For Eastern Orthodox: Unleavened Bread

[Rawb]

No, the entire church did not use leavened bread, there was both unleavened and leavened bread being used in the Church (the West used mainly unleavened bread, the East, mainly leavened bread).

I meant before your church switched. The West originally used leavened bread. Here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6947144&postcount=12

P.S. Can you please provide your sources, i.e., church fathers declaring that unleavened bread should not be used, i.e., being that 3 gospels refer to unleavened bread, I don’t see how anyone can be disparaging of its use?

Again, whether it was unleavened bread at the Mystical Supper is a matter of debate. The New Advent article says: “It is a debated question whether Christ used leavened or unleavened bread at the institution of the Holy Eucharist, since different conclusions may be drawn, on the one hand, from the gospel of St. John and the synoptic Gospels on the other.” This article outlines some of the issues with leavened. Other than that, I suggest this.

Ok. So Im not scholar so can I ask you what do think St. Paul means in 1 cor 5 : 7 - Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Would appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

MJ

The article I linked to above talks about it. Christ uses Leaven as a symbol of the Kingdom of Heaven, St. Paul uses it to condemn immorality.

Ultimately this isn’t a huge issue, to almost anyone. Your church has your traditions and justifications and we have ours.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

But it’s in scripture, how is it debatable?

Matthew 26:2 (Wed. Sanhedrin’s Conspiracy) states the Passover was in 2 days…aka Friday, but “this” Passover (Passover Meal of the New Covenant) happened on Thursday night, the night before the Jewish Passover - the day Jesus was crucified; thereby, fulfilling the Old Testament Passover-the slaugher of the perfect, innocent Lamb of God for our salvation. It’s also recorded in the book of Revelation that Jesus is the Lamb of God.

 

[Josephene]

.

The last words in post 21 , about difft customs and how it doesn’t matter may be true

…and may be an occasion for deeper gratitude .

C.A site gives good articles on the topic -

catholic.com/search/content/leavned%20bread%20in%20Eucharist

‘All things work well for those who love God …’ and here too , we can see how such might be the case ;

Our Lord and His disciples , being faithful to the O.T teachings that were in fildelity to the true nature of God , very unlikely that The Lord would have broken the custom of having no leaven around the week of Passover or if He did , this would have been alluded to , in the writings , as was the case on ocassions when He was falsely accused of breaking the nature of the Sabbath, by healing the sick.

There are the writings of Mor Epherm The Syrian ,as early as the 300s and respected in East and West , who sings the praises of the use of unleavened bread - even if he might have had a bit much of antipathy towards Jewish customs , in his zeal to protect believers from turning back to Jewish ways and thus cautioned them severely about not using unleavened bread as Passover meal but only as Eucharist .

It is likley that the use of leavned bread came into practice , either from occasions of persecutions wherein the use of unleavened bread was unavailable or more importantly , pwers that had other motives introducing such, as a means to undermine The Church .

If the latter is the case , then perpetauting such a custom in defiance to what The Lord had instituded would mean graver undercurrents …

until the power of such gets broken , by the God given power used in fidelity , through the power of The Keys and goodwill , where in the Papacy , established by The Lord, in His mercy and foresight , grants the blessing and permission for use of either , thus freeing persons who mght have fallen into the slavery of a cusom meant to bring trouble !

Thanks be to our Lord and His Church !

 

[josie_L]

I meant before your church switched. The West originally used leavened bread. Here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6947144&postcount=12

Again, whether it was unleavened bread at the Mystical Supper is a matter of debate. The New Advent article says: “It is a debated question whether Christ used leavened or unleavened bread at the institution of the Holy Eucharist, since different conclusions may be drawn, on the one hand, from the gospel of St. John and the synoptic Gospels on the other.” This article outlines some of the issues with leavened. Other than that, I suggest this.

The article I linked to above talks about it. Christ uses Leaven as a symbol of the Kingdom of Heaven, St. Paul uses it to condemn immorality.

Ultimately this isn’t a huge issue, to almost anyone. Your church has your traditions and justifications and we have ours.

