Leavened and unleavened bread

[5Loaves]

Many Eastern churches use leavened bread because Jesus himself is risen. It’s the same reason that the congregation stands during the entire divine liturgy, because they are in the posture of the resurrection.

I also thought it was because we are called to be like leaven. Didn’t St John Chrysostom preach about this, maybe the parable in Matthew 13:33? “He spoke another parable to them: The kingdom of the heavens is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until it had been all leavened…”

 

[5Loaves]

Yes. He sins in using leavened bread in the Roman Mass. But the bread is still transubstantiated, and the mass is still valid.

It’s the same as a suspended priest saying mass. He sins, but the faithful in attendance do not.

The only non-extreme exception to the prohibition on leavened bread in the Roman Mass is when the priest has unleavened bread for the communion there, and leavened for use in a parish or mission of a rite that uses leavened bread.

When I first came into the Latin Church 20+ years ago I was a bread baker for the Cathedral here. It didn’t cross over my radar that it was a problem since I’d been given almost no real catechesis before my reception (and since it was the cathedral!). There is a thread right now on CAF about a Latin parish using leavened bread and the **disaster it is with communion in the hand **in that parish. I’d say the 2 go together – a Latin parish that uses leavened bread isn’t likely to be heavy on communion on the tongue.

 

[Vico]

I also thought it was because we are called to be like leaven. Didn’t St John Chrysostom preach about this, maybe the parable in Matthew 13:33? “He spoke another parable to them: The kingdom of the heavens is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until it had been all leavened…”

And another intesesting idea is that since Christ is risen, the Body and Blood cannot be separated, thus Eucharist is complete as either bread or wine, (doctine of concomitance). Infants were communed with wine only and adults with both, then after the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, that defined transubstantiation, infants began to be excluded because bread only was adopted. (The Ethiopian Church uses unleavened bread with intinction, and the following source states, intinction was popular with the Greek people.) The laity was afraid of misuse of the Blood:

“A withdrawal of the cup instigated by the clergy did not take place. The abandonment of the cup was rather a layman’s practice due to fear of dishonoring the sacrament by misuse of the wine. Such anxiety had manifested itself as early as the seventh century in the adoption of the Greek custom of dipping the bread in the wine-a practice repeatedly disapproved by ecclesiastical authority, but supported by lay sentiment. By the twelfth century the laity were avoiding the use of the wine altogether, apparently first in England. By the time of Aquinas [1224-1274] lay communion in the bread alone had become prevalent.”

Ref: Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1946), 99, 274.

 

[Hesychios]

Would the Orthodox Church say it is wrong to use unleavened bread? (I don’t mean in Orthodox churches, but in general).

Personally, I don’t care. I do like the lighter and softer leavened bread though, soaks up wine like a sponge.

Is there a theological reason for only using leavened bread?

I think arguments from both directions are pointless, they each seem to be allegories put forth to explain a practice that no one can remember getting started, but most Orthodox will stick with tradition just because it* is* the tradition. Catholics tend to do the same, but rely a bit more on the authority of the church to decide those things, and then defend whatever has been decided. The thing is, no one seems to know how this practice could have diverged.

To me the divergence in practice is probably because the early church did not care one way or another, the Apostles didn’t seem to think it important enough to fuss over so different people did their own thing.

It is probably worth remembering that the early church did not understand leavening, and did not know what yeast really was, although they knew enough to be able to control it to some extent. They probably could not have guessed the reasons dough should be kneaded for best results either, I suppose we are lucky we are not fighting over the relative merits and spiritual benefits manual kneading versus mechanical kneading of the dough.

It is interesting to note that it is nearly impossible to keep airborne wild yeasts from invading the milled wheat. It would require a hermetically sealed storehouse and bakery, as well as some sort of sterilization of the water and irradiation of the wheat, and in this sense all bread is leavened, although the amounts can be too small to notice.

 

[ConstantineTG]

To me the divergence in practice is probably because the early church did not care one way or another, the Apostles didn’t seem to think it important enough to fuss over so different people did their own thing.

The Apostles usually travel with nothing. So its highly probable that they will use whatever bread a certain locale has. I don’t know about the availability of unleavened bread in 1st century Greece or Turkey or even Rome. I do agree with your thought that the Apostles may not be choosy with which bread to use for consecration.

 

[Monica4316]

Thanks everyone!

