For Eastern Orthodox: Unleavened Bread

[GaryTaylor]

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA- ca. 260/265 – 339/340

1. But no one would dispute the fact that the sacred Gospel-writers reported that the Savior’s passion took place during the days of the Jewish Pascha of the Unleavened Bread. For the reason for the law that was proclaimed regarding the Pascha by Moses was as follows: Because the Lamb of God was going to be led to the slaughter among the Jews themselves, and was going to suffer this for the sake of the common salvation of all mankind at no time other than the one now being described, God anticipated the future by means of symbolic images, and commanded that the Jews sacrifice a physical lamb at that very time that was going to be established at some point after the passage of years. And this was performed by them every year, until the truth in its full completeness put an end to the old images. Hence, from that time, the true festival of the mysteries has held sway among the nations, whereas among the Jews, not even the memory of the symbols themselves is preserved any longer, since the place in which the Law had prescribed that the festival’s rituals be carried out[34] has been taken away from them. Quite rightly then does the divine Scripture of the Gospels say that the Savior suffered at the time of the Jewish festival of Unleavened Bread, since he was indeed at that time led as a sheep to slaughter, in conformity with the words of prophecy.
2. But furthermore, the Savior did not celebrate the Pascha along with the Jews at the time of his passion. For when they were sacrificing the lamb, at that time he himself was conducting his own Pascha with his disciples. They * were doing this[41] on the Preparation day on which the Savior suffered; for this reason, they did not enter the praetorium, but instead Pilate came out to them. But he * a full day earlier, on the fifth day of the week, was reclining at table with his disciples, and as he ate with them he said, “I have very much desired to eat this Pascha with you.”[42] Do you see how the Savior did not eat the Pascha along with the Jews? Because this was a new custom, and one foreign to the customary Jewish ways, it was necessary for him to institute it by saying, “I have very much desired to eat this Pascha with you before I suffer.” The one set of practices, being now ancient and indeed antiquated—the [Pascha] which he used to eat along with the Jews—was not desirable; but the new mystery of his new covenant, which he imparted to his disciples, was desirable to him, quite rightly so. Since many prophets and righteous ones before him desired to see the mysteries of the new covenant, and since the Word himself, who thirsted at all times for the general salvation, was passing down a mystery by which all people would celebrate the festival, he professed that this was desirable to him. The Pascha of Moses was not suitable for all the nations of all time—of course not, when the Law had stipulated that it be celebrated in a single place, namely Jerusalem.[43] And so it was not desirable. But the Savior’s mystery of the new covenant is suitable for all people, and so it was naturally desirable to him.

tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_on_easter.htm*

NOTE: the Savior did not celebrate the Pascha along with the Jews at the time of his passion. For when they were sacrificing the lamb, at that time he himself was conducting his own Pascha with his disciples.

Passover is not The Feast of No Leavening — it is The Feast of Unleavened Bread. Its well documented “Feast” in Mk, MT and Luke.*

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

…

Thank you for the patristic citations (I look forward to a future post about the Chagigah if you get a chance). However, I think you are not reading St. Chrysostom correctly. He is saying that the time of the passage in question (Matthew 26:17-18) is the day before the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Two things are important to understand what he is arguing. (1) The Feast of Unleavened bread occurred on the 15th of the month (Leviticus 23:6). (2) Chrysostom is speaking according to the Jewish reckoning of a day, which is evening to evening. So what he is saying is that Jesus instructed his disciples to prepare the Passover the day before Fifteenth (the Feast of Unleavened Bread), which is the 14th. This is the day that the lambs were slaughtered (Exodus 12:6), and the meal was eaten that evening (which by the Jewish reckoning lies on the beginning of the 15th). The disciples prepared the meal by daylight (the 14th) and the ate it by moonlight (the 15th).

I would read Augustine similarly. It says in Tractate 114.2, “Dies enim agere coeperant azymorum…” which I think (depending on the subject of coeperant) means that the Jews “had begun to observe the Days of Azymes.” If not it means that the “Days of Azymes had begun to be in force.” In either case, the tense is pluperfect and it indicates that the event (the beginning had already occured). I don’t think you were contesting this, but I want to make sure that we’re on the same page. When he says that the days of unleavened bread had begun, I would propose two points. (1) The first Day of Unleavened Bread according to the usual Old Testament usage was the 15th. (2) Even if it referred to the Fourteenth, Augustine only said that that they had already begun, not that they were only just beginning so it would be impossible to conclude Augustine was referring to the very beginning of the feast from this passage alone.

