Eastern Eucharistic Theology

[John_of_Patmos]

In the Roman Church, bread and wine become God himself as the Priest says “this is my Body/Blood” (at that moment). I think that the Orthodox claim their is no particular second in which Metousiosis happens. How do eastern catholics handle this? This may not be that big of a deal in the east, since I know Orthodox are less concerned with seeing the Lord but moreso consuming Him.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In the Roman Church, bread and wine become God himself as the Priest says “this is my Body/Blood” (at that moment). I think that the Orthodox claim their is no particular second in which Metousiosis happens. How do eastern catholics handle this? This may not be that big of a deal in the east, since I know Orthodox are less concerned with seeing the Lord but moreso consuming Him.

Same as the Orthodox. The common belief is that the Epiclesis is what is consecratory rather than the words of institution. What is agreed upon is that the change has occurred after the Anaphora is done.

 

[Mostyn]

Constantine, as I am a Roman Catholic , i need to ask you what you are saying here.
What is the Epiclesis and the Anaphora ?



Do the Eastern Orthodox use leavend bread during Holy Communion? and if so, why?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Constantine, as I am a Roman Catholic , i need to ask you what you are saying here.
What is the Epiclesis and the Anaphora ?



Do the Eastern Orthodox use leavend bread during Holy Communion? and if so, why?

Why not? That’s just the way it has been done since antiquity. If it ain’t broke’ . . .

 

[Mostyn]

Why not? That’s just the way it has been done since antiquity. If it ain’t broke’ . . .

Ok , just for my benefit, you will need to expand a bit there.
What do you mean since antiquity??

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ok , just for my benefit, you will need to expand a bit there.
What do you mean since antiquity??

That’s just the way it was always done in the East (since antiquity meaning since ancient times). The Eastern Christians understood the Greek, ‘artos,’ (from the last supper narratives in the gospels) to mean leavened bread rather than unleavened bread which would more properly be called, ‘azymos.’

 

[Mostyn]

That’s just the way it was always done in the East (since antiquity meaning since ancient times). The Eastern Christians understood the Greek, ‘artos,’ (from the last supper narratives in the gospels) to mean leavened bread rather than unleavened bread which would more properly be called, ‘azymos.’

Can you direct me to the narratives where it mentions artos ? or unleavened bread?
Sorry to keep asking, but there is a specific reason that I may understand, something the Holy Father mentions in his book I was reading, I could not fully understand.

Thanks

 

[Cavaradossi]

Can you direct me to the narratives where it mentions artos ? or unleavened bread?
Sorry to keep asking, but there is a specific reason that I may understand, something the Holy Father mentions in his book I was reading, I could not fully understand.

Thanks

This is Matthew 26:26 in Koine Greek:
εσθιοντων δε αυτων λαβων ο ιησους τον αρτον και ευλογησας εκλασεν και εδιδου τοις μαθηταις και ειπεν λαβετε φαγετε τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου
And here is the English
[bibledrb]Matthew 26:26[/bibledrb]

Here is Mark 14:22 in Greek:
22και εσθιοντων αυτων λαβων ο ιησους αρτον ευλογησας εκλασεν και εδωκεν αυτοις και ειπεν λαβετε φαγετε τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου
And in English:
[bibledrb]Mark 14:22[/bibledrb]

Luke 22:19 in Greek:
19και λαβων αρτον ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και εδωκεν αυτοις λεγων τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
And in English:
[bibledrb]Luke 22:19[/bibledrb]

For comparison, here is Matthew 26:17, where unleavened bread is mentioned :
τη δε πρωτη των αζυμων προσηλθον οι μαθηται τω ιησου λεγοντες αυτω που θελεις ετοιμασωμεν σοι φαγειν το πασχα
[bibledrb]Matthew 26:17[/bibledrb]

Notice that each time he takes the bread to break it, it is called αρτον (arton), which carries the implication of leavened bread, instead of Azymos (Azymes in English), which is used in Matthew 26:17 to describe unleavened bread.

