To our beloved, Orthodox brethren...

[mardukm]

Funny, no. Ignorant, yes.

It’s a matter of following the example of Christ at the Last Supper. One Church believes it was at a time when leavened bread was used. The other Church believes it was a time when unleavened bread was used. Simple as that. I guess you are “ignorant” of that?

By agreeing with what they considered heresy, they too were in heresy. Thus they did not in any way misrepresent the Council.

If they were agreeing with it, then they were practicing it. That is how Eastern Christians automatically interpret the matter. There is no distinction between “agreeing with it” and “practicing it.” You’re deliberately contradicting your own Tradition to defend your hopeless position. The fact is simple - to claim that one was forced to be “azymites,” then that would mean you were forced to offer unleavened bread. But the Council never forced that on the Eastern Church. Period.

I have no idea what the theology is behind the use of unleavened bread in the Coptic Church, however since they have always used unleavened bread I have no issues with them. The same cannot be said for Rome however since for the first six to eight centuries they used leavened bread along with the rest of the Church. When they changed to using unleavened bread, as I explained in my earlier post, it was understood to mean a change in theology.

I’m not talking about the Coptic Church. I’m talking about the Armenian Church. The Latins rationale for using unleavened bread is the same as the Armenian Church’s - to follow the example of Christ, as indicated above. The difference is the manner of interpretation of when the Last Supper exactly occurred, a matter of which you seem “ignorant.”

In the book translated by Popoff, it states that on the 6th of July the Council decree on the union of the Churches was read out loud in Latin and in Greek by Cardinal Julian and Metropolitan Bessarion of Nicaea. Then followed the exposition of the Doctrine on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, on the Wafer, Purgatory and the Papal authority. Also, the Bull of Union with the Armenians, promulgated in November of the same year, makes explicit reference to the description of purgatory in the Florence Union Council

Seventhly, the decree of union concluded with the Greeks, which was promulgated earlier in this sacred council, recording how the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, and that the phrase and the Son was licitly and reasonably added to the creed of Constantinople. Also that the body of the Lord is effected in leavened or unleavened wheat bread; and what is to be believed about the pains of purgatory and hell, about the life of the blessed and about suffrages offered for the dead.
​

Nothing here about Purgatorial fire.

The only one who has misrepresented anything here is you. You have read the account of the Council of Florence given by Syropulus, who gives as unbiased an account as is possible. The character of St Mark of Ephesus is constantly shown to be upright and pious, yet you have no qualms about labelling him as a liar when it suits your interpretation of events. You can please stop calling me brother. Unrepentant liars are no brother of mine.

Whatever makes you happy.

I’ll pray for your peace of mind.

Blessings,
Marduk​

 

[AdrianP]

Anyhow the 2 Churches are very close .

I think any Church needs to have theologians able to speak with God, Jesus, St Mary, saints , and if this would be the case, Union would be very easy. If Orthodox Church has theologians speaking with God and Protestant Church has theologians using logic then no wonder they came to different conclusion. If both Churches would have theologians speaking with God, any issue would be easily sorted out and truth would come forward.

 

[prodromos]

It’s a matter of following the example of Christ at the Last Supper. One Church believes it was at a time when leavened bread was used. The other Church believes it was a time when unleavened bread was used. Simple as that. I guess you are “ignorant” of that?

I am well aware of the explanation Rome gives for their choice, but the type of bread used at the last supper has no bearing on the Orthodox position. That is where you are ignorant, though you may have been misled by Orthodox who are also ignorant of this detail.

If they were agreeing with it, then they were practicing it. That is how Eastern Christians automatically interpret the matter. There is no distinction between “agreeing with it” and “practicing it.”

You are of course referring to the statement “We pray what we believe, we believe what we pray” which is the normal condition and the reason the Florence ‘Union’ was so short lived, however for a short time until those bishops who had signed the Union Decree had repented they could truthfully and remorsefully say they were azymites. That you won’t accept this has no bearing on the facts of the matter.

