unleavened bread was taking place at the same time as the Great Schism between us.

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” [Rome adopted unleavened bread only a few years after the schism with the East.]

– Joseph Jungman, The Mass of the Roman Rite, volume II, pages 33-34

And 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 * 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.*
 
When did the spoon enter the Liturgy as the instrument for distributing the Eucharist?
Interesting question.

It was Saint John Chrysostom who told us to receive the Holy Bread of Christ in our hand, right hand on palm of left hand to form a cross.

But it was also Saint John Chrysostom who changed this very quickly and introduced the use of the Spoon. This was because of the large influx on new converts during his own lifetime. This was the fourth century and the Church had been freed from persecution and subsequently overwhelmed with converts from paganism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top