 

[Mostyn]

Cavaradossi, thanks for taking the time posting all the narratives .

Please bear with me, but I am still unconvinced that. from the idea that you say, breaking the break implies that it is leavened bread. I am supposing that leavened bread is using yeast to make it rise.
I know that at the Jewish passover they used unleavend bread, so wouldn’t it follow that Jesus would have used unleavened for a reason.

I don’t understand you say that because Jesus broke the bread, therefore must mean it is leavened. I mean even if it was unleavend, he would still have to break it . no?

**’‘Notice that each time he takes the bread to break it, it is called αρτον (arton), which carries the implication of leavened bread’’ ** this does not prove at all to my mind that it was leavened bread, unless I am missing something.

Now please don’t get me wrong, I don’t see why we can’t use leavened bread, it would be fine by me, much nicer in my opinion.

 

[BertBlyleven]

Constantine, as I am a Roman Catholic , i need to ask you what you are saying here.
What is the Epiclesis and the Anaphora ?



Do the Eastern Orthodox use leavend bread during Holy Communion? and if so, why?

The Epiclesis is an invocation to the Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Anaphora is the Eastern equivalent to the Roman Canon (prayer of institution) of the Mass.

 

[Mostyn]

The Epiclesis is an invocation to the Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Anaphora is the Eastern equivalent to the Roman Canon (prayer of institution) of the Mass.

Thanks very much for your explanation , that is lovely.

 

[BertBlyleven]

Cavaradossi, thanks for taking the time posting all the narratives .

Please bear with me, but I am still unconvinced that. from the idea that you say, breaking the break implies that it is leavened bread. I am supposing that leavened bread is using yeast to make it rise.
I know that at the Jewish passover they used unleavend bread, so wouldn’t it follow that Jesus would have used unleavened for a reason.

I don’t understand you say that because Jesus broke the bread, therefore must mean it is leavened. I mean even if it was unleavend, he would still have to break it . no?

**’‘Notice that each time he takes the bread to break it, it is called αρτον (arton), which carries the implication of leavened bread’’ ** this does not prove at all to my mind that it was leavened bread, unless I am missing something.

Now please don’t get me wrong, I don’t see why we can’t use leavened bread, it would be fine by me, much nicer in my opinion.

He is refering to the fact that the word azymos was used in Matthew 26:17 to specifically refer to unleavened bread, but a different word (arton) was used for bread at the last supper. So, logically, the Gospel writers probably would’ve used the same word (azymos) at the last supper if it was indeed unleavened bread.

I am with you in that I do not believe this holds in itself. It doesn’t necessarily show his (the Gospel writer’s) intentions, or perhaps his intentions were to say that leavened bread is permissible. We believe St. Matthew, whose Greek is choppy from what I’ve been told, wrote the first Gospel; if he “erred”, then this error likely made its way to the 3 Gospels with the Last Supper.

 

[BertBlyleven]

Why not? That’s just the way it has been done since antiquity. If it ain’t broke’ . . .

Michael Davies cites that there is much evidence suggesting unleavened bread was originally used (not unilaterally), which was replaced by the use of leavened bread because some Christians believed only unleavened bread could be used, which was false (this reminds me of Roman Catholic laity recieving the consecrated bread alone to combat the heresy that the Body and Blood were separate parts of Christ). I haven’t heard this many times, but I trust his work; I’ll check his sources when I have time.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

Michael Davies cites that there is much evidence suggesting unleavened bread was originally used (not unilaterally), which was replaced by the use of leavened bread because some Christians believed only unleavened bread could be used, which was false (this reminds me of Roman Catholic laity recieving the consecrated bread alone to combat the heresy that the Body and Blood were separate parts of Christ). I haven’t heard this many times, but I trust his work; I’ll check his sources when I have time.