I’m not talking about the Coptic Church. I’m talking about the Armenian Church. The Latins rationale for using unleavened bread is the same as the Armenian Church’s - to follow the example of Christ, as indicated above.

That is the explanation the Latin Church gives now in order to rationalise their change from the Tradition they shared with the rest of the Church until the 8th century but it has nothing to do with the reasons why they actually changed.

The difference is the manner of interpretation of when the Last Supper exactly occurred, a matter of which you seem “ignorant.”

Our reasons for using leavened bread are theological. Your suggestion that I am ignorant only demonstrates your own ignorance.

Nothing here about Purgatorial fire.

Of course you can’t see it

I’ll pray for your peace of mind.

You might as well pray for a rich man to become rich

John

 

[JackQ]

The Orthodox Church has a strong theology behind the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist, thus to change the bread used is tantamount to changing the theology, thus heresy. Also, Florence was a union in name only. Nothing which had been ‘agreed’ on had actually been put into practice, so again no one had been forced to use unleavened bread and neither did any of the bishops claim such.
Also, purgatory was mentioned in the Union Decree of Florence and no, St Mark did not claim they were forced to believe in purgatory in his letter. You’ve been wrong on almost every point you raised.

John

That’s interesting about the leavened bread. Since the Last Supper was a Seder, they would have used unleavened bread. Does that mean Jesus and the apostles were heretics?

 

[josie_L]

That’s interesting about the leavened bread. Since the Last Supper was a Seder, they would have used unleavened bread. Does that mean Jesus and the apostles were heretics?

. . . . . . . . . .

 

[jam070406]

I am well aware of the explanation Rome gives for their choice, but the type of bread used at the last supper has no bearing on the Orthodox position.

I see this issue as nothing more then a deplorable excuse to divide. I have recieved leavened and unleavened bread both in the Catholic Church. Are you about to make the bold claim that one is any less (or not at all) the body, blood, soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ?
I would rethink your attitude that unleavened bread is heresy, for the day you stand before your maker and have to account for that claim.

 

[mardukm]

I am well aware of the explanation Rome gives for their choice, but the type of bread used at the last supper has no bearing on the Orthodox position. That is where you are ignorant, though you may have been misled by Orthodox who are also ignorant of this detail.

That is the explanation the Latin Church gives now in order to rationalise their change from the Tradition they shared with the rest of the Church until the 8th century but it has nothing to do with the reasons why they actually changed.

Our reasons for using leavened bread are theological. Your suggestion that I am ignorant only demonstrates your own ignorance.

You should read Pope Leo IX’s defense of the Latin practice against Michael Cerularius’ complaints. The Catholic Church has always maintained that the reason unleavened bread was used was to follow Christ’s example. It’s nothing new at all, but I guess your polemic EO sources have misguided you on the matter. The first time the azymite contention ever surfaced was with Photius of Constantinople. He protested against the Latin practice, but made no theological arguments against it. The first time theological arguments came up is 200 years later when Michael Cerularius made it an issue. In fact, his theological arguments were inspired not by debates against the Latins, but by debates over the same issue with the Oriental Orthodox “azymites” several years before 1054.

So please drop this false pretense of being “understanding” of the Armenian position, because the source of your theological arguments against the Latins were actually and originally made against the OO “azymites” (check out these authors who have written books on the matter: Mahlon Smith, Jean Darrouzes, and John Erickson). Besides, you couldn’t even properly identify who the “azymites” were among the OO, so I truly doubt you have any understanding of the matter from the Armenian perspective. If you were truly understanding of the Armenian position, then you would be just as understanding of the Latin position. Otherwise, it’s either pretense or hypocrisy. I urge you as a Christian brother (though I know you don’t consider me such) to reconsider your position.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[prodromos]

That’s interesting about the leavened bread. Since the Last Supper was a Seder, they would have used unleavened bread. Does that mean Jesus and the apostles were heretics?