In short, I am not convinced that these particular fathers were staunch advocates of a fourteenth-day Crucifixion, even it was certainly taught by some fathers. Josie’s article cited Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. I believe Epiphanius also taught in the Panarion that Christ died on the 14th. However, I do not believe that there is evidence to establish a universal consensus among the fathers on this question as you seemed to suggest earlier.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Interesting, Jesus being God kept in tune with His law. The law states the lamb is to be killed on the evening of the 14th day of Nisan. Then they ate the Feast. Then they prepared to flee from Egypt after the death angel came over the land. Because of their faith, they were saved by the blood. When the death angel flew over the land, he PASSED OVER those whose homes had the faith-blood on the door post. This was the Passover! When did it occur? According to Exodus it took place at midnight (Exodus 12:29). The Passover was not when the lamb was killed. Not when they celebrated the Feast. But at midnight after all of these. Salvation did not come when the lamb was sacrificed. Salvation did not come when they ate the Feast. Salvation came at midnight! They were saved from the judgment and wrath of God at midnight.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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?

Yes, Lightfoot is mistaken. The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Chagigah (9a), Mishna 1:6 mentions that those who neglected to bring a festal offering on the first day of the festival may bring an offering on any other day of the festival. HE WHO DID NOT BRING HIS FESTAL-OFFERING ON THE FIRST FESTIVAL, DAY OF THE FEAST [OF TABERNACLES], MAY BRING IT DURING THE WHOLE OF THE FESTIVAL, EVEN ON THE LAST FESTIVAL DAY OF THE FEAST [OF TABERNACLES]

halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Chagigah.pdf

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?

The priests received the breast and right thigh of the sacrificed lamb in accordance with Lev 7:28-33, which states that the breast and right thigh of the sacrifice is given specifically to the Kohen who offered the blood and fat of a peace-offering. But had the priests been rendered ritually unclean, they could not have performed these sacrifices, and hence could not receive the meat from them. Insofar as Lightfoot and Edersheim are incorrect about the priests fearing that they should be incapable of offering the obligatory Chagigah on 15 Nissan (something which could have been done any other day, barring one of the priests coming into contact with a dead body), that they feared being rendered incapable of partaking of meat which would be coming from lambs which would have been in all respects identical to the passover lamb (see tractate Pesachim (70a) Gemara) seems like a rather likely alternative.

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.

I realized what the article was advocating, especially since it was employing some of Lightfoot’s arguments, which is why I brought up some of my disagreements with those arguments.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Thank you for the patristic citations (I look forward to a future post about the Chagigah if you get a chance). However, I think you are not reading St. Chrysostom correctly. He is saying that the time of the passage in question (Matthew 26:17-18) is the day before the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Two things are important to understand what he is arguing. (1) The Feast of Unleavened bread occurred on the 15th of the month (Leviticus 23:6). (2) Chrysostom is speaking according to the Jewish reckoning of a day, which is evening to evening. So what he is saying is that Jesus instructed his disciples to prepare the Passover the day before Fifteenth (the Feast of Unleavened Bread), which is the 14th. This is the day that the lambs were slaughtered (Exodus 12:6), and the meal was eaten that evening (which by the Jewish reckoning lies on the beginning of the 15th). The disciples prepared the meal by daylight (the 14th) and the ate it by moonlight (the 15th).

I must disagree. I agree that the lambs were slaughtered on the 14th, according both to the Law and the interpretations of the Law found in the Talmud. But then this poses problems for the assertion that the day of unleavened bread must refer to the 15th, simply because this is how the term is used in the Law, because Luke 22:7, quoted by St. John, states that the day of unleavened bread is the day on which the passover must be killed. This should already give us a clue that Jews by the time of Christ had come to regard 14th Nissan and the special events attached to it as being the first day of unleavened bread.

What evidently had happened was that the biblical command that no work be done on the day of unleavened bread combined with the command that all leaven should be found and destroyed created a sort of Gordian Knot, which interpreters of the Law cut open by beginning the search for leaven on 14 Nissan, leading Jews to begin reckoning this as the first day of unleavened bread (Edersheim himself admits that Jews reckoned 14 Nissan as being the beginning of the festival). Josephus, for example in Ant. ii, 15, 1, describes the feast of unleavened bread not as being a feast of seven days, but as being a feast of eight days.

