0
031064
Guest
The only thing is I have some theological love of the Latin Catholic church- the filoque for example. I also like the use of uleavened bread as Jesus used.
Catherine Grant said:
- Status
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
I also like the use of uleavened bread as Jesus used.
**Actually, if you read the accounts of the Mystical Supper in the original Greek, you will see that Our Lord took ARTOS, which always means LEAVENED bread.
And in my mission work, where the Church would have to be packed up and transported to various sites in cardboard boxes, I’ve been to Liturgy in some rather strange sites, including an art class room and a dental lab.**
**Actually, if you read the accounts of the Mystical Supper in the original Greek, you will see that Our Lord took ARTOS, which always means LEAVENED bread.
And in my mission work, where the Church would have to be packed up and transported to various sites in cardboard boxes, I’ve been to Liturgy in some rather strange sites, including an art class room and a dental lab.**
G
Ghosty
Guest
Off-topic, but artos doesn’t mean “leavened bread”, it means “bread”. The same word is used in the Septuagint for unleavened sacrificial bread.
What’s more, there was no leavened bread around at the time of the Last Supper; even if it occurred the night before Passover, all leavened bread would have beend destroyed, locked away, or given to Gentiles the day before Passover, as per Jewish religious practice. There’s no plausible way for the Last Supper to have used leavened bread.
As for the topic, look at pictures of Chartes Cathedral, or Notre Dame, or the Sistine Chapel, or any of the countless architectual and artistic masterpieces found in Europe and even in the U.S. in some places. I don’t think architecture should be a deciding factor between Churches, but in my experience the Latin and the Byzantine tradition are quite equal in beauty and artistic expression.
Peace and God bless!
B
Br_Mark
Guest
For about the first thousand years the bread of the Eucharist was ordinary, leavened bread. Then in the western church there came a distinction between the “symbolic” and the “real”. This resulted in changing the theology of the Eucharist. A dichotomy grew between our daily bread and the “bread of angels”, the “manna from heaven”. The Eucharistic presence was too holy to occur in ordinary bread. Furthermore, the growing practice of reservation of the sacrament required the bread to be unleavened.
Br Mark, OSB
Br Mark, OSB
D
dessert
Guest
Is it true that the manna bread was unleavened because they were wandering around in the desert and of course had no yeast. But when they built the temple then they used leavened bread? I’m sure I am mixed up on this.
C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
The Last Supper occured the night before Passover. So, I think it is likely that Jesus used leavened bread, because it was Jewish custom that the place for Passover was prepared by removing the leaven from it.
More info…
users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/po-eat.htm
ad2004.com/prophecytruths/Articles/Yeshua/lastsupper.html
More info…
users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/po-eat.htm
ad2004.com/prophecytruths/Articles/Yeshua/lastsupper.html
G
Ghosty
Guest
I’ve seen no evidence of this whatsover in my years of researching the topic. Where did you find this information? What is known for certain is that the Byzantines didn’t start raising the issue about the use of unleavened bread until around the start of the second millenium, but there’s absolutely no evidence that Latins began using unleavened bread at that time, or that they had ever widely used leavened bread.
Also, if what you say is true, why did the Armenians use, and continue to use, unleavened bread?
The manna bread was directly from Heaven, and its make-up isn’t recorded. For Temple sacrifice only unleavened bread was allowed, and is sometimes translated as “showbread”. Numbers 6 refers to the use of unleavened bread for sacrifice in the Tabernacle/Temple.
Peace and God bless!
E
ematouk
Guest
Indeed “Artos” was used in the septuigint to indicate unleavened bread. In fact, we do not know what bread Jesus used at the last supper, leavened or unleavened. But in my perspective it doesn’t really matter. Are we merely repeating what Jesus did at the last supper or are we participating in the eternal supper of the Lord every Sunday?
Unleavened bread symbolises the sinlessness of Jesus (purged of leaven). But what does such a symbolism say of our salvation? Pretty much nothing. And such a symbolism is not exactly correct, after all Jesus likened the Kingdom of Heaven to leaven - if we take the above analogy to its logical conclusion we should conclude that Heaven is sinful.
Leavened bread has a much deeper symbolism which echos and preserves theology throughout the ages. Work is done to produce bread- just as we work for the Kingdom of Heaven. Leaven is invisible when in bread, yet still visible to the eyes, just like the Holy Spirit who works in us. Jesus was Crucified, went down to Hades and rose from the dead in a glorified body - Just as the leavened bread is beaten, cooked in the oven (Hades) and rises into a new form (its glorified form).
There is so much more symbolism, which I can not utter at the moment. But, merely using leavened bread says much about our salvation.
"Regarding the usage of the primitive Church, our knowledge is so scant, and the testimonies so apparently contradictory, that many theologians have pronounced the problem incapable of solution.