I suppose we are lucky we are not fighting over the relative merits and spiritual benefits manual kneading versus mechanical kneading of the dough

 

[rowlands]

It is interesting to note that it is nearly impossible to keep airborne wild yeasts from invading the milled wheat. It would require a hermetically sealed storehouse and bakery, as well as some sort of sterilization of the water and irradiation of the wheat, and in this sense all bread is leavened, although the amounts can be too small to notice.

Rabbinical and Talmudic scholars maintain that flour and water must be mixed and baked to completion within 18 minutes for unleavened bread (matzot) to be considered ‘kosher for Passover’ and thus suitable for use at the seder meal; thereafter natural leavening is deemed to have commenced, thus rendering the bread incompatible with the precepts of the Law.

 

[Aramis]

When I first came into the Latin Church 20+ years ago I was a bread baker for the Cathedral here. It didn’t cross over my radar that it was a problem since I’d been given almost no real catechesis before my reception (and since it was the cathedral!). There is a thread right now on CAF about a Latin parish using leavened bread and the **disaster it is with communion in the hand **in that parish. I’d say the 2 go together – a Latin parish that uses leavened bread isn’t likely to be heavy on communion on the tongue.

The irony is that, in the christian East, both Catholic and Orthodox (including Oriental and Eastern Orthodox communions), clergy receive in the hand a chunk of the bread-cum-body, while most of them have the laity communed by a cleric dropping a piece of the bread-cum-body on the communicant’s tongue, using a spoon, having fished it out from the chalice.

Intinction is the default for most of the Christian East.

 

[Monica4316]

I found this quote from the 5th century!!

We are to celebrate the Lord’s paschal sacrifice with the **unleavened bread **of sincerity and truth. The leaven of our former malice is thrown out, and a new creature is filled and inebriated with the Lord himself. For the effect of our sharing in the body and blood of Christ is to change us into what we receive.

– Pope St. Leo the Great

I think maybe this was a difference that developed in the East and West pretty early on?

 

[Aramis]

I found this quote from the 5th century!!

We are to celebrate the Lord’s paschal sacrifice with the **unleavened bread **of sincerity and truth. The leaven of our former malice is thrown out, and a new creature is filled and inebriated with the Lord himself. For the effect of our sharing in the body and blood of Christ is to change us into what we receive.

– Pope St. Leo the Great

I think maybe this was a difference that developed in the East and West pretty early on?

The Syrian rites used unleavened bread as well, so it’s not properly “Eastern vs Western”…

The East Syrians and the Romans used unleavened the whole time. The Constantinopolitans and Alexandrians used leavened the whole time. I’ve read that the Armenians allow either… and the West Syrians have historically used both at different times.

Also, keep in mind… in much of the world, if you let the dough rest for an hour uncovered, then knead it, it’s leavened anyway… the wild yeasts are the normal leaven. It in fact takes an extraordinarily clean house and fast action to produce unleavened bread in first century Jerusalem.

And in the mediteranean or the Holy Land, a barrel of water and wheat left for a week, becomes a weak beer… the wild yeast alone will do this.

 

[ConstantineTG]

And in the mediteranean or the Holy Land, a barrel of water and wheat left for a week, becomes a weak beer… the wild yeast alone will do this.

This alone makes me want to move there

 

[5Loaves]

The irony is that, in the christian East, both Catholic and Orthodox (including Oriental and Eastern Orthodox communions), clergy receive in the hand a chunk of the bread-cum-body, while most of them have the laity communed by a cleric dropping a piece of the bread-cum-body on the communicant’s tongue, using a spoon, having fished it out from the chalice.

Intinction is the default for most of the Christian East.

For us Russians except at Pascha our clergy commune behind the closed Royal Doors with the curtain pulled so their communing isn’t visible to us. That said and having seen video of the clergy communing their method of doing so entirely safeguards the Precious Body. The complaint of faithful in those Latin parishes where (illicit) leavened bread is consecrated, is that the Eucharist in that form of leavened bread isn’t properly safeguarded because of the crumbs.

When we are communed in the East a napkin is held under our chins, as is the paten held beneath the Eucharist in the Extraordinary form of the Mass, and in some but I think few, situations in the Ordinary Form of the Mass, the OF being the only time when communion in the hand is allowed for the faithful. (Redemptionis Sacramentum [93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.180)

As one who is used to receiving a tiny piece via the golden spoon, I found myself feeling awkward with the larger more rectangular Intincted consecrated host in the Melkite eucharist and very grateful for the red napkin under my chin.

 

[rcjones]

I also thought it was because we are called to be like leaven. Didn’t St John Chrysostom preach about this, maybe the parable in Matthew 13:33? “He spoke another parable to them: The kingdom of the heavens is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until it had been all leavened…”

Ps 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:

All of the parables teach riddles of Christ from the Old Testament. Leaven represents ‘teaching’ as such the Kingdom of heaven can be likened to it, and we can avoid the leaven of the Pharisees.