I would read Augustine similarly. It says in Tractate 114.2, “Dies enim agere coeperant azymorum…” which I think (depending on the subject of coeperant) means that the Jews “had begun to observe the Days of Azymes.” If not it means that the “Days of Azymes had begun to be in force.” In either case, the tense is pluperfect and it indicates that the event (the beginning had already occured). I don’t think you were contesting this, but I want to make sure that we’re on the same page. When he says that the days of unleavened bread had begun, I would propose two points. (1) The first Day of Unleavened Bread according to the usual Old Testament usage was the 15th. (2) Even if it referred to the Fourteenth, Augustine only said that that they had already begun, not that they were only just beginning so it would be impossible to conclude Augustine was referring to the very beginning of the feast from this passage alone.

I disagree with the grammatical argument here. Had St. Augustine intended to convey that the festival simply was in force, rather than that it had begun to be in force, it seems to me that he could have simply used the perfect/preterite ‘egerunt,’ and elected not to use the verb coepio at all.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Torah forbids us to have in our possession any bread, leaven, leavening agent, or any food that contains any of those, from the day before Passover until the end of the eighth day of Passover.

beingjewish.com/yomtov/passover/search.html

Needless to say there is no conclusive Biblical statements as to which bread was used. Nor does its seem the later dated theory in the Latin rite is plausible. Safe to say both existed a very long time.

Pope Leo IX had as early as 1054 issued a protest against Michael Cærularius (cf. Migne, P.L., CXLIII, 775), in which he referred to the Scriptural fact, that according to the three Synoptics the Last Supper was celebrated “on the first day of the azymes” and so the custom of the Western Church received its solemn sanction from the example of Christ Himself. The Jews, moreover, were accustomed even the day before the fourteenth of Nisan to get rid of all the leaven which chanced to be in their dwellings, that so they might from that time on partake exclusively of the so-called mazzoth as bread. As regards tradition, it is not for us to settle the dispute of learned authorities, as to whether or not in the first six or eight centuries the Latins also celebrated Mass with leavened bread (Sirmond, Döllinger, Kraus) or have observed the present custom ever since the time of the Apostles (Mabillon, Probst). Against the Greeks it suffices to call attention to the historical fact that in the Orient the Maronites and Armenians have used unleavened bread from time immemorial, and that according to Origen (Commentary on Matthew, XII.6) the people of the East “sometimes”, therefore not as a rule, made use of leavened bread in their Liturgy. Besides, there is considerable force in the theological argument that the fermenting process with yeast and other leaven, does not affect the substance of the bread, but merely its quality. The reasons of congruity advanced by the Greeks in behalf of leavened bread, which would have us consider it as a beautiful symbol of the hypostatic union, as well as an attractive representation of the savor of this heavenly Food, will be most willingly accepted, provided only that due consideration be given to the grounds of propriety set forth by the Latins with St. Thomas Aquinas (III:74:4) namely, the example of Christ, the aptitude of unleavened bread to be regarded as a symbol of the purity of His Sacred Body, free from all corruption of sin, and finally the instruction of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 5:8) to keep the Pasch not with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth".

newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm

 

[GaryTaylor]

Origen in his works posted here after re-reading, has an open view of both practices imho, I kinda disagree with the above conclusion, but his objectivity is noted in his dialogue of somatic, psychic and pneumatic, and further in carnal thinking as expanded on by the Apostle Paul. He’s encouraging the faithful to rise above this in the species to the redemption of the risen Christ by His blood. Thus the pass-over. I can’t read anything else out of that and it appears central to Origen’s exegesis of Matthew and leavened/unleavened bread. Appears as a defense of both to me.

Its true he’s not considered an early church father, yet he is a reliable historic witness.