I’m not saying you have to use one or the other, i.e., the CC accepts both (just like the pre-schism church did until things started getting ugly), I’m just curious as to why the EO only accepts leavened bread?

 

[josie_L]

That I don’t know, but the writers of Divine Liturgy: Apostle James of the 1st century, St. Basil & St. John Chrysostom directed that leavened (not unleavened) bread be used for the celebration of the Eucharist.

**The first time unleavened bread was ever used for the Eucharist was under Pope Leo IX in 1053 ad. This was one of the issues that was argued over (another straw on the back) that led to the schism. **

Do you know why the Catholic Church made the change to Unleavened Bread? I’ve always wondered. I figure it must have been a very important reason since it was a change made to a thousand year old establish tradition that was upheld in all the Christian world.

In 1053 A.D., that’s not right??

St. Thomas (IV, Dist. xi, qu. 3) holds that, in the beginning, both in the East and West unleavened bread was used; that when the sect of the Ebionites arose, who wished that the Mosaic Law should be obligatory on all converts, leavened bread was used, and when this heresy ceased the Latins used again unleavened bread, but the Greeks retained the use of leavened bread.

newadvent.org/cathen/01349d.htm

 

[josie_L]

John 18:28 - the Pharisees didn’t want to get defiled because they wanted to eat the Passover Meal.

If the Mystical (Last) Supper was not the New Covenant Passover Eucharistic Meal, but actually the Old Testament Passover Meal, then:

Why, during the passion/trial of Jesus, were the Pharisees worried about missing the Passover meal, if they’d already eaten it?

Please read:

In order to match John’s timetable perfectly with Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the passage in John 18:28 must be clarified. It states: “They led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praetorium: and it was early; and they themselves entered not into the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.” If this reference to eating “the passover” refers to the actual Passover lamb that was sacrificed on the 14th day of Nisan, then John’s account would stand in direct opposition to those of the other three gospel writers. It can been shown conclusively, however, that John did not necessarily mean the actual Passover lamb, and that his statement can refer instead to the Feast of Unleavened bread directly following the Passover.

First, it should be noted that John was not nearly as specific as the other the gospel writers. As was discussed earlier, they defined the day of the Last Supper as the first day of unleavened bread on which the passover must be sacrificed. [It is interesting to observe that Luke 22:7 uses the Greek word dei, which the ASV translators render as must. Arndt and Gingrich noted that the word means “of compulsion of law or custom,” and then used Luke 22:7 to illustrate this usage. They translated the pertinent part of the verse under discussion: “when the paschal lamb had to be sacrificed” (1967, p. 172). Which law or custom compelled the Jews to sacrifice the Passover lamb on this particular day? The obvious answer is: the law set forth in Exodus 12.] John’s reference to the Jewish leaders’ eating the Passover certainly does not detail an exact day on which the Passover lamb “must” be sacrificed.

As further evidence that John’s reference does not necessarily mean the 14th day of Nisan, the term “Passover” sometimes was used to refer to the entire Feast of Unleavened bread, not just the eating of the Passover lamb. Luke 22:1 is an obvious and clear example of such usage: “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.” Other passages that support this usage are John 2:13,23, 5:4, 11:55, and Acts 12:1-4. Josephus, in Antiquities of the Jews, wrote about an event happening “at the time when the feast of unleavened bread was celebrated, which we call the Passover” (14:2:1). Thus, the term “Passover” often had a more relaxed meaning, and could refer to the “feast of unleavened bread.” To add support to this conclusion, Lenski made an interesting observation:

In the present connection it is impossible to make the eating of the Passover mean the eating of the Paschal lamb. For the defilement which these Jews feared would not have debarred them from eating the Paschal lamb if this lamb was to be eaten on Friday evening. Defilement of this type lasted only until sundown and could then be removed by a bath. The Paschal Lamb was not eaten until some time after sundown (1998, p. 1213).