It is not certain whether it was a Seder meal or a Chaburoth meal

 

[JackQ]

It is not certain whether it was a Seder meal or a Chaburoth meal

This from Matthew 26:17-29 (RSV):

Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the passover?" He said, "Go into the city to a certain one, and say to him, `The Teacher says, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at your house with my disciples.'"  And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the passover. 

When it was evening, he sat at table with the twelve disciples; and as they were eating, he said, "Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me."  And they were very sorrowful, and began to say to him one after another, "Is it I, Lord?"  He answered, "He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me, will betray me.  The Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born."  Judas, who betrayed him, said, "Is it I, Master?" He said to him, "You have said so." 

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."  And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.  I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

This shows conclusively that the Last Supper was a Passover Meal. The bread of the first Eucharist was unleavened.

 

[John_Larocque]

The Greek word used in the NT is “artos”. There is some apparent conflict between the Synoptics and John over whether the meal took place before the Passover, which would mean the seder itself took place the next day - the day of the Crucifixion. I’m inclined to side with John, even if the “artos” at the pre-Passover meal was in fact unleavened. (If Jesus was following normative Jewish practice, unleavened bread would have been removed from the household - I think - two weeks before Passover).

In the Roman Catholic mass, and also how the words of Institution are found in the Latin Vulgate (where it actually differs from the Greek, which is present tense), “this is my blood, which WILL BE shed for you.” The sacrifice at the last supper is actually pointing to Good Friday. That’s the theological point the translator was making, even if it did not adhere to strictly to the Greek.

There’s a bit about John versus the Synoptics here:
geocities.com/paulntobin/lastsupper.htm

This is a fascinating essay on the text found in the Latin Mass and the Latin Vulgate.
tyndalehouse.com/TynBul/Library/TynBull_1997_48_2_04_Boughton_CupInSynoptics.pdf

As to the impact on communion bread, some confessions went unleavened, others leavened. Both Rome and Constantinople used leavened bread for hundreds of years - most of the duration East and West were part of the same communion. Then at one point the Latins adopted the current practice, so by the time of the second and final schism in 1024, this was one of the huge rifts between East and West. The West IMHO should not have changed its liturgical practice, but what is done is done. Issuing a fatwa against Constantinople over the absence of filioque was not wise either. The whole thing was sad and 100% preventable. I honestly don’t know if it’s too late to fix things, too much water (and many liturgical and theological differences) under the bridge.

 

[Bluegoat]

As to the impact on communion bread, some confessions went unleavened, others leavened. Both Rome and Constantinople used leavened bread for hundreds of years - most of the duration East and West were part of the same communion. Then at one point the Latins adopted the current practice, so by the time of the second and final schism in 1024, this was one of the huge rifts between East and West. The West IMHO should not have changed its liturgical practice, but what is done is done. Issuing a fatwa against Constantinople over the absence of filioque was not wise either. The whole thing was sad and 100% preventable. I honestly don’t know if it’s too late to fix things, too much water (and many liturgical and theological differences) under the bridge.

Don’t forget the disagreements over how monks should cut their hair. (No one brings that up any more? Why not? Is hair a trivial issue?)

I think there was a lot of bad intent on both sides at the time of the schism, and it is hard to overcome people with bad intent. You can’t convince them with logic, or with appeals to charity or justice.

 

[JackQ]

The Greek word used in the NT is “artos”. There is some apparent conflict between the Synoptics and John over whether the meal took place before the Passover, which would mean the seder itself took place the next day - the day of the Crucifixion. I’m inclined to side with John, even if the “artos” at the pre-Passover meal was in fact unleavened. (If Jesus was following normative Jewish practice, unleavened bread would have been removed from the household - I think - two weeks before Passover).

In the Roman Catholic mass, and also how the words of Institution are found in the Latin Vulgate (where it actually differs from the Greek, which is present tense), “this is my blood, which WILL BE shed for you.” The sacrifice at the last supper is actually pointing to Good Friday. That’s the theological point the translator was making, even if it did not adhere to strictly to the Greek.