 

[josie_L]

I thought this was interesting as it’s an Orthodox source:

Beyond Dialogue: The Quest for Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Unity Today
Rev John H Erickson, Dean
Symposium on 1700th Anniversary of Christian Armenia
October 27-28, 2000

Particularly instructive are the ways in which certain distinctive Armenian liturgical practices, such as the use of azymes (unleavened bread) and a chalice unmixed with water in the eucharist, come to be linked to Christological doctrine. The origins of these practices are unknown, but they certainly antedate any division of the churches. By late sixth century, however, they were becoming symbols of Armenian identity vis-a-vis the Greeks, who used leavened bread and wine mixed with warm water in the eucharist. Refusing an invitation from Emperor Maurice to come to Constantinople to discuss reunion, Catholicos Movses II in 591 declared: “I will not cross the River Azat nor will I eat the baked bread of the Greeks or drink their hot water.” [9] By the late seventh century these distinctive liturgical practices, already symbols of national identity, have become even more potent symbols of Christological doctrine. Reflecting the aphthartodocetism of Julian of Halicarnassus, which was then in the ascendency in the Armenian Church, Catholicos Sahak III (d. 703) writes: “Now we profess the body of Christ [to be] incorrupt and all-powerful always and constantly from [the moment of] the union of the Logos. This is why we take azymes [unleavened bread] for the bread of holiness with which we offer the salvific sacrifice, which signifies incorruptibility.” [10] Then, after a barrage of typological and moral arguments supporting the use of unleavened bread, Sahak goes on in like manner to associate the unmixed chalice, free from the adulteration of added water, with the incorruptible blood of Christ. The Byzantine Church quickly enough responded in kind. The Synod in Trullo (691-92) almost certainly had Sahak’s treatise in mind when it decreed that any bishop or presbyter who does not mix water with the wine in the eucharist is to be deposed, on the grounds that he thus “proclaims the mystery incompletely and tampers with tradition” (canon 32). [11] Very possibly Trullo also had Armenian liturgical practice in mind when it decreed “Let no man eat the unleavened bread of the Jews…” (canon 11). In any case, in subsequent polemical literature the issue of the bread and wine of the eucharist figures prominently, frequently to the exclusion of deeper theological reflection. Thus, despite their common rejection of Chalcedon and the generally Severan orientation of their shared Christology, the Armenian and Syrian churches in the Middle Ages sometimes attacked each other precisely because of such liturgical differences. So also, as schism yawned between the Byzantine and Latin churches in the eleventh century, Byzantine polemicists transferred their anti-azyme arguments from the Armenians to the Latins, notwithstanding the latters’ manifestly Chalcedonian Christology. Use of leavened bread and mingled wine, or conversely of unleavened bread and pure wine, immediately marked a community as either heretic or orthodox, no matter what Christological doctrine the community in question actually held!

Other liturgical practices became equally divisive.  Consider, for example, the Trisagion:  “Holy [is] God!  Holy [and] mighty!  Holy [and] immortal!  Have mercy on us!”  The origins of this troparion are disputed, Non-Chalcedonians claiming an Antiochian provenance and Chalcedonians attributing it to a heavenly vision when earthquakes were threatening Constantinople in 438-39.  Even more disputed its interpretation.  To whom is the troparion addressed?  In its original form, it may have been addressed to Christ.  This, in any case, is how the Non-Chalcedonian Patriarch Peter the Fuller of Antioch understood the troparion when he interpolated the theopaschite clause “who was crucified for us” into it sometime between 468 and 470, i.e., at a time when many Chalcedonians regarded any theopaschite formula with deep suspicion.  Quickly enough the Trisagion became yet another bone of contention.  Among Non-Chalcedonians, Catholicos Sahak III went so far as to trace the origins of the Trisagion, interpolation and all, to St. Ignatius of Antioch at the end of the first century.[12]   In response to his claims, the Synod in Trullo (691-92) condemned the interpolation “as being foreign to true piety”; and by the time of the earliest Byzantine commentary on the Divine Liturgy, that of Patriarch Germanos I in the early eighth century, the troparion was being interpreted as addressed to the three persons of the Trinity, “Holy God” referring to the Father, “Holy Mighty” to the Son, and “Holy Immortal” to the Holy Spirit. [13]

to be continued. . . .

