Unleavened bread?

[Ghosty]

Unleavened bread is connected with mourning, something totally inappropriate in connection with the Lord’s Day. The Eucharist is about the Resurrection as much as the Crucifixion, which is why fasting is forbidden on Sundays and liturgies are festive.

Where are you getting this idea that unleavened bread is connected with mourning? From ancient Judaism is for the celebration of freedom, and the only bread acceptable as a sacrifice to God. You should do some research into the meaning and use of unleavened bread in Judaic practice (maybe attend a Seder, for example), rather than relying on Eastern Orthodox polemics that totally ignore and distort Jewish understanding. One point that this article you cited tries to make is that unleavened bread is used in a negative context by Christ and St. Paul, but in fact it completely ignores the obvious and direct meaning of leavening (chametz) in Judaism:

*Chametz, *we are told, represents the evil impulse within us. The complex, laborious, time-consuming activities of searching for and destroying our chometz demonstrate to ourselves how meticulous we need to be in purging ourselves of our inner evil.

torah.org/advanced/nesivosshalom/searchingforchametz.html

So, in ancient Semetic tradition, unleavened bread represents purity and active purging of sin, not mourning and inaction. This isn’t to take away from the great and wholly Christian meaning of leavened bread, especially for use in the Eucharist (Christ being Risen, for example), but rather to show that at least this source you’re using is utterly backwards and incorrect in its assumptions.

As for the ancient practice of using unleavened bread, the Armenians used unleavened bread since the beginning, so we have at least one Eastern group known to have used it for at least as long, if not longer, than Rome. Their reason is quite simple: unleavened bread represents “spotlessness”, as opposed to leaven. It’s a valid symbolism, and the same one used in the Latin tradition.

What’s most amusing to me is that it is only the Eastern Orthodox who insist on this practice, as the two other ancient Apostolic Communions have the use of both leavened and unleavened bread, and have since before the various schisms. Where are the polemics over this issue prior to the Byzantine era, if it has always been an important issue? Instead we find it becoming an issue for the Greeks towards the end of the first millenium, and they turned it into polemics against the Armenians (Oriental Orthodox) to their east, and the Latins (Catholic/Orthodox) to their west at that time.

Peace and God bless!

 

[John89]

I attend a Maronite Catholic Church which is part of the eastern churches and the priest uses unleavened bread

 

[Ghosty]

The Maronites picked up that practice after coming back into contact with Rome. Prior to that it’s my understanding that they used leavened bread.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

Instead we find it becoming an issue for the Greeks towards the end of the first millenium

You may call it polemics–or anything that you like if it makes you feel better. But the question remains: When did it start–and why? Did the Latins always use unleavened bread?

 

[patrick457]

You may call it polemics–or anything that you like if it makes you feel better. But the question remains: When did it start–and why? Did the Latins always use unleavened bread?

It is most likely that in very early ages, all churches may have not originally thought of reproducing “unleavened bread” - nor would they have that much opportunity or time to do so, with Christianity being considered subversive most of the time before Constantine - they used the plain, round bread that can be bought off at the local bakery.

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3238/pbps39breadu.jpg
Carbonized Roman bread found in the ruins of Pompeii

We do not know exactly when the West started to shift from ordinary table bread. While many believed that it was an apostolic custom, St. Ambrose in De Sacramentis (4.4.14), supported by a sermon of St. Augustine, makes it certain that in the late 4th century the West was still using leavened bread. The reasons as to why are also ambiguous, but it may have been influenced by St. Paul’s words (1 Cor. 5:9, for instance) and practicality - unleavened bread left little to no falling crumbs and did not go putrid immediately.

We can note however that by 798 Alcuin of York already speaks about azyma, but his reference does not suggest that in his time it was a recent innovation. One actual definitive evidence we have of the West using azymes in the 9th century is Rabanus Maurus’ strong statements in favor of unleavened bread in his de Institutione Christiana. Then the leavened-unleavened controversy of the 11th century happened.

As mentioned, the Armenians also used unleavened bread, which got them into very hot water with the Greeks (who were of the thought that a bread may not be bread if it has got no leaven in it, and if not, then God’s will is being violated) when there was an influx of Armenians to posts in Constantinople in the 11th century and the emperor and the Greek clergy forced conversion on these “dissenters” who used azyma. It was in the midst of this little controversy that the debate between the West and the East happened.

 

[Mickey]

It We do not know exactly when the West started to shift from ordinary table bread. While many believed that it was an apostolic custom, St. Ambrose in De Sacramentis (4.4.14), supported by a sermon of St. Augustine, makes it certain that in the late 4th century the West was still using leavened bread.

Thank you. It remains somewhat mysterious.

 

[Vman358]

There are varying opinions.

Some hold that East and West both used leavened bread and that the West began using unleavened bread in the 11th century.

Some hold that both leavened and unleavened bread were used in the West from the beginning.

Some hold that the West always used unleavened bread and this was Apostolic in nature.
For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
1 Corinthians 5:7-8

And some, including St. Thomas Aquinas, held that both East and West originally used unleavened bread and that the East changed to leavened bread very early on.

God bless,

James

I may be quoting the wrong guy, but since you whipped out some scriptures, I’d like to note that this, the idea that leavened equates to something bad, can be a delicate subject, especially when Christ refers to the idea of “leavened” as a good thing.

In Matthew 13:33
He spoke to them another parable. “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast (note 14) that a woman took and mixed with three measures of wheat flour until the whole batch was leavened.”

note 14
[Matthew 13:33] Except in this Q parable and in Matthew 16:12, yeast (or “leaven”) is, in New Testament usage, a symbol of corruption (see Matthew 16:6, 11-12; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1; 1 Cor 5:6-8; Gal 5:9). Three measures: an enormous amount, enough to feed a hundred people. The exaggeration of this element of the parable points to the greatness of the kingdom’s effect.

Matthew 16:12
Then they understood (note 7) that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

note 7
[Matthew 16:12] After his rebuke, the disciples understand that by leaven he meant the corrupting influence of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The evangelist probably understands this teaching as common to both groups. Since at the time of Jesus’ ministry the two differed widely on points of teaching, e.g., the resurrection of the dead, and at the time of the evangelist the Sadducee party was no longer a force in Judaism, the supposed common teaching fits neither period. The disciples’ eventual understanding of Jesus’ warning contrasts with their continuing obtuseness in the Marcan parallel (Matthew 8:14-21).

Here we have two (and the only two, I think) instances where Jesus says good things about ‘leavened’ things. This is from the New American Bible. This may or may not affect the idea of the species of the Eucharist, but that’s why I’m posting this–to see what you all think.

The Lord be with you!