Differences between Byzantine and Roman

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Still unanswered: Did Jesus use leavened or unleavened bread at the Last Supper?

I did answer.

it ultimately doesn’t matter and we can’t be sure

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?

I’ve found translated Bull and it doesn’t say that. At least translation I found does not mention this. Ultimately who was really not okay with use of different bread was Greek Church at the time, with their Patriarch and his chaplain who stepped on Latin Eucharist. Anyhow, if you could provide your source for saying that Bull contained that, I would be glad to see it.

Is it not true that:
Roman Catholic belief: Jesus used unleavened bread at the Last Supper.

It isn’t Roman Catholic belief as in dogmatic one.

I think it does matter if the Eucharist is valid or not.

Form of bread does not impact validity of Eucharist insofar as it conforms to form of the Church (in other words, if Latin Church decides only Unleavened Bread is valid matter for them, then that’s that. Church has power to bind and loose).

Here is an article explaining why the use of unleavened bread is a serious error.

As I said, there is no reason to believe artos must mean leavened bread. Old Testament sources ultimately do not matter because they weren’t originally written in Greek (so if you want to compare translation and originals, go ahead but that is not what experts do).

It is true that Roman Church at first used leavened bread, but Armenians for example did not. Therefore this just shifts issue of which was used first to different geographical area, it doesn’t eliminate it.

 

[Anesti33]

You didn’t answer my question. I asked you about the belief in Jesus’ bread at the Last Supper and you responded with Eucharistic matter.

So is it a pious belief, or doctrinal teaching, the belief in what type of bread used by Jesus in the Last Supper? It is not doctrinal teaching by the Catholic Church.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

It is not doctrinal teaching by the Catholic Church.

as shown neither by Orthodox… it’s just all polemics

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

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

Yes. Church has right to regulate form of Sacraments. For example first Confessions were usually done publicly- one would confess before entire congregation and receive absolution from Priest. This was later changed by Authority of the Church to bind and loose. At first marriage was valid enough if two people exchanged vows and fulfilled their marital actions. Then later on, Church maintained that for validity there needs to be a witness (to prevent abuses) and Greek Church actually needs Priest to bless the marriage. However in Early Church it was viewed as pious to ask for approval from your Bishop, but presence of Clergy was not necessary (therefore far from what Greek Church requires now, and somewhat far from what Latin Church requires now). In 4th century it was customary to have Priest bless the marriage for fertility (from which Eastern practice developed) but it still wasn’t necessary. Witnesses became necessary in the West only by Reformation, and Greek Church maintained that Priest is minister of the Sacrament no sooner than in 7th century. Both of course used their authority that they have to regulate validity of the Sacrament.

Another example is clerical celibacy and continence. In Early Church no one who would maintain marital relations with his wife could be Priest. I am not sure what sense of valid/licit there was in Early Church (as theology wasn’t particularly developed yet), but Priests were only continent men. From the moment they became Priests, they stopped living with their wives. Later on, Latin Church enforced this by taking only celibate men (to prevent wives from being left), and Greek Church relaxed the rule and only requires fasting from marital relations before celebrating Divine Liturgy. Both are in power of the Church. She regulates Sacraments that are Her property by will of God.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

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.

Each particular Church must adhere to its own Tradition, i.e. the Latin Church uses unleavened bread and we use leavened bread. However, if there is a genuine case of necessity, then it would be allowed. +Slipyj and other bishops who were imprisoned in the gulag had to use black bread and soak raisins in water to get something in order to confect the Eucharist in secret. Black bread is obviously not valid matter but it had to do under the circumstances.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

The word artos which means “bread” in Greek, can mean either leavened or unleavened bread. Each Tradition must adhere to their own practice.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

Which EO reference says that?

Real people I have talked to who are Orthodox Christians.

But seriously, this is all thousand year old polemics that distract from our goal of love of God and love of neighbor.

If you want dogmatically definitive answers then become Orthodox, or Catholic, become the Patriarch of Constantinople or the Pope of Rome and convene a Council of all Bishops, East-West, North-South Catholic-Orthodox to allow the Holy Spirit to speak through them and settle the issue once and for all. But otherwise, I think you may have to just be satisfied with the excellent answers given here by people living within the two traditions.

 

[dochawk]

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?

Pretty much every thing said and done by either side at that time was driven my pride and lust for power, nor faith . . .

