This is the question I wanted to ask. Is the Byzantine church practice in the diaspora different from the prevailing practice in the homeland? Is the diaspora practice more lax to accomodate their westernized faithful? Is there concern that sticking to the letter of the law, as it were, is going to deplete the already relatively small and often dispersed communities?
- Status
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
My UGCC priest is from Ukraine. Early on he gave a magnificent sermon on the Holy Eucharist. Among other things he mentioned that in Ukraine, the priest will not give you Holy Communion unless he knows that you have been to confession. Traditionally, confession is done in church before the icon of Christ on the iconostas so it’s face to face. Here in the U.S., most of our people have been influenced by Roman practice where you don’t have to go to confession every time before going to Holy Communion. Some people are the C & E types (2x/yr), others go to confession before the big holy days (e.g. Dormition). Then there’s the I-didn’t-kill-anyone-so-I-don’t-have-to-go-to-confession types.
Mother Angelica used to tell people on her program to go to confession:
Sadly, our people and many Catholics in general have been influenced by the culture around them when it should be the other way around.
D
dochawk
Guest
however, permission can be granted, for example, for two RC to be married in the byzantine parish they attend, and with byzantine ceremony.
I handed over my daughter to our priest at the gate to the parish patio (which in fact has its own consecrated altar, and was converted for the day to handle a crowd that wouldn’t fit in the church. It worked so well we do it every Pascha and when the bishop visits [and for the moment, to handle Sunday morning Divine Liturgy as the church is currently limited toabout 35])
to be fair to the Roman rite, their giving away also clearly shows the change from the separate households, and a sharp separation from he father’s household to the new household as the two become one . . . after they are joined, they process together.I think that better symbolizes what marriage is. Of course that is my subjective notion, not to disrespect my own Latin Rite
A
AlNg
Guest
i don’t see how the faith is the same. The Eastern Orthodox and I guess also the Eastern Catholics believe that Jesus used leavened bread at the Last Supper. However, the Roman Catholics believe that Jesus used unleavened bread at the Last Supper. The beliefs of East and West are not the same on this issue.
Eastern Orthodox writer Vladimir Moss says: " Our earliest witness, St. Paul, witnesses that the Lord “took bread”, that is, leavened bread, αρτος(I Corinthians 11.23, 26, 27). As for the three Synoptic Evangelists (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25 and Luke 22:19-20), Archbishop Averky (Taushev) of Jordanville writes: “All three describe this event in approximately the same way. The Lord ‘took’ the bread, blessed it, broke it and distributed it among the disciples, saying: ‘ Take, eat; this is My Body .’ The word bread’ here is ‘ artos [ αρτος] ’ in Greek, which means ‘raised bread’, bread that has been leavened on yeast, as opposed to ‘ azymon [ αζυμων] ’, as the unleavened bread used by the Jews at Pascha was called. It must be assumed that such bread had been specially prepared on the Lord’s instructions, in order to establish the new Mystery. The significance of this bread lies in that it is as it were alive, symbolizing life, as opposed to unleavened bread, which is dead.”
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/680/-bread-eucharist/
The Roman Catholic encyclopedia says: " It is probable that Christ used unleavened bread at the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, because the Jews were not allowed to have leavened bread in their houses on the days of the Azymes."
St. Thomas (IV, Dist. xi, qu. 3) holds that, in the beginning, both in the East and West unleavened bread was used.
Which belief is correct:
Jesus used leavened bread at the Last Supper.
Jesus used unleavened bread at the Last Supper.
Is the Roman faith the same as the Eastern faith on this question?
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
I know Eastern Catholics who think our Lord used unleavened bread and Latins who think He used leavened bread. Anyhow this isn’t dogmatic issue… come on now.
Artos can refer to unleavened bread too. It provably has before. At the same time, since Last Supper was probably not passover meal it could have been leavened bread. Anyhow that’s like saying that since my mom believes I should shave my beard and I don’t, our Faith is different.
Yes. That it ultimately doesn’t matter and we can’t be sure. You provided Orthodox non-dogmatic source and not official Eastern Catholic source so you’ve shown nothing.
Last edited:
B
babochka
Guest
I think it varies widely. We have probably come further at eliminating some Latinizations, but have abandoned other traditional practices.
My priest arrived from Eastern Europe more than a decade ago. In his home, only a few parishes had restored infant communion. Many of those parishes would give communion to an infant baptism, but wait until the child was seven or eight (after Confession) to give it again. In the Ruthenian Church in the US, the practice of infant Communion had been fully restored since the early 1990s; it has been in place in my parish since the late 1960s.
Likewise for eliminating kneeling on Sundays. We had stopped the practice several years before he arrived. In his home country, it was still the norm and nobody was talking about changing it.
B
babochka
Guest
My husband and I procrssed down the aisle together in our Latin Rite ceremony. Our Nigerian priest insisted on it.I see. Thanks for letting me know, it’s very interesting.
Margaret_Ann:
I think that better symbolizes what marriage is. Of course that is my subjective notion, not to disrespect my own Latin Rite
P
PilgrimMichelangelo
Guest
This is a non-dogmatic issue.
Vladimir Moss is an Old Calendarist, and not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Please beware that if you are getting your polemics from Orthodoxinfo that it is highly polemical, right-of-middle school of Orthodoxy that is noted for its Zealotry. Not all that claims to be traditionalist is Traditional.