With a quick look back into the Old Testament, we find that many of the things that “defiled” people, or caused them to be “unclean,” lasted only until evening (see Leviticus chapters 11 and 15). From reading Numbers 9:10,13, it seems that, according to the Law of Moses, the only two reasons a man might be unable to keep the feast would be because he had touched a dead body or was away on a journey. Since neither of those two situations seems to apply to John 18:28, the passage certainly allows for the phrase “eat the passover” to mean something other than the Paschal lamb. In his concluding comments on John 18:28, Lenski summarized remarks from Zahn’s Introduction to the New Testament by stating:

It is quite incredible to believe that with an entirely incidental expression, not at all connected with the Passover as such or with the actions of Jesus but solely with the scruples of the Jews, John should wish to overthrow a view of his readers which he has left entirely undisturbed throughout all of his preceding chapters (p. 1214).

What, then, were the Jewish leaders specifically desiring to eat? Zahn observed: “Moreover, it is probable that the members of the Sanhedrin had specifically in mind the so-called Chagigah, the sacrificial meal of the 15th of Nisan, which, unlike the Passover meal, was held during the course of the day and not after sundown” (1953, 3:283). Thus, there remains nothing to require that the phrase “might eat the passover” in John 18:28 must mean the actual Passover lamb.

apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1196

 

[EvangelCatholic]

If Eastern Orthodox use leavened bread how do they reserve the Sacrament? Or do they practice as Lutherans and consume all the bread during the Eucharist.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

In 1053 A.D., that’s not right??

St. Thomas Aquinas would have been mistaken if he wrote that Western (& Eastern) Churches used unleavened bread for the Eucharist prior to the Ebionites.

Never hearing about that sect Ebionites before, using the link you provided, I clicked on their sects’ name & trusting your source: Catholic Encyclopedia New Advent, this is what it has to say about them (and it conflicts with your quote of St. Thomas Aquinas)

*** “Of the history of this sect hardly anything is known. They exerted only the slightest influence in the East and none at all in the West, where they were known as Symmachiani.*”**

This sect had zero influence over the West; therefore, even if they had wanted to make a change to the Eucharist in the West, they no power to make such a change* of any Western practice, not even on a temporary basis. *there was no change, the West had used leavened bread for Eucharist

**Use of unleavened bread it disputes the specific instructions written by St. James the Apostle in his Divine Liturgy about 1200 years before St. Thomas was born. **And also disputes the instructions written by St. Basil in his Divine Liturgy & also disputes the instructions written by St. John Chrysostom in his Divine Liturgy about 800 years before St. Thomas was born.

Historically, the West, after making a change to their practice or faith was, was always very quick to falsely accuse the East of making a change in that area - for example, soon after the addition of the “filioque” was fully absorbed into Western culture & belief, they immediately began accusing the East of removing it from the Creed - the exact opposite of reality. St. Thomas lived about 200 years after Pope Leo IX had made the change from using Leavened Bread to Unleavened Bread for the Eucharist and* if* he wrote this, let’s assume innocence on his part - that he was merely writing what he was told happened.

PLUS that quote from attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas doesn’t even make any common sense, if that sect was successful in their promotion of Mosaic Law, they would have insisted on UNleavened bread, not leavened. Come on, that just doesn’t make sense.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

If Eastern Orthodox use leavened bread how do they reserve the Sacrament? Or do they practice as Lutherans and consume all the bread during the Eucharist.

Yes, both Eastern Orthodox & Eastern Catholics use leavened bread for the Eucharist. What is not consumed is kept in the Tabernacle on the Altar behind the Iconostasis.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Please read:

apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1196

**The Gospel of John doesn’t conflict with the first 3 Gospels because in the first 3 Gospels, the Passover Jesus was referring to was “this Passover” aka His New Covenant Meal, not the Mosaic Passover of the Old Covenant.

Jesus, the LAMB OF GOD, was sacrificed on the Cross on the date of the Old Covenant Passover to fulfillment the Old!!! This is what is consistent with Sacred Scripture, Exodus - Revelation. **

That’s all I have to say about this issue which is related, yet off topic, to this thread.

 

[andrewstx]

If Eastern Orthodox use leavened bread how do they reserve the Sacrament? Or do they practice as Lutherans and consume all the bread during the Eucharist.

