For Eastern Orthodox: Unleavened Bread

[1Tim215Mommy]

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.

History shows use of unleavened bread was officially ordered by Pope Leo IX in 1053, not in 1059.

Based on what I’ve learned about how the Catholic Church operates when it makes major changes such as this, I will grant that there very well may have been a rebellious faction (large or small) within the West that began using unleavened bread for the Eucharist BEFORE the Pope make the official change in 1053.

I could see that as a reasonable possibility based on other changes that were initially made by rebellious factions within the Catholic Church BEFORE the Catholic Church made changes officially accepted, for example:

• Removal of women’s head-coverings in Church - officially accepted by Pope John Paul II in 1983
• Communion in the Hand - officially accept by Pope John Paul II in 1969
• use of “Filioque” in the Creed - officially accepted 1024 by Pope Benedict VIII

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

Just like it was already custom for Catholic women to attend Mass without wearing a headcovering in 1983.

Just like it was already a custom for Catholics to receive Communion in the hand prior to 1969.

Just like it was already a custom for Catholics in Spain to use “Filioque” when reciting the Creed prior to 1024.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Sorry, I meant to write 1053.

No worries. I didn’t see this correction until after I posted my response to you.

 

[twf]

History shows use of unleavened bread was officially ordered by Pope Leo IX in 1053, not in 1059.

Based on what I’ve learned about how the Catholic Church operates when it makes major changes such as this, I will grant that there very well may have been a rebellious faction (large or small) within the West that began using unleavened bread for the Eucharist BEFORE the Pope make the official change in 1053.

I could see that as a reasonable possibility based on other changes that were initially made by rebellious factions within the Catholic Church BEFORE the Catholic Church made changes officially accepted, for example:

• Removal of women’s head-coverings in Church - officially accepted by Pope John Paul II in 1983
• Communion in the Hand - officially accept by Pope John Paul II in 1969
• use of “Filioque” in the Creed - officially accepted 1024 by Pope Benedict VIII

Just like it was already custom for Catholic women to attend Mass without wearing a headcovering in 1983.

Just like it was already a custom for Catholics to receive Communion in the hand prior to 1969.

Just like it was already a custom for Catholics in Spain to use “Filioque” when reciting the Creed prior to 1024.

We need to see your scholarly citations from a non-Orthodox source demonstrating these claims. It is the Tradition of the Latin Church that unleavened bread has been used since ancient times, as it also has been in the Armenian Church. Pope Leo did not introduce a novelty.

 

[Cavaradossi]

No, I don’t believe that is the case:

The Babylonian Talmud is rather explicit in interpreting the law as proscribing the eating of leaven after the 5th hour (that is, after 11 AM) on 14 Nissan, with all remaining leaven being burned by the 6th hour. The sacrifice of the Passover lamb occurred that afternoon, and that evening, the Passover Seder would be eaten with unleavened bread, such that the Passover lamb would be fully consumed or burned by sunrise of 15 Nissan. Again, for the timeline the author of that page is advocating to work out, the crucifixion would have to have been on 15 Nissan. If it happened on 14 Nissan, as the early Church Fathers taught (the author even seems to concede this point, citing Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian), then the Last Supper could not have been a Passover Seder according to the interpreters of the Law, because the Passover Seder must be celebrated at night, before the sunrise of 15 Nissan, and cannot be celebrated at another time, unless reasons of ritual impurity or travel prevent one from doing so, in which case, it is permissible to celebrate Passover one month later.

 

[josie_L]

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.

Thank you, Andrew (it shouldn’t be an issue because the pre-schism church had both leavened and unleavened bread).

 

[prodromos]

Origines Ecclesiasticæ: The Antiquities of the Christian Church by Joseph Bingham
Fourthly, we are to observe upon this head, That so long as the people continued to make oblations of bread and wine, the elements for the use of the eucharist were usually taken out of them ; and by consequence, so long the bread was that common leavened bread, which they used upon other occasions ; and the use of wafers and unleavened bread was not known in the church till the eleventh or twelfth centuries, when the oblations of common bread began to be left off by the people. This will seem a great paradox to all who look no further than the schoolmen, and only read their disputes with the Greeks about leavened and unleavened bread, which are fierce enough on both sides, and have little of truth on either : as commonly such disputes evaporate into smoke, and end in bitter and false reproaches ; the Greeks terming the Latins Azymites, for consecrating in azymis, that is, unleavened bread ; and the Latins, on the other hand, charging the Greeks with deviating from the example of Christ, and the practice of the ancient church. I will not enter into the detail of the arguments on both sides, which belongs not to this place ; but only acquaint the reader, that now the most wise and learned men in the Roman church, who have more exactly scanned and examined this matter, think fit to desert the schoolmen, and maintain, that the whole primitive church, and the Roman church herself for many ages, never consecrated the eucharist in any other but common and leavened bread.