 

[josie_L]

One final example illustrates particularly vividly the ease with which a minor liturgical difference can be transformed into a symbol of division. In the Coptic, Syrian and Armenian liturgical traditions, a week of strict fasting - variously called the Fast of Heraclius, the Fast of Ninevah or the Forefast (Arachavorats) - preceeds the “Forty-Day” Great Fast of Lent. The same week in the Byzantine tradition calls only for abstinence from meat, not from dairy products. The historical development of the fasting practices of these various liturgical traditions is complex, but the differences between them were not the result of any dogmatic differences. [14] Yet in the context of church division, these differences came to be given a polemical explanation. Here is the rubric given in the Byzantine Triodion for Cheesefare Sunday, which introduces the week in question: “During this week the accursed Armenians fast from eggs and cheese, but we, to refute their damnable heresy, do eat both eggs and cheese for the entire week.” What one side does is enough to prompt the other to do the opposite! We see here the tragic way in which our sense of ecclesial identity has, in the context of division, been formed by opposition rather than by reference to a common faith. The characteristics by which we identify ourselves and our churches as “orthodox” all too often have been simply those extrinsic elements which make us different from others.

svots.edu/content/beyond-dialogue-quest-eastern-and-oriental-orthodox-unity-today

And in the words of St. Toribio:

“Christ said, ‘I am the truth.’ He did not say, ‘I am the custom.’”

 

[GaryTaylor]

“been formed by opposition rather than by reference to a common faith.” Its the fear-love issue. Same all over, I listened to the rather disheartening conversation by a few Romans Catholics the other day, they would have liked to have me believing I was delusional or something in defending the east. Plant the seed and move on I guess. Their vigor and fervor was just as admirable though not well founded imho. Could be we are dealing with a good deal of this.

 

[prodromos]

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.

What qualifications do you have to so readily dismiss the research of an expert on the subject?

32 Experts for Synod Named for Assembly to Focus on the Eucharist

Father Michael Kunzler, professor of liturgy at the Theologische Fakultät, Paderborn, Germany, and member of the Liturgical Commission of the German bishops’ conference.

He is also a Visiting Professor at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome since 1999

 

[dzheremi]

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

Do you have an **Armenian **source on this? I do not trust Chalcedonian sources of the period you have posted to accurately reflect non-Chalcedonians, and I have never heard such a thing as claimed here from an actual Armenian. From the earlier-linked (and I see now reproduced by Josie L, for some reason) writing by Fr. John Erickson of SVS we read the following:

Catholicos Sahak III (d. 703) writes: “Now we profess the body of Christ [to be] incorrupt and all-powerful always and constantly from [the moment of] the union of the Logos. This is why we take azymes [unleavened bread] for the bread of holiness with which we offer the salvific sacrifice, which signifies incorruptibility.”

Not seeing how supposed “monophysitism” fits in with the above period quote (from a 1901 translation from the Book of Letters, a collection of 5th-13th century texts). Who do you do expect would know better – the Armenian Catholicos, or some Western dork you found on Google Books?

 

[dzheremi]

One final example illustrates particularly vividly the ease with which a minor liturgical difference can be transformed into a symbol of division. In the Coptic, Syrian and Armenian liturgical traditions, a week of strict fasting - variously called the Fast of Heraclius, the Fast of Ninevah or the Forefast (Arachavorats) - preceeds the “Forty-Day” Great Fast of Lent. The same week in the Byzantine tradition calls only for abstinence from meat, not from dairy products. The historical development of the fasting practices of these various liturgical traditions is complex, but the differences between them were not the result of any dogmatic differences. [14] Yet in the context of church division, these differences came to be given a polemical explanation. Here is the rubric given in the Byzantine Triodion for Cheesefare Sunday, which introduces the week in question: “During this week the accursed Armenians fast from eggs and cheese, but we, to refute their damnable heresy, do eat both eggs and cheese for the entire week.” What one side does is enough to prompt the other to do the opposite!

This is one of my favorite things ever. I showed it to one of my friends from church once (since he had been under the impression that the Greeks were just like us, only Greek), and at first he didn’t believe it and called a Byzantine friend of his. She explained it to him, and we laughed at it together for a good five minutes.

The same “they’re doing what they’re doing because they’re not Orthodox, not just different” idea is found also among the OO, though. When that same friend asked our priest why the Byzantines cross themselves differently than we do, father said that it is because they wanted to distinguish themselves from us, so they switched out of spite for our Orthodox confession. Hahaha. I’m pretty sure that’s not true, but I’m not going to get into an argument with our own priest over something so silly (though with things like the above excerpt, I also don’t blame any OO for thinking they would do that; we don’t have things like that in our liturgical books for any particular season; we save that stuff from the Synaxarium, like the gentlemen we are. )

 

[josie_L]

Do you have an **Armenian **source on this? I do not trust Chalcedonian sources of the period you have posted to accurately reflect non-Chalcedonians, and I have never heard such a thing as claimed here from an actual Armenian. From the earlier-linked (and I see now reproduced by Josie L, for some reason) writing by Fr. John Erickson of SVS we read the following:

Not seeing how supposed “monophysitism” fits in with the above period quote (from a 1901 translation from the Book of Letters, a collection of 5th-13th century texts). Who do you do expect would know better – the Armenian Catholicos, or some Western dork you found on Google Books?