There’s a bit about John versus the Synoptics here:
geocities.com/paulntobin/lastsupper.htm

This is a fascinating essay on the text found in the Latin Mass and the Latin Vulgate.
tyndalehouse.com/TynBul/Library/TynBull_1997_48_2_04_Boughton_CupInSynoptics.pdf

As to the impact on communion bread, some confessions went unleavened, others leavened. Both Rome and Constantinople used leavened bread for hundreds of years - most of the duration East and West were part of the same communion. Then at one point the Latins adopted the current practice, so by the time of the second and final schism in 1024, this was one of the huge rifts between East and West. The West IMHO should not have changed its liturgical practice, but what is done is done. Issuing a fatwa against Constantinople over the absence of filioque was not wise either. The whole thing was sad and 100% preventable. I honestly don’t know if it’s too late to fix things, too much water (and many liturgical and theological differences) under the bridge.

According to Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria said this regarding the writing of the Gospels:

Again, in the same books Clement has set down a tradition which he had received from the elders before him, in regard to the order of the Gospels, to the following effect. He says that the Gospels containing the genealogies were written first, and that the Gospel according to Mark was composed in the following circumstanceseter having preached the word publicly at Rome, and by the Spirit proclaimed the Gospel, those who were present, who were numerous, entreated Mark, in as much as he had attended him from an early period, and remembered what had been said, to write down what had been spoken. On his composing the Gospel, he handed it to those who had made the request to him; which coming to Peter’s knowledge, he neither hindered nor encouraged. But John, the last of all, seeing that what was corporeal was set forth in the Gospels, on the entreaty of his intimate friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.

John’s purpose in having Jesus crucified on the Passover was to show that he is the Paschal lamb, just as he ties in other events in Jesus’ life on earth with various Jewish celebrations, not to make an historical assertion regarding the time when Jesus did certain things, but to show the meaning of those celebrations in light of the gospel. John wrote a “spiritual Gospel.” What was corporeal was set forth in the Synoptics, which relate the historical context of the Last Supper.

 

[Mickey]

Would you happen to know if that was an ex cathedra decree?

Ah, there’s that tricky ex cathedra stuff again. Well, he began the statement with, “It is a divinely revealed truth”,** so it looks pretty official to me. **

Would these be Latin clergy and nuns, or Eastern or Oriental clergy and nuns?

It was taught to me explicitly by the Latins. But I have heard it from both.

He was at the Council and participated in the debates and knew the outcome. It would have been wiser for him to avoid the inflammatory rhetoric.

No. You call it inflammatory. I call it wise.

 

[mardukm]

Ah, there’s that tricky ex cathedra stuff again. Well, he began the statement with, "I****t is a divinely revealed truth", so it looks pretty official to me.

Since there is an ambiguity, why don’t you leave the interpretation of what Catholics believe to Catholics?

It was taught to me explicitly by the Latins. But I have heard it from both.

Luckily, the Catholic Church adheres to the Scriptural exhortation “Let not many of you become teachers,” and understand that teaching authority was a special charism given to the bishops of the Church (e.g., what was given to Sts. Timothy and Titus by the laying on of hands). I know that EO’xy accepts the teaching authority of non-episcopal persons, but that is not what Catholics believe. So have a field day appealing to your Latin nuns and priests. It won’t mean a thing if the teaching (that the WHOLE Church East, West, and Orient must believe in purgatorial fire) is not validated by the infallible teaching Magisterium of the Church.

No. You call it inflammatory. I call it wise.

Next time a Latin Catholic misrepresents the EOC to try to make the EOC look bad, I’ll be sure to tell him/her that she is “wise.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

Since there is an ambiguity, why don’t you leave the interpretation of what Catholics believe to Catholics?

I do not see an ambiguity.

Luckily, the Catholic Church adheres to the Scriptural exhortation “Let not many of you become teachers,” and understand that teaching authority was a special charism given to the bishops of the Church

Only bishops are permitted to teach?