New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden and Thomas J. Green

The requirement of unleavened bread is for liceity. In the early centuries, both Eastern and Western Churches used leavened bread for the Eucharist, but in the eighth and ninth centuries the use of unleavened bread became the general custom in the West. In keeping with the scope of the Code, the canon properly addresses only the practice of the Latin Rite.

 

[prodromos]

The Church’s Liturgy By Michael Kunzler is the first volume published in English of a series of International Handbooks of Catholic Theology under the general editorship of Cardinal Christoph Schnborn, Archbishop of Vienna.

The Church’s Liturgy By Michael Kunzler (page 217-218)

Section 3.6.2. The “Fruits of the Earth and Work of Human Hands”, at the bottom of page 217, but there is also relevant information just prior to that

The Church’s Liturgy By Michael Kunzler (page 238)
Section 3.8.3. The Fraction, Agnus Dei and Commingling.
It speaks of the West’s former traditional use of leavened bread for the eucharist.

Primary Readings on the Eucharist

This goes into the reason why the West introduced unleavened bread for the eucharist around the 800’s

Fr. Joseph Jungman – in his book The Mass of the Roman Rite – states that:
"In the West, various ordinances appeared from the ninth century on, all demanding the exclusive use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist. A growing solicitude for the Blessed Sacrament and a desire to employ only the best and whitest bread, along with various scriptural considerations – all favored this development.

“Still, the new custom did not come into exclusive vogue until the middle of the eleventh century. Particularly in Rome it was not universally accepted till after the general infiltration of various usages from the North” [Joseph Jungman, The Mass of the Roman Rite, volume II, pages 33-34]

Fr. Jungman goes on to say that,
“. . . the opinion put forward by J. Mabillon, Dissertatio de pane eucharistia, in his answer to the Jesuit J. Sirmond, Disquisitio de azymo, namely, that in the West it was always the practice to use only unleavened bread, is no longer tenable” [Jungman, The Mass of the Roman Rite, volume II, page 33]

Now, the fact that the West changed its practice and began using unleavened bread in the 8th and 9th century – instead of the traditional leavened bread – is confirmed by the research of Fr. William O’Shea, who noted that along with various other innovative practices from Northern Europe, the use of unleavened bread began to infiltrate into the Roman liturgy at the end of the first millennium, because as he put it,
“The Eucharistic bread has been unleavened in the Latin rite since the 8th century – that is, it is prepared simply from flour and water, without the addition of leaven or yeast. . . . in the first millennium of the Church’s history, both in East and West, the bread normally used for the Eucharist was ordinary ‘daily bread,’ that is, leavened bread, and the Eastern Church uses it still today; for the most part, they strictly forbid the use of unleavened bread. The Latin Church, by contrast, has not considered this question very important.” [Dr. Johannes H. Emminghaus, The Eucharist: Essence, Form, Celebration, page 162]

 

[josie_L]

**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.

Please take a look at this:

catholic-resources.org/Bible/Jesus-Death.htm

 

[josie_L]

The Babylonian Talmud is rather explicit in interpreting the law as proscribing the eating of leaven after the 5th hour (that is, after 11 AM) on 14 Nissan, with all remaining leaven being burned by the 6th hour. The sacrifice of the Passover lamb occurred that afternoon, and that evening, the Passover Seder would be eaten with unleavened bread, such that the Passover lamb would be fully consumed or burned by sunrise of 15 Nissan. Again, for the timeline the author of that page is advocating to work out, the crucifixion would have to have been on 15 Nissan. If it happened on 14 Nissan, as the early Church Fathers taught (the author even seems to concede this point, citing Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian), then the Last Supper could not have been a Passover Seder according to the interpreters of the Law, because the Passover Seder must be celebrated at night, before the sunrise of 15 Nissan, and cannot be celebrated at another time, unless reasons of ritual impurity or travel prevent one from doing so, in which case, it is permissible to celebrate Passover one month later.