The answer is yes. There is one common cup, on common loaf, beyond the externals. Wherever the Divine Liturgy and Mass are celebrated in Spirit and in Truth, there is one eternal liturgy, with one Christ being communicated to the faithful.
A
AlNg
Guest
Oh? If it doesn’t matter why did Roman Catholics use this issue as a point of contention listed when they posted the bull of excommunication at the Hagia Sophia in 1054? Why cause a schism and make such a big fuss over an issue that doesn’t matter?
Still unanswered: Did Jesus use leavened or unleavened bread at the Last Supper?
P
PilgrimMichelangelo
Guest
This could be because the Patriarch of Constantinople said that the Latin azymatic host was not the body of Christ and trampled on it. Jus’ sayin’.
Methinks you are missing the point. Is it even important? The Armenians use unleavened bread and they were outside of the Byzantine empire, independent of Rome.
A
AlNg
Guest
It was certainly very important at the time of the schism of 1054. But whether important or not, did Jesus use leavened or unleavened bread at the Last Supper.
Is it not true that:
Roman Catholic belief: Jesus used unleavened bread at the Last Supper.
Eastern Orthodox belief: Jesus used leavened bread at the Last Supper.
Last edited:
A
Anesti33
Guest
Do you mean “(pious) belief” or “doctrinal teaching”?
A
AlNg
Guest
According to Father WILLIAM SAUNDERS: " if a congregation decided to use leavened bread or add salt, honey, sugar, molasses or any other additive to the bread to be offered at Mass in the Latin Rite, the sacrament would be invalidated, meaning the Eucharist is not confected. "
Now the Eastern Orthodox do have a western rite in which they celebrate the Mass in the Latin rite but use leavened bread, even though it is in the form of the Roman Catholic Host. So if their Eucharist is not valid it is much more than a pious belief. Further if it is only a pious belief and it does not matter, I don’t see why it was mentioned as a point of contention in the bull of 1054 which caused the schism between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Last edited:
P
PilgrimMichelangelo
Guest
There can be different interpretations of the same text even by the Fathers of the Church.
Even amongst the EO, I’ve heard some people say that while Jesus used unleavened bread at the Last Supper in order to fulfill the obligations of Temple Judaic Law, now we use leavened bread because He is Risen.
You can have differences in practice and yet hold the same faith. The Eastern Catholic Churches retain their Eastern patrimony (and use leavened bread) but hold the same Catholic faith. Current practice since the 800’s has been for the Western Church to use unleavened bread.
On a side note, yes it is “edgy” and “oh so awesome” to pit the East against the West in an argument, until you become Eastern and realize the lack of Christian charity that characterizes so much of mainstream Orthodox polemics against the Catholics. As Fr. Seraphim Rose of blessed memory said, “I know they’re Orthodox, but are they Christian?”.
I’m not very familiar with Catholic canon law, but my guess is that the Eucharist would not be confected in the Latin Rite Mass because the canons of the Latin Church prohibit leavening for any other additive. Meanwhile, my guess would be that the Canon Law for Eastern Catholics safeguards their practice of using only leavened bread. But I’m sure someone like @Margaret_Ann, or @OrbisNonSufficit, or @dochawk could answer better than myself.
A
AlNg
Guest
But as noted above it appears to be a serious difference in belief.
According to Father William Saunders if leavened bread is used in the Latin rite, the Sacrament is invalidated.
According to the western rite Orthodox, this is not true.
I think it does matter if the Eucharist is valid or not.
IMHO, it is important whether or not the Eucharist is valid.
P
PilgrimMichelangelo
Guest
Western Rite Orthodox are byzantinized and russified as a condition of their existence. They have gone under Eastern captivity in order to preserve Western expressions of the Orthodox Faith. There never has been a Council that has authoritatively decided these issues that I am aware of, merely the Mutual Anathemas between Rome and Constantinople (which were repealed, by the by). In the future, if there ever is a flourishing Western Rite Orthodox Church, my guess is that they will restore the Roman Rite liturgy to remove the changes imposed upon them by the East, in order to return to it’s more ancient, traditional form.
You seem to only want to argue and keep bringing up points that have already been answered. Are you trying to prove Orthodoxy to yourself? Or do you want to merely use the Eastern position to fight with the Western position?
I answered the validity question above.
A
AlNg
Guest
That may be your answer, but that is not the answer of Catholic Father William Saunders.
It seems pretty obvious that contrary to what has been stated here, there is a difference in belief between East and West. I was not even around when the letter of excommunication was delivered in 1054. The split between Eastern and Western Christianity which occurred more than 950 years ago had nothing to do with me fighting the Western position. It did however, have something to do with the use of leavened versus unleavened bread because this was mentioned in the letter of excommunication as were several other issues.
P
PilgrimMichelangelo
Guest
Well, good. Then it seems you have received your answers.
Have a nice day.
Have a nice day.
A
Anesti33
Guest
Yes, so the EWTN source disagrees and says leavened bread is valid. (Because it is valid for the Byzantine Rite, why would it be invalid for another rite?)
The Catholic Encyclopedia insists that leavened bread is valid:
Catholic Encyclopedia:
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Which EO reference says that? Here is an article explaining why the use of unleavened bread is a serious error.
http://www.reformation.org/unleavened-bread-error.html
- Status