The Lamb has a drop of the Sacred Blood placed on it and then it is dried by heat. We use it for two purposes. First to give Holy Communion to the ill, and second to use for the Liturgy of the Presanctified on Wednesdays and Fridays during Great Lent.

It is kept in a tabernacle on the altar, but we don’t have Benediction with the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[twf]

That I don’t know, but the writers of Divine Liturgy: Apostle James of the 1st century, St. Basil & St. John Chrysostom directed that leavened (not unleavened) bread be used for the celebration of the Eucharist.

The first time unleavened bread was ever used for the Eucharist was under Pope Leo IX in 1053 ad. This was one of the issues that was argued over (another straw on the back) that led to the schism.

Do you know why the Catholic Church made the change to Unleavened Bread? I’ve always wondered. I figure it must have been a very important reason since it was a change made to a thousand year old establish tradition that was upheld in all the Christian world.

The Catholic Church does not accept this claim. It is an ancient Latin tradition to use unleavened bread - since long before the schism. Did all Latins universally use unleavened bread? Probably not - but it was certainly not unheard of. Note that the Armenian Church also uses unleavened bread and according to an Oriental Orthodox poster on this thread, Armenian scholars insist they have used unleavened bread since BEFORE Chalcedon (AD 451). I would like to see scholarly citations from non-Orthodox (non-biased) sources demonstrating that Pope Leo IX introduced this practice as a novelty in 1053.

 

[josie_L]

The Catholic Church does not accept this claim. It is an ancient Latin tradition to use unleavened bread - since long before the schism. Did all Latins universally use unleavened bread? Probably not - but it was certainly not unheard of. Note that the Armenian Church also uses unleavened bread and according to an Oriental Orthodox poster on this thread, Armenian scholars insist they have used unleavened bread since BEFORE Chalcedon (AD 451).** I would like to see scholarly citations from non-Orthodox (non-biased) sources demonstrating that Pope Leo IX introduced this practice as a novelty in 1053.**

It is ahistorical, without a doubt.

 

[josie_L]

St. Thomas Aquinas would have been mistaken if he wrote that Western (& Eastern) Churches used unleavened bread for the Eucharist prior to the Ebionites.

Never hearing about that sect Ebionites before, using the link you provided, I clicked on their sects’ name & trusting your source: Catholic Encyclopedia New Advent, this is what it has to say about them (and it conflicts with your quote of St. Thomas Aquinas)

*** “Of the history of this sect hardly anything is known. They exerted only the slightest influence in the East and none at all in the West, where they were known as Symmachiani.***”

Mea culpa, then, for using that quote, but again, I know full well that unleavened bread was used during the pre-schism church not only with regard to the Armenians but the Latin West as well. The fact of the matter is that this began to be a contentious issue between East and West prior to 1059 (the year you state that Pope Leo IX introduced unleavened bread). It was customary in the West to use unleavened bread prior to 1059, in fact, it was almost in universal use (in that region) by the 9th century.

**Use of unleavened bread it disputes the specific instructions written by St. James the Apostle in his Divine Liturgy about 1200 years before St. Thomas was born. **And also disputes the instructions written by St. Basil in his Divine Liturgy & also disputes the instructions written by St. John Chrysostom in his Divine Liturgy about 800 years before St. Thomas was born.

There is no dispute, there were just different liturgies and practices that were in use throughout the Church.

Historically, the West, after making a change to their practice or faith was, was always very quick to falsely accuse the East of making a change in that area - for example, soon after the addition of the “filioque” was fully absorbed into Western culture & belief, they immediately began accusing the East of removing it from the Creed - the exact opposite of reality. St. Thomas lived about 200 years after Pope Leo IX had made the change from using Leavened Bread to Unleavened Bread for the Eucharist and* if* he wrote this, let’s assume innocence on his part - that he was merely writing what he was told happened.

Again, Pope Leo IX did not change anything, i.e., it was already a Western custom to use unleavened bread.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Please read:

apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1196

That argument seems to be based on Edersheim’s chronology of events, which is highly problematic, because it contradicts the fathers who largely believed that the crucifixion occurred on 14 Nissan, and not on 15 Nissan (to give two famous examples, St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine both give chronologies which affirm this).