Jesus celebrated a passover with unleavened bread. It represented his body. He broke it to give the same symbol as the parted water, split rock and torn veil. Though his body was not broken on the cross, he was separated body from spirit, but more importantly Father from Son, on the cross. His bread had no leaven because he did not receive teaching, he is the source of it being truth incarnate.

When leavened bread is used, it represents the church as the body of Christ in the world which is still receiving teaching. It is broken to symbolize Holiness, being separated from the world.

From my non-Catholic perspective, transubstantiation is more that the church becomes the very real presence of Christ on earth, a greater mystery than bread turning to flesh.

Normally the ante-type is the true meaning, but because the church is the body of Christ in reality, not just symbolically, there is a dual ante-type facilitated by prophetic recapitulation.

Back to the proverb and parable. Meal is one of the sacrifices, so three measures represents the cross. The woman took the teaching of the cross and hid it in her heart until it transformed her life.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

The Syrian rites used unleavened bread as well, so it’s not properly “Eastern vs Western”…

The East Syrians and the Romans used unleavened the whole time. The Constantinopolitans and Alexandrians used leavened the whole time. I’ve read that the Armenians allow either… and the West Syrians have historically used both at different times.

Can you qualify any of this?

 

[Monica4316]

The Syrian rites used unleavened bread as well, so it’s not properly “Eastern vs Western”…

The East Syrians and the Romans used unleavened the whole time. The Constantinopolitans and Alexandrians used leavened the whole time. I’ve read that the Armenians allow either… and the West Syrians have historically used both at different times.

Also, keep in mind… in much of the world, if you let the dough rest for an hour uncovered, then knead it, it’s leavened anyway… the wild yeasts are the normal leaven. It in fact takes an extraordinarily clean house and fast action to produce unleavened bread in first century Jerusalem.

And in the mediteranean or the Holy Land, a barrel of water and wheat left for a week, becomes a weak beer… the wild yeast alone will do this.

that’s interesting, thanks for the info

 

[skinny_pumpkin]

There are theological arguments claiming the “last supper” was not the passover. Not to open a can of worms, claims say “artos” means leavened bread. Looking at the biblical accounts, the passover was beginning the evening of Friday, so Christ is the passover, since his death and burial had to take place before the Sabbath. It is a fundamentalist view, imo, but interesting all the same.

Other aspects, such as Christ being the leaven of life, issues communing infants etc… It really is a complicated mess.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

There are theological arguments claiming the “last supper” was not the passover. Not to open a can of worms, claims say “artos” means leavened bread. Looking at the biblical accounts, the passover was beginning the evening of Friday, so Christ is the passover, since his death and burial had to take place before the Sabbath. It is a fundamentalist view, imo, but interesting all the same.

Other aspects, such as Christ being the leaven of life, issues communing infants etc… It really is a complicated mess.

It would be simplified if Rome had simply stuck to their original practices. Then not too much of a mess, at least between EO and RCs.

 

[Ghosty]

Not to open a can of worms, claims say “artos” means leavened bread.

Artos doesn’t mean leavened bread, it just means bread. Azymos does mean unleavened bread, but artos can also be used for unleavened bread. This can be seen in the description of the shewbread of the Temple, which was unleavened, being called artos in the Septuagint.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

It would be simplified if Rome had simply stuck to their original practices. Then not too much of a mess, at least between EO and RCs.

But according to the great Orthodox theologian, John Meyendorff, arguments over azymes and leavened bread are moot when one considers that both Churches believe that after the Consecration, there is no more bread or wine on the altar but the Most Pure and Most Holy Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ!

Also, the Oriental Orthodox Churches use unleavened bread, especially the Ethiopians (and they also all cross themselves first “to the left” as Latin Catholics do).

Alex

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I personally prefer the Eastern way, particularly the Melkite way. The bread is dipped in the wine and given to one to chew. The Body and Blood mixed.

Last Sunday I actually thought I felt the Presence in the Eucharist. I almost cried.

I know folks cry at Mass, but let me tell ya, some cry at our Melkite Liturgy, let me tell ya.

It is actually orchestrated like a symphony. The “Kyrie Eleison” repetitions and the chanting do more to me than any type of Yogic or Buddhist Meditation could do.

TO ME, RCers could use some of the mysticism and simplicity of the Eastern rites that they have right now. MY opinion of course.