Certain it is that in the ninth century the use of unleavened bread had become universal and obligatory in the West, while the Greeks, desirous of emphasizing the distinction between the Jewish and the Christian Pasch, offered up leavened bread."
taken from newadvent.org/cathen/02172a.htm
It is pretty much widely accepted that the Western Church used leavened bread up until the 9th century - regardless of whether this was widely used or not.
But regardless, I can not say the Catholic Eucharist is invalid because they use unleavened bread. I do not know whether their Eucharist is valid or not - God alone knows - because they have seperated themselves from the Orthodox Church.
God bless.
Unleavened bread symbolises the sinlessness of Jesus (purged of leaven). But what does such a symbolism say of our salvation? Pretty much nothing. And such a symbolism is not exactly correct, after all Jesus likened the Kingdom of Heaven to leaven - if we take the above analogy to its logical conclusion we should conclude that Heaven is sinful.
Leavened bread has a much deeper symbolism which echos and preserves theology throughout the ages. Work is done to produce bread- just as we work for the Kingdom of Heaven. Leaven is invisible when in bread, yet still visible to the eyes, just like the Holy Spirit who works in us. Jesus was Crucified, went down to Hades and rose from the dead in a glorified body - Just as the leavened bread is beaten, cooked in the oven (Hades) and rises into a new form (its glorified form).
There is so much more symbolism, which I can not utter at the moment. But, merely using leavened bread says much about our salvation.
"Regarding the usage of the primitive Church, our knowledge is so scant, and the testimonies so apparently contradictory, that many theologians have pronounced the problem incapable of solution.
Certain it is that in the ninth century the use of unleavened bread had become universal and obligatory in the West, while the Greeks, desirous of emphasizing the distinction between the Jewish and the Christian Pasch, offered up leavened bread."
taken from newadvent.org/cathen/02172a.htm
It is pretty much widely accepted that the Western Church used leavened bread up until the 9th century - regardless of whether this was widely used or not.
But regardless, I can not say the Catholic Eucharist is invalid because they use unleavened bread. I do not know whether their Eucharist is valid or not - God alone knows - because they have seperated themselves from the Orthodox Church.
God bless.
B
belgianwaffles9
Guest
G
Ghosty
Guest
If it was the night before Passover, then Christ, and many of his Apostles, could not have eaten anything at all; it is the Fast of the Firstborn, and firstborn children must fast in commemoration of the trepidation the first-born felt at the coming of the Angel of Death.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_of_the_Firstborn
What’s more, even if it the meal was held BEFORE the official Passover began, it was a Passover meal. There is no way in the world that a Passover meal can be celebrated with leavened bread.
Even so, the house could not have leaven in it at nightfall on the 14th of Nisan, the day before Passover.
Peace and God bless!
A
Aramis
Guest
Most of the world, you have yeasts that will leaven bread just by letting the dough rest a day uncovered. Only in a few places is that yeast lethal, some places mildly toxic, but most places, quite edible, if not tasty.
But Mana fell from heaven as flakes.
E
ematouk
Guest
Ghosty,If it was the night before Passover, then Christ, and many of his Apostles, could not have eaten anything at all; it is the Fast of the Firstborn, and firstborn children must fast in commemoration of the trepidation the first-born felt at the coming of the Angel of Death.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_of_the_Firstborn
What’s more, even if it the meal was held BEFORE the official Passover began, it was a Passover meal. There is no way in the world that a Passover meal can be celebrated with leavened bread.
Even so, the house could not have leaven in it at nightfall on the 14th of Nisan, the day before Passover.
Peace and God bless!
What you are relying on is mere speculation. We do not know what bread Christ used at the passover. If you rely on this sort of pseudo-logic, then we would have to say Christ never healed anyone on the Sabbath, since it would have been forbidden to work on the Sabbath - Christ would have never summoned Moses and Elijah upon the mount, because it would have been against the law to summon the dead (necromancy) - Christ would have never spoken to the samaritan woman, for a Jewish man to speak to a woman (let alone a Samaritan woman) without the presence of her husband or male relative would go against the culture of his time.
If we admit Christ did these things then we can freely admit Christ may have instituted a leavened Eucharist. Christ may have seen the symbolism of the “new pascha (passover)” and instituted a leavened Eucharist. But regardless, such speculation is not helpful. We should not see the Eucharist as repeating Christ’s last supper, it is participating in the eternal supper of the Lord that is taking place in Heaven above time.
In regards to your comments about the Armenian Orthodox using unleavened bread. Can they really be called as a witness for the Catholic church? They have changed as much as the Catholics! Firstly the Armenian Orthodox have the same date of Easter as the Roman Catholics. The Armenian Orthodox sing a multitude of western hymnography (post-Vatican 2) in their churches on a normal Sunday. The Armenian Orthodox have changed quite dramatically, it is not hard to explain why they would use unleavened bread in the Eucharist. Is there a more reliable Apostolic Church which uses unleavened bread in the Eucharist?
God bless.
B
belgianwaffles9
Guest
Nice try. But admitting that the Armenians changed recently has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that they have been using unleavened bread since ancient times!