The argument that the priests feared defilement lest they should be rendered unable to offer the Chagigah is not accurate. It is not mentioned, for example, that the obligatory Chagigah could be offered on any of the first seven days of unleavened bread. In other words, the Priests would have had little to fear from being defiled on 15 Nissan, because the Chagigah could be offered on any of the next six days.

On the other hand, had it been 14 Nissan, the priests had an incentive to remain ritually pure. There was a custom of offering an optional Chagigah with the Passover, which was similarly an offering of a year-old male lamb, which comes from the flock but not the herd, which may only be roasted, which must not have its bones broken, and which must be eaten by those who offered it before the Sun rises (these being the exact same requirements for a passover lamb). The difference between this Chagigah and the Passover, according to the Babylonian Talmud is that this Chagigah offered with the Passover has its breast meat and right thigh cut off, reserved to be eaten by the priests in a “pure place”. But Kohanim who had lost ritual purity on 14 Nissan could not eat these meats, because they were considered heave-offerings, and such offerings would have been forbidden for kohanim who had become Tebul Yom to partake of.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t see why the unleavened bread is an issue. Its well documented.

Unleavened bread has been used in the Church as long as recorded history exists on the topic. Origen wrote on this in his commentary of Matthew. The practice spread further in the Armenian Church by the relation of Gregory the Illuminator and the Pope which unified Christianity through Constantine.

newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm

 

[GaryTaylor]

St. Gregory the Theologian - oration 1:3

“Yesterday the Lamb was slain and the door-posts were anointed, and Egypt bewailed her Firstborn, and the Destroyer passed us over, and the Seal was dreadful and reverend, and we were walled in with the Precious Blood. Today we have clean escaped from Egypt and from Pharaoh; and there is none to hinder us from keeping a Feast to the Lord our God–the Feast of our Departure; or from celebrating that Feast, not in the old leaven of malice and wickedness, but in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, carrying with us nothing of ungodly and Egyptian leaven.”

St. John Chrysostom Homily 84:2 Gospel of Matthew

“And why did they lead Him away there where they were all assembled? That they might do all things with consent of the chief priests. For he was then high priest, and all were waiting for Christ there, to such a degree did they spend the whole night, and give up their sleep for this object. For neither did they then eat the Passover, but watched for this other purpose. For John, when he had said that “it was early,” added, “they entered into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover” [John 18:28]. What must we say then? That they ate it on another day, and broke the law, on account of their eager desire about this murder. For Christ would not have transgressed as to the time of the Passover, but they who were daring all things, and trampling under foot a thousand laws. For since they were exceedingly boiling with rage, and having often attempted to seize Him, had not been able; having then taken Him unexpectedly, they chose even to pass by the passover, for the sake of satiating their murderous lust.”

newadvent.org/fathers/200184.htm

Pope St. Leo I Sermon 63:7

“This it is that rescues from the power of darkness and transfers us into the Kingdom of the Son of God. This it is that by newness of life exalts the desires of the mind and quenches the lusts of the flesh. This it is whereby the Lord’s Passover is duly kept “with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” by the casting away of the old leaven of wickedness [1 Corinthians 5:8] and the inebriating and feeding of the new creature with the very Lord. For naught else is brought about by the partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ than that we pass into that which we then take , and both in spirit and in body carry everywhere Him, in and with Whom we were dead, buried, and rose again, as the Apostle says, For you are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. For when Christ, your life, shall appear, then shall you also appear with Him in glory [Colossians 3:3-4].”

 

[josie_L]

That argument seems to be based on Edersheim’s chronology of events, **which is highly problematic, because it contradicts the fathers who largely believed that the crucifixion occurred on 14 Nissan, and not on 15 Nissan **(to give two famous examples, St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine both give chronologies which affirm this).