Okay, I have a few things I want you to check, first, please can you look at this website to review this chart of biblical events leading to Christ’s crucifixion (and after):

catholic-resources.org/Bible/Jesus-Death.htm

Notice in the first paragraph, it states:

**Dating anything in first century Judaism and Christianity is extremely difficult, especially since several different calendars (lunar or solar) were in use in different cultures or even among different groups within Judaism. ** Nevertheless, the chronology of the events in the last days of Jesus’ earthly life is significantly different in the Synoptic Gospels and in the Fourth Gospel. A close analysis shows that all four Gospels connect Jesus’ death with the Feast of Passover, but they do so in different ways and with differing emphases:

So even within Judaism there were differences in dating, i.e., Babylonian Talmud or no, the scriptures seems to suggest that in Mark, Luke and Matthew the Last Supper was a Passover meal (it was the 15th of Nisan). Anyways, I’m quite intrigued, i.e., I will have to learn more and dig deeper.

Going back to the actual thread topic of unleavened bread, please comment on this part of the article:

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.

That means that Jesus used unleavened bread during the Last Supper, so what’s the big deal if we use unleavened for liturgy/mass (no leavened bread was used for the Passover meal as well)??

 

[josie_L]

The Church’s Liturgy By Michael Kunzler is the first volume published in English of a series of International Handbooks of Catholic Theology under the general editorship of Cardinal Christoph Schnborn, Archbishop of Vienna.

The Church’s Liturgy By Michael Kunzler (page 217-218)

Section 3.6.2. The “Fruits of the Earth and Work of Human Hands”, at the bottom of page 217, but there is also relevant information just prior to that

The Church’s Liturgy By Michael Kunzler (page 238)
Section 3.8.3. The Fraction, Agnus Dei and Commingling.
It speaks of the West’s former traditional use of leavened bread for the eucharist.

Primary Readings on the Eucharist

This goes into the reason why the West introduced unleavened bread for the eucharist around the 800’s

Fr. Joseph Jungman – in his book The Mass of the Roman Rite – states that:
"In the West, various ordinances appeared from the ninth century on, all demanding the exclusive use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist. A growing solicitude for the Blessed Sacrament and a desire to employ only the best and whitest bread, along with various scriptural considerations – all favored this development.

“Still, the new custom did not come into exclusive vogue until the middle of the eleventh century. Particularly in Rome it was not universally accepted till after the general infiltration of various usages from the North” [Joseph Jungman, The Mass of the Roman Rite, volume II, pages 33-34]

Fr. Jungman goes on to say that,
“. . . the opinion put forward by J. Mabillon, Dissertatio de pane eucharistia, in his answer to the Jesuit J. Sirmond, Disquisitio de azymo, namely, that in the West it was always the practice to use only unleavened bread, is no longer tenable” [Jungman, The Mass of the Roman Rite, volume II, page 33]

Now, the fact that the West changed its practice and began using unleavened bread in the 8th and 9th century – instead of the traditional leavened bread – is confirmed by the research of Fr. William O’Shea, who noted that along with various other innovative practices from Northern Europe, the use of unleavened bread began to infiltrate into the Roman liturgy at the end of the first millennium, because as he put it,
“The Eucharistic bread has been unleavened in the Latin rite since the 8th century – that is, it is prepared simply from flour and water, without the addition of leaven or yeast. . . . in the first millennium of the Church’s history, both in East and West, the bread normally used for the Eucharist was ordinary ‘daily bread,’ that is, leavened bread, and the Eastern Church uses it still today; for the most part, they strictly forbid the use of unleavened bread. The Latin Church, by contrast, has not considered this question very important.” [Dr. Johannes H. Emminghaus, The Eucharist: Essence, Form, Celebration, page 162]

Excuse me, but are you going to tell me that Fr. William O’Shea actually used the words, “innovative practice”?? Moreover, no Catholic here is advocating that only unleavened bread was used in the West (during the course of a millennia). The fact is that the pre-schism Church was using both unleavened and leavened bread for liturgy/mass (in different regions of the Church universal however), just like the Catholic Church allows today.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

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.

Bingo!
I think a good biblical case could be made for either.

Unleavened:
Unleavened bread was eaten during the exodus and Jesus came to inaugurate the new exodus. (Mat 4:1-10)
Jesus himself states that when the bridegroom is gone there will be fasting (mark 2:19-20)

Leavened:
John’s placement of the last supper
The ability of leavened bread to give “life” to other bread (Mat 13:33)

Either way, there is no good biblical case for non-clergy to handle precious objects or receive by hand…

 

[prodromos]

Excuse me, but are you going to tell me that Fr. William O’Shea actually used the words, “innovative practice”?? Moreover, no Catholic here is advocating that only unleavened bread was used in the West (during the course of a millennia). The fact is that the pre-schism Church was using both unleavened and leavened bread for liturgy/mass (in different regions of the Church universal however), just like the Catholic Church allows today.