I posted one reason for quoting the article i.e., Christ is not a custom, He is the truth, therefore, using leaven or unleavened bread should not be a divisive factor between two ecclesiastic communities. The other reason I posted this article is because of its reference to the Armenians, i.e., they did use unleavened bread prior to the 6th century (it was already custom) and it was not, as you have already mentioned, to uphold heretical teachings.

P.S. There are no shortage of “dorks” from both East and West.

 

[josie_L]

This is one of my favorite things ever. I showed it to one of my friends from church once (since he had been under the impression that the Greeks were just like us, only Greek), and at first he didn’t believe it and called a Byzantine friend of his. She explained it to him, and we laughed at it together for a good five minutes.

The same “they’re doing what they’re doing because they’re not Orthodox, not just different” idea is found also among the OO, though. When that same friend asked our priest why the Byzantines cross themselves differently than we do, father said that it is because they wanted to distinguish themselves from us, so they switched out of spite for our Orthodox confession. Hahaha. I’m pretty sure that’s not true, but I’m not going to get into an argument with our own priest over something so silly (though with things like the above excerpt, I also don’t blame any OO for thinking they would do that; we don’t have things like that in our liturgical books for any particular season; we save that stuff from the Synaxarium, like the gentlemen we are. )

Well, my favourite part of the article is this:

**The proper basis for unity is orthodoxia, even if this is expressed in different Christological formulas. This was the conviction of leading figures on both sides in antiquity. ** This also was the conviction of the theologians who participated in the informal consultations between the churches in the 1960s and 1970s. This also forms the basis for the agreed statements issued subsequently by the official Joint Commission for Dialogue. But as is pointed out so often, orthodoxia involves not only right belief but also right worship, and in antiquity and continuing in the Middle Ages many differences in worship that would not in themselves have been church-dividing came to be invested with new meaning, becoming symbols of division.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I posted one reason for quoting the article i.e., Christ is not a custom, He is the truth, therefore, using leaven or unleavened bread should not be a divisive factor between two ecclesiastic communities. The other reason I posted this article is because of its reference to the Armenians, i.e., they did use unleavened bread prior to the 6th century (it was already custom) and it was not, as you have already mentioned, to uphold heretical teachings.

P.S. There are no shortage of dorks from both East and West.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[josie_L]

http://rlv.zcache.com/come_to_the_d...6ca154c24a1af04d3f03dcb57_vgbaq_8byvr_512.jpg

Mmmmmm, pi/e!!!

 

[josie_L]

I’d like to know where Marduk is, i.e., he posted this thread, and now he’s nowhere to be found!!

P.S. I need your help (the “barbarians” are running amok).

 

[prodromos]

Do you have an **Armenian **source on this? I do not trust Chalcedonian sources of the period you have posted to accurately reflect non-Chalcedonians, and I have never heard such a thing as claimed here from an actual Armenian.

I haven’t been able to find much of anything on the Armenians

Not seeing how supposed “monophysitism” fits in with the above period quote (from a 1901 translation from the Book of Letters, a collection of 5th-13th century texts). Who do you do expect would know better – the Armenian Catholicos, or some Western dork you found on Google Books?

Well, I’ve seen Catholic bishops claim that the West always used unleavened bread when it clearly only became the practice in the 8th-9th centuries, so it gets a little hard to determine who is the most trustworthy source. I also have to wonder why you characterise the source of this reference as a Western “dork”.Gary Taylor seemed to take a similar approach to disparage Fr Michael Kunzler because his research did not agree with the accepted opinion that Rome never changed

 

[dzheremi]

Because dork is nicer than what I was going to say. The point is: Don’t post things that are demonstrably false with reference to what the Armenians themselves say (i.e., their own justification/reasoning for using unleavened bread), no matter what the source. The fact that you’re posting some Chalcedonian very nice guy only makes it all the more obvious that it is mere Chalcedonian polemic that does not add anything to the issue under discussion.