No, I don’t believe that is the case:

Numerous additional regulations pertaining to the lamb’s preparation, the length of the feast, and various other such facets of the festival could be cited. The one other injunction most specifically pertaining to this discussion is found in verses 15, and 18-20. These verses explicitly state that no leavened bread should be eaten from the 14th day of the month to the 21st day of the month. Verse 15 explains that any person eating leavened bread would be “cut off from Israel” (a phase often implying the death penalty). Verses 18-20 read as follows:

In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread.

Simply put, God directly commanded Moses to warn the children of Israel that anyone caught eating leaven during the Feast of Unleavened Bread would be punished severely, possibly with death.

As we move approximately 1,500 years from the initial institution of the feast, we find the Jews of Jesus’ day bound to the same regulations and specificities as those ancient compatriots of Moses. In fact, we find Jesus—as a faithful Jew “born under the law” (Galatians 4:4), and abiding without sin under that same law (1 Peter 2:22)—adhering to the proper commands of the Law of Moses. On occasion, upon healing leprous people, Jesus instructed those individuals to present themselves to the priest as the Law of Moses commanded (Matthew 8:4; Luke 17:12-14). The Pharisees’ accusations of Jesus’ breaking the Sabbath notwithstanding, Jesus lived perfectly under the Law of Moses. Since He obeyed the Law consistently, when Jesus ate the Passover feast and celebrated the ensuing Feast of Unleavened bread, it is a fact that He would not have used any leaven from the 14th day of Nisan [originally, the first Jewish month was called Abib (see Deuteronomy 16:1-10), but its name eventually was changed to Nisan (Esther 3:7)] to the 21st day of that same month, as commanded in Exodus 12:15,18-20.

Therefore, it can be determined beyond any doubt that Jesus would have used unleavened bread during the Passover meal. This fact is of utmost importance, since the Last Supper (at which Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper) often is thought to have occurred on the 14th day of Nisan during the evening of the Passover, marking the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened bread. If Jesus did not institute the Lord’s Supper on the actual Passover, then there remains no biblical basis to insist upon the use of unleavened bread during the Lord’s Supper.

apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1196

and read this:

Quartodecimanism (from the Vulgate Latin quarta decima in Leviticus 23:5,[1] meaning fourteenth) refers to the custom of some early Christians celebrating Passover beginning with the eve of the 14th day of Nisan (or Aviv in the Hebrew Bible calendar), which at dusk is biblically the “Lord’s passover”.

The modern Jewish Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread is seven days, starting with the sunset at the beginning of Nisan 15. **Judaism reckons the beginning of each day at sunset, not at midnight as is common in Western reckoning. **The biblical law regarding Passover is said to be a “perpetual ordinance” (Exodus 12:14), to some degree also applicable to proselytes (Exodus 12:19), but what it means to observe biblical law in Christianity is disputed.

According to some interpretations, the Gospel of John (e.g., 19:14, 19:31, 19:42) implies that Nisan 14 was the day that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. The synoptic gospels place the execution on the first day of Unleavened Bread (Matthew 26:17). In Ancient Israel the first day of Unleavened Bread, a special Holy Sabbath, was on Nisan 15 and began a seven-day feast to the Lord (Leviticus 23:6). By the time of Christ, many customs in regard to the festival had changed, notable among them the intermixing of the two festivals in some customs and terminology. The eight days, passover and the feast of unleavened bread, were often collectively referred to as the Passover, or the Pesach Festival.[2][3]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartodecimanism

 

[josie_L]

Mea culpa, then, for using that quote, but again, I know full well that unleavened bread was used during the pre-schism church not only with regard to the Armenians but the Latin West as well. The fact of the matter is that this began to be a contentious issue between East and West prior to 1059 (the year you state that Pope Leo IX introduced unleavened bread). It was customary in the West to use unleavened bread prior to 1059, in fact, it was almost in universal use (in that region) by the 9th century.

Sorry, I meant to write 1053.

 

[andrewstx]

To borrow a word from the Lutherans I really believe that the form of bread consecrated in the Holy Eucharist is an adiaphora. Not something to fight over.

I remember reading pamphlets from ultra conservative old calendar Orthodox that went on and on about “ayzmes”. I never got it.