So have a field day appealing to your Latin nuns and priests.

There is no need to get all cocky. I am not going to appeal to anyone. I am too old to look up all my former Latin Catholic teachers.

Next time a Latin Catholic misrepresents the EOC to try to make the EOC look bad, I’ll be sure to tell him/her that she is “wise.”

Hey. You are not a fan of St Mark of Ephesus. I have a great veneration for him. You have consitently called him a liar on this thread (and you accuse him of being inflammatory). Again I must say that it is extremely rude. Perhaps you should go somewhere and rest since your britches seem to be all bunched up again.

 

[mardukm]

I do not see an ambiguity.

I know. But the fact that we disagree means there is one objectively.

Only bishops are permitted to teach?

According to Scripture and Catholic teaching, yes. That’s different from preaching, of course, which is the faithful dispensation of teaching. But the teaching ministry, as a specific charism of the Holy Spirit, is understood to be reserved to Bishops.

There is no need to get all cocky. I am not going to appeal to anyone. I am too old to look up all my former Latin Catholic teachers.

Sorry if it seemed “cocky.” I know there’s a fine line between “cocky” and just stating what your Church teaches.

Hey. You are not a fan of St Mark of Ephesus. I have a great veneration for him. You have consitently called him a liar on this thread (and you accuse him of being inflammatory). Again I must say that it is extremely rude. Perhaps you should go somewhere and rest since your britches seem to be all bunched up again.

You should read/hear what some EO say about St. Francis of Assisi or Pope St. Dioscorus or Pope Pius IX! Saints aren’t perfect. Let’s just leave it at that, OK?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

According to Scripture and Catholic teaching, yes.

But the presbyters can preach what they learn from the bishops correct?

You should read/hear what some EO say about St. Francis of Assisi or Pope St. Dioscorus or Pope Pius IX! Saints aren’t perfect.

I must say that I am not a fan of Pius IX for obvious reasons. Is he a saint according to your Church?

Let’s just leave it at that, OK?

I’ll make my point one more time. If you were to say that you have a great veneration for St Francis of Assisi, I would respect that–even if I did not like him (which I do).

You have called St Mark a liar many times—and I feel that it is grossly uncharitable.

I know that you like to dabate–but let’s have a little respect please.

 

[mardukm]

But the presbyters can preach what they learn from the bishops correct?

Yes, but their authority to preach and their sacerdotal authority is derived from the bishop, as St. Ignatius of Antioch taught us. Correct me if I’m wrong, but does the EO believe that priests have inherent authority apart from their bishop?

I must say that I am not a fan of Pius IX for obvious reasons. Is he a saint according to your Church?

Not sure.

I’ll make my point one more time. If you were to say that you have a great veneration for St Francis of Assisi, I would respect that–even if I did not like him (which I do).

You have called St Mark a liar many times—and I feel that it is grossly uncharitable.

I know that you like to dabate–but let’s have a little respect please.

I respect your veneration for Mark, too, but that doesn’t mean I need to overlook certain facts of the matter. I already admitted earlier that “lie” was too strong a word, since it denotes purpose. It could very well be that Mark did not accurately represent the Council purposefully. So Mark wouldn’t be a liar. But the fact remains that the Council was misrepresented on several points, either by omission or commission.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I only debate when its necessary, just like you.

 

[Mickey]

It could very well be that Mark did not accurately represent the Council purposefully.

I think his representation was brilliant! And since we disagree. We have an ambiguity.

 

[Mickey]

the teaching ministry, as a specific charism of the Holy Spirit, is understood to be reserved to Bishops.

---

Letter from Bishop James S. Wall

---

“Teach them to carry out everything I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:20)
A priest is one who teaches.

A priest is a man who has received a special character from God at his ordination that conforms him to Christ in a unique way. Upon reception of this character, he is called not to live for himself, rather for Christ who has suffered and died for him and commissioned him to teach, govern, and sanctify in the name of the Church.

So you are saying that this Roman Catholic bishop is mistaken?