Apparently the only ones who used unleavened bread were the Armenians but they also originally used leavened bread until the 7th century

books.google.com/books?id=f8dhdXb5vAgC&pg=PA530&lpg=PA530&dq=%22unleavened+bread%22+armenian&source=web&ots=02DXlzGRUM&sig=Idzt97Jkygf6QpeWNwWzSYVjplA
The two mosty striking peculiarities in the true Armenian rite - the use of unleavened bread and wine without water - are shown by Le Brun (tom.IV. diss.X a.10) to have been introduced by an Armenian Council about 640, in order to symbolise the Monophysite doctrine that Christ had only one nature

 

[prodromos]

Excuse me, but are you going to tell me that Fr. William O’Shea actually used the words, “innovative practice”?? Moreover, no Catholic here is advocating that only unleavened bread was used in the West (during the course of a millennia). The fact is that the pre-schism Church was using both unleavened and leavened bread for liturgy/mass (in different regions of the Church universal however), just like the Catholic Church allows today.

As shown above, numerous Catholic historians have determined that the West used ONLY leavened bread until the eighth and ninth centuries. People in this thread are claiming otherwise.

 

[josie_L]

As shown above, numerous Catholic historians have determined that the West used ONLY leavened bread until the eighth and ninth centuries. People in this thread are claiming otherwise.

What is WRONG with using unleavened bread??? And I don’t think anyone gave a date as to when we started using unleavened bread (except 1Tim)?

 

[prodromos]

My apologies, I just realised that Google Books is no longer displaying the relevant pages from Michael Kunzler’s book. I’ll see if I can fix the links or get hold of the text some other way.

 

[prodromos]

What is WRONG with using unleavened bread??? And I don’t think anyone gave a date as to when we started using unleavened bread (except 1Tim)?

That is another question entirely. I am just posting scholarly articles which demonstrate that the claim the West always used unleavened bread is untenable.

 

[prodromos]

My apologies, I just realised that Google Books is no longer displaying the relevant pages from Michael Kunzler’s book. I’ll see if I can fix the links or get hold of the text some other way.

Ok, if you click on the link in my above post, then on the page which comes up click on “View Ebook”. You are then given the option of searching for a term in the book. Enter the page number (217 or 238) then click on the appropriate page out of the search results. I apologise that I am no longer able to provide a direct link any more, but please make the effort to read the referenced pages.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

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.

You have portrayed the church fathers as if they unanimously taught that Christ was crucified the fourteenth (of Nisan). However, this is not so. It is a fact that St. John Chrysostom offered the suggestion that Christ celebrated the Passover with his disciples a day early as a possibility, but he did not state it as a definite conclusion.

“But what is, ‘That they might eat the Passover?’ For He had done this on the first day of unleavened bread.” Either he calls the whole feast “the Passover,” or means, that they were then keeping the Passover, while He delivered it to His followers one day sooner, reserving His own Sacrifice for the Preparation-day, when also of old the Passover was celebrated. (Homily 83 on John)
newadvent.org/fathers/240183.htm

But also, St. Chrysostom in his commentary on Matthew (Homily 84.2) simply says that Christ kept the Passover on the correct date and the Jews are the ones who transgressed it, being overcome with murderous lust, and put it off to the following day, as Gary Taylor correctly noted. It seems then that a fourteenth-day Crucifixion was not a particularly favored reading, much less something he saw as a unquestionable tradition of the Church. Much of the commentary of the fathers is simply their personal interpretation of Scripture, in line with tradition of course but not bound only to what they had been taught without room for speculation or debate.

Furthermore, you adduce St. Augustine as a witness to a tradition of a fourteenth-day Crucifixion, but I cannot immediately recall him saying so. Of course, I am not saying this is false, but it would be helpful if you could provide references so that we will all remember in the future that St. Augustine said this.

I would also be happy if you could provide references for your claim about the Passover. “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.”

Is this true? Lightfoot says that “appearance was not tied so strictly to the first day, but the Chagigah was tied to it” (From the Talmud and Hebraica). Is Lightfoot mistaken on this point (and if so, why) or, if not, am I misunderstanding his meaning?

Could you please also this?

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.

If they were “Tebul Yom,” Wouldn’t they have become clean at evening and therefore able to eat it before sunrise (which comes after sunset)? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

One last thing: I think you mistakenly read the article Josie linked to. It appears to be arguing that the Crucifixion did occur on the Fifteenth, and the Last Supper occurring in the evening as the Synoptics would seem to relate.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“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.”