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. "

I’m disinclined to give weight to a source says that a practice used in the roman church for nine centuries resulted in frequent non-consecration . . .

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

not the answer of Catholic Father William Saunders.

Here is the Council of Ferrara-Florence, in it’s sixth session:

“Also, the body of Christ is truly confected in both unleavened and leavened wheat bread, and priests should confect the body of Christ in either, that is, each priest according to the custom of his western or eastern church.”

That is a Council held to be Ecumenical by the Catholic Church, that had the (name removed by moderator)ut of not only the Greeks, but also the Russians, Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians, etc.

The union that was accomplished turned out to be short lived, as the majority of the Orthodox East rejected the union…but at least their (name removed by moderator)ut was received at the Council and influenced the documents. This is probably the closest thing you will find to a joint authoritative statement from both Catholic and Orthodox Churches on the leavened vs. unleavened debate.

 

[Vico]

Hello, my boyfriend was born and raised Byzantine Ruthenian and I was born and raised in the Roman Rite. I am interested in understanding the differences between the two rites. For instance, my boyfriend told me that in the Byzantine rite, the notion of venial and mortal sins doesn’t really exist. He didn’t learn about that distinction till he was in his teens. And I went to a Byzantine confession but was told that the way I know to do things (bless me Father for I have sinned) is very much not how the byzantines do things. Sadly, because of quarantine I haven’t been able to immerse myself in Byzantine liturgy as I would like to. Any info you have for me would be appreciated. I’m just so curious since it seems like there are differences I didn’t even realize we were allowed to have

Serious sins need individual confession. Serious (CCEO 711, 719) and grave (CCEO 721) sins are mentioned in the Eastern canons – these are equivalent.

Eastern Canon Law (CCEO):

Canon 711 - A person who is conscious of serious sin is not to celebrate the Divine Liturgy nor receive the Divine Eucharist unless a serious reason is present and there is no opportunity of receiving the sacrament of penance; in this case the person should make an act of perfect condition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible.

Canon 718 - In the sacrament of penance, the Christian faithful who committed sins after baptism, internally led by the Holy Spirit, turn back to God, moved by the pain of sin, intent on entering a new life through the ministry of the priest, having themselves made a confession and accepted an appropriate penance, obtain forgiveness from God and at the same time are reconciled with the Church which they injured by sinning; by this sacrament they are brought to a greater fostering of the Christian life and are thus disposed for receiving the Divine Eucharist.

Canon 719 - Anyone who is aware of serious sin is to receive the sacrament of penance as soon as possible; it is strongly recommended to all the Christian faithful that they receive this sacrament frequently especially during the times of fasts and penance observed in their own Church sui iuris.

Canon 721 - §1. For a member of the Christian faithful to enjoy the sacramental absolution given to many at the same time, it is required not only that the person be properly disposed, but also at the same time intend in due time to confess individually the grave sins which at the present time cannot be confessed.
§2. As much as can be done, the Christian faithful are to be instructed concerning these requirements; an exhortation that each person take care to make an act of contrition is to precede general absolution, even in danger of death if time is available.

 

[AlNg]

You didn’t answer my question. I asked you about the belief in Jesus’ bread at the Last Supper and you responded with Eucharistic matter.

So is it a pious belief, or doctrinal teaching, the belief in what type of bread used by Jesus in the Last Supper?

According to the Sigillion of the Council of Constantinople 1583:
“III) Whosoever says that our Lord Jesus Christ at the Mystical Last Supper used unleavened bread as do the Hebrews and not leavened bread, that is, raised bread, let him be far from us and under the anathema as one who thinks like a Jew and as one who introduces the doctrines of Appolinarios and of the Armenians into our Church, on which account let him be anathematized a second time.”

 

[AlNg]

I’ve found translated Bull and it doesn’t say that. At least translation I found does not mention this. Ultimately who was really not okay with use of different bread was Greek Church at the time, with their Patriarch and his chaplain who stepped on Latin Eucharist. Anyhow, if you could provide your source for saying that Bull contained that, I would be glad to see it.