G
Ghosty
Guest
The Armenian use is ancient and well document, not a recent change, and not a second millenium change. All Churches have changed since the early times, especially the Byzantine tradition which is the most insistant on the use of leaven.
As for the accusation of speculation, it is you that is speculating. It is recorded that Christ healed on the Sabbath, and spoke with Samaritans (human Jewish laws), it is not recorded that he broke with God-ordained commandments such as the practices of Passover. While He MIGHT have used leavened bread, the fact is that there is no evidence that He did, and all kinds of evidence that He wouldn’t have. That’s not speculation, it’s educated conclusion.
Peace and God bless!
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Off-topic, but artos doesn’t mean “leavened bread”, it means “bread”.
Native speakers of Greek understand it to mean "leavened bread."
Native speakers of Greek understand it to mean "leavened bread."
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
little side note:
John 18:28 and John 19:31 says NO (he died on the eve of the passover (aka: the day of preperation).
Most people don’t have an answer for the literal sense of this passage without assuming a spiritual interpretation of something along the lines that John is speaking about Christ being the lamb or something of that nature. I think it was this book that addressed this issue.
When this apparent contradition was made known to me, it was said that this is used by muslim apoloists to say that the bible has problems since the Passover is a fundamental element of Christianity.
Anyhow, the answer proposed by this researcher was that the three Synoptic Gospels were using the lunar caldender and John was using the solar caldender (or vice verse).
M
Marsha_Adams
Guest
Passover is an eight day event that begins on various days of the week depending on the lunar calander. The Sabbath within the Passover week was considered particularly solemn above the norm.
Matthew 26:17 “Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover.”
It was clearly unleavened bread. I doubt if you could have found a molecule of leavening anywhere in Judea on that day.
Matthew 26:17 “Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover.”
It was clearly unleavened bread. I doubt if you could have found a molecule of leavening anywhere in Judea on that day.
M
Marsha_Adams
Guest
John 18:28: Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgement: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgement hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
Being an eight day feast this would have been true on any of the days.
John 19:31: The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
It was preparation day for the Sabbath not preparation day for the Passover which had begun the day before.
Being an eight day feast this would have been true on any of the days.
John 19:31: The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
It was preparation day for the Sabbath not preparation day for the Passover which had begun the day before.
B
belgianwaffles9
Guest
I can feel this conversation sliding slowly but surely towards the so-called “inconsistencies” in the gospel accounts of the dates of Jesus’ Passion.
I thought I’d bring up a very interesting theory, which i think makes a great deal of sense given the different dates in the Gospels, and which Pope Benedict also says is likely true.
From Athanasius Contra Mundum:
athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2007/04/pope-benedict-says-jesus-was-jewish.html
Jesus could have been (or, likely was) an Essene Jew. John the Baptist was likely one, too. They were seen as “traditionalist” jews, living, liturgically at least, much the same way as Traditional Catholics live in today’s Catholicism.
They used a slightly different calendar, and had some different theological emphases which one can easily recognize in the teachings of Jesus and John the Baptist, his relative. They would also have been a bit of a rival party to the Pharisees and the Sadducees, which put Jesus’s conflicts with them in an interesting new light.
I thought I’d bring up a very interesting theory, which i think makes a great deal of sense given the different dates in the Gospels, and which Pope Benedict also says is likely true.
From Athanasius Contra Mundum:
athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2007/04/pope-benedict-says-jesus-was-jewish.html
Jesus could have been (or, likely was) an Essene Jew. John the Baptist was likely one, too. They were seen as “traditionalist” jews, living, liturgically at least, much the same way as Traditional Catholics live in today’s Catholicism.
They used a slightly different calendar, and had some different theological emphases which one can easily recognize in the teachings of Jesus and John the Baptist, his relative. They would also have been a bit of a rival party to the Pharisees and the Sadducees, which put Jesus’s conflicts with them in an interesting new light.
G
Ghosty
Guest
In modern Greek, yes. The Greek used in ancient times it means “bread”. Here’s a side-by-side of the English and the Greek of the Septuagint, Numbers 6:15
Refering only to unleavened bread, it uses the term artos.
Again let me emphasize that He could have used leavened bread, but it’s seriously doubtful that there would have been any left even the day before Passover. It certainly should have been gone by dinner-time the night before. If He did use leavened bread, He would have had to have gone out of His way to do so, and I think that would warrant some mention in the Apostolic tradition.
We don’t have any mention of it, however, so I see no reason to assume otherwise than that He used the bread available at the time, which would have been unleavened.
Also, I don’t think this gives any weight to the use of unleavened bread over leavened, and the Catholic Church has never claimed that one is better than the other. The key is the use of wheat bread, not whether it has yeast or not. From earliest times it seems that both leavened and unleavened was used, and it’s never been a controversy except among the Eastern Orthodox (both the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Communions have traditions which use either).
As Melkites we use leavened bread, so I receive a “leavened Christ” for the Eucharist.
Peace and God bless!
- Status