Exactly and we seem to ignoring patristic era when it seems to go against a position.

It coincides with Origen also. The patristic documentation exists and as far back as Origin.

NOTE WELL: There’s no evidence that leavened bread was used exclusively in the West!

The Eucharist is a “Seder meal”. To impose the requirements of Jewish Customs to the Eucharist is a far reach in that it was Jesus Christ who performed the service. The differences between the traditions are theological. They do not contradict the foundations of Jesus’ Passion, death and resurrecton on the Third Day, nor do they deny the Holy Eucharist. John’s tradition places this teaching within the Bread of Life discourse in chapter 6 while the Synoptists place it at the Last Supper on the night before Jesus’ death. The bottom line is NO ONE denies the importance of the PASSOVER

And Jesus said to them, "While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. "But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.

No one sews a patch of un shrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results. "No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.

Michael Kunzler’s and the rest of the “new” writers have an "opinion? Not a fact, I know people would like to believe its fact, not so. The 800-1000 conversation is absurd and a complete contradiction to the Saints, authentic documented History and patristic writing.

 

[Cavaradossi]

You have portrayed the church fathers as if they unanimously taught that Christ was crucified the fourteenth (of Nisan). However, this is not so. It is a fact that St. John Chrysostom offered the suggestion that Christ celebrated the Passover with his disciples a day early as a possibility, but he did not state it as a definite conclusion.

“But what is, ‘That they might eat the Passover?’ For He had done this on the first day of unleavened bread.” Either he calls the whole feast “the Passover,” or means, that they were then keeping the Passover, while He delivered it to His followers one day sooner, reserving His own Sacrifice for the Preparation-day, when also of old the Passover was celebrated. (Homily 83 on John)
newadvent.org/fathers/240183.htm

But also, St. Chrysostom in his commentary on Matthew (Homily 84.2) simply says that Christ kept the Passover on the correct date and the Jews are the ones who transgressed it, being overcome with murderous lust, and put it off to the following day, as Gary Taylor correctly noted. It seems then that a fourteenth-day Crucifixion was not a particularly favored reading, much less something he saw as a unquestionable tradition of the Church. Much of the commentary of the fathers is simply their personal interpretation of Scripture, in line with tradition of course but not bound only to what they had been taught without room for speculation or debate.

When St. John Chrysostom interprets Matthew 26:17-18 (the verses dealing specifically with the chronology of the Last Supper and the crucifixion), he advocates for the the Thursday mentioned in the synoptic Gospels being 13 Nissan, that is, the day before the feast of unleavened bread, when the passover is killed (which would be 14 Nissan). By the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, he means the day before that feast; for they are accustomed always to reckon the day from the evening, and he makes mention of this in which in the evening the passover must be killed; for on the fifth day of the week they came unto Him. And this one calls the day before the feast of unleavened bread, speaking of the time when they came to Him, and another says on this wise, “Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed;” by the word “came,” meaning this, it was near, it was at the doors, making mention plainly of that evening. For they began with the evening, wherefore also each adds, when the passover was killed.

Homily 81 on the Gospel of Matthew

That St. John later in his commentary seems to think that Christ ate the passover is perhaps due to an unfamiliarity with Jewish law, for according to his own chronology, if we are supposed to interpret, “then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed,” as meaning actually the day before this, then the day in question would have therefore been 13 Nissan, and the supper that evening could not have been a passover seder, unless as he speculates in his commentary on the Gospel of John, Jesus moved the celebration of the passover seder to be a day early.

Furthermore, you adduce St. Augustine as a witness to a tradition of a fourteenth-day Crucifixion, but I cannot immediately recall him saying so. Of course, I am not saying this is false, but it would be helpful if you could provide references so that we will all remember in the future that St. Augustine said this.

St. Augustine mentions in his Tractate 114 on the Gospel of John that the Friday of the Crucifixion was on the commencement of the days of unleavened bread, which would be 14 Nissan, as all leaven was to be discarded by the sixth hour of 14 Nissan. Were it the morning of 15 Nissan, it could not rightly be said to be the commencement of the days of unleavened bread, as the passover seder would have happened the previous night. “And it was morning; and they themselves,” that is, those who brought Jesus, “went not into the judgment hall,” to wit, into that part of the house which Pilate occupied, supposing it to be Caiaphas’ house. And then in explanation of the reason why they went not into the judgment hall, he says, “lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.” For it was the commencement of the days of unleavened bread: on which they accounted it defilement to enter the abode of one of another nation.