I support both traditions

 

[MrPip]

Would it be incorrect (or maybe just incomplete) to say that the issue of whether the bread being used is leavened or unleavened has to do with when it is determined that Passover was at the time of the Last Supper? In other words, if the Last Supper occurred just before Passover, then leavened bread would have been used. If, as the Catholic Church teaches (I think!) the Last Supper was, indeed, a Passover meal, then unleavened bread would have been used.

Any thoughts? Or corrections?

 

[iohanne]

Unfortunately, the Synoptic Gospels differ from the Johannine Gospel with respect to the timing of the Last Supper.

The Synoptics hint that the timing of the Last Supper was the Passover meal itself. That is, the Passover lambs were already slaughtered and offered in the Jerusalem temple earlier that day and after sunset the Pesach itself began and the people took their part of the sacrifice back to their homes and celebrated the Seder and ate their lambs and their unleavened bread.

The Johannine Gospel indicates that the Last Supper occurred on the evening before the Seder was to be celebrated. This links Jesus’ passion, crucifixion and death with the exact moment when thousands of lambs were being slaughtered at the temple. This means that the Last Supper was celebrated with leavened bread.

The Johannine is emphasized among the East. Among the Latins and the Armenians, the Synoptics hold more weight on the timing of the Last Supper. This notion that there was one, pure, unadulterated tradition and apostolic teaching which was then altered and diluted in certain Churches… well, it’s sketchy at best. Most likely there were regional variations in early Christian praxis right from the get-go with the Apostles themselves and the communities which they began.

 

[dcointin]

Unfortunately, the Synoptic Gospels differ from the Johannine Gospel with respect to the timing of the Last Supper.

The Synoptics hint that the timing of the Last Supper was the Passover meal itself. That is, the Passover lambs were already slaughtered and offered in the Jerusalem temple earlier that day and after sunset the Pesach itself began and the people took their part of the sacrifice back to their homes and celebrated the Seder and ate their lambs and their unleavened bread.

The Johannine Gospel indicates that the Last Supper occurred on the evening before the Seder was to be celebrated. This links Jesus’ passion, crucifixion and death with the exact moment when thousands of lambs were being slaughtered at the temple. This means that the Last Supper was celebrated with leavened bread.

The Johannine is emphasized among the East. Among the Latins and the Armenians, the Synoptics hold more weight on the timing of the Last Supper. This notion that there was one, pure, unadulterated tradition and apostolic teaching which was then altered and diluted in certain Churches… well, it’s sketchy at best. Most likely there were regional variations in early Christian praxis right from the get-go with the Apostles themselves and the communities which they began.

I absolutely agree. I believe that both were apostolic traditions which are equally authentic, similar to differences in the early dating of Pascha (Easter). Both leavened and unleavened bread have positive and negative connotations in scripture and developed symbolism over time. This was actually one of the key arguments between the east and west during the schism!

 

[MrPip]

I absolutely agree. I believe that both were apostolic traditions which are equally authentic, similar to differences in the early dating of Pascha (Easter). Both leavened and unleavened bread have positive and negative connotations in scripture and developed symbolism over time. This was actually one of the key arguments between the east and west during the schism!

I’d agree with both you and iohanne. I put it out there by way of suggesting this very thing! Glad you both picked up on it !

In Christ,
Jeff

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine, as I am a Roman Catholic , i need to ask you what you are saying here.
What is the Epiclesis and the Anaphora ?

Anaphora is the entire Eucharistic Prayer.

Epiclesis is the specific prayer invoking the Holy Spirit to come down from heaven and change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Do the Eastern Orthodox use leavend bread during Holy Communion? and if so, why?

The Eastern Catholics as well. Because thats how we have always done it. The Roman Catholic Church also used leavened bread in its early days.

 

[dcointin]

Anaphora is the entire Eucharistic Prayer.

Epiclesis is the specific prayer invoking the Holy Spirit to come down from heaven and change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

The Eastern Catholics as well. Because thats how we have always done it. The Roman Catholic Church also used leavened bread in its early days.

What sources do we have that say the Roman church used leavened bread?