Yes, I think you are right about it not being mentioned in the Bull itself. I apologize for that error. I was reading the book: the Orthodox church by Timothy Ware Penguin Books, 1964, p66 ISBN 0-14-020592-6 which says that when the Western Church began to use unleavened bread, azymes , for the Eucharist, this became a point of contention between the Eastern and Western Churches at least from the POV of Michael Cerularius.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I was reading the book: the Orthodox church by Timothy Ware Penguin Books, 1964, p66 ISBN 0-14-020592-6 which says that when the Western Church began to use unleavened bread, azymes , for the Eucharist, this became a point of contention between the Eastern and Western Churches at least from the POV of Michael Cerularius.

That’s exactly my point. It was one Eastern faction that had problem with that, not West by far.

Apparently during life of Patriarch Photius, Anti-Roman Party of Clergy was formed in Constantinople. Michael Cerularius belonged to that Anti-Roman Party. It is worth noting Michael Cerularius died exiled from his State and his Church who have both deemed him to be power hungry man.

I apologize for that error

No need to apologize, it made me look the Bull itself. Funnily enough there isn’t even anything about Filioque not included in the Creed- all that is said is that Greeks deny that Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son and that would essentially result in heresy anyway.

According to the Sigillion of the Council of Constantinople 1583:

Well Orthodox Church has that opinion, interesting. Still doesn’t say much about Eastern Catholicism, but I guess that some local Orthodox council did try to ban Western practice. How binding is that now, though?

 

[AlNg]

Funnily enough there isn’t even anything about Filioque not included in the Creed- all that is said is that Greeks deny that Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son and that would essentially result in heresy anyway.

Here’s what my source says:
“Like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son;”
See:

Eastern Rite Catholic Filipinos: THE PAPAL BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION TO PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE MICHAEL CERULARIUS IN 1054

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Here’s what my source says:
“Like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son;”

Yes. Photius was first Greek Father who stopped “through the Son” emphasis of procession of Holy Spirit. That ultimately lead to confusion that Greeks denied it- some, especially anti-Roman party, sure did. Greek Church widely didn’t but Michael Cerularius and his clergy probably did.

Passage doesn’t talk about Filioque in the Creed.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

According to the Sigillion of the Council of Constantinople 1583:

Sadly, this is during the time of the reaction against Catholicism that ran for about 600 years, even up until the present day, but please note, these are local Greek Councils that are not accepted as Ecumenical by the entire Orthodox Church:

• Council of Constantinople (1285), a local council that rejected the Union of the Churches at Lyons
• Fifth Council of Constantinople, considered the Ninth Ecumenical Council by some Orthodox, concerning Hesychasm, in 1341-1351
• Synod of Constantinople (1484), condemned the Council of Florence
• Council of Constantinople (1583), decided not to accept the Gregorian calendar
• Council of Constantinople (1593), approved the creation of Moscow Patriarchate
• Council of Constantinople (1722), condemned all forms of catholicisation
• Council of Constantinople (1756), affirmed rebaptism for Roman Catholics converting to Christian Orthodoxy
• Council of Constantinople (1848), issued the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs

 

[tuffsmurf]

There is some confusion in this thread about what is roman/byzantine/eastern traditions.

The father giving the bride away at the wedding is NOT a roman catholic tradition but a particular english one (nowaday in all english-speaking countries) that existed among the pre-christian anglo-saxons. In roman catholic Europe except for the British Isles, this is not the common historical tradition.

When it comes to leavened/unleavened bread, a quick look around the orthodox churches shows that this cannot be a dogmatic difference. The Armenian church uses unleavened bread, which has been their practice since antiquity. They are also the only apostolic church that doesn’t add water to the chalice.

 

[Anesti33]

The Armenian church uses unleavened bread, which has been their practice since antiquity.

They are Oriental Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox are all of the Byzantine Rite, and uniform in doctrine and praxis.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

uniform in doctrine and praxis.

Sometimes…

There are slight differences in praxis between the Slavic and Greek Usages in the Orthodox Byzantine Rite. But most people who have not been immersed in the divines services of each would not notice them.

There is also currently slight differences of interpretation of doctrine about the Primacy/Supremacy of Constantinople and whether the Patriarch is First Among Equals or First Without Equals, whether to Baptism or Chrismate Christians coming from other confessions, and the question of the Tollhouses.

As a whole though, the Eastern Orthodox are mostly uniform in doctrine and praxis.

 

[Anesti33]

I was referring to the doctrine and praxis of using leavened bread in the Eucharist. That is the topic of this derailment, is it not?