Just saying, it’s a little more complicated than “Catholics use unleavened since Jesus did” since some believe leavened bread was used. Furthermore, we aren’t necessarily sure either Rome used unleavened since the beginning. Some people think that the Western churches used both leavened and unleavened until unleavened became the norm from around the 8th or 9th century. Even then, it’s all up for debate with both sides with their own arguments saying leavened or unleavened was the norm in the beginning for Rome.
No actually it’s not more complicated. It’s that simple for Catholics.
Technically it was not questioned per say in 1054 but even earlier during the 8th century with St. Photius. Although St. Photius later tolerated it. But that’s him though.
No way Jesus would have used leavened bread. He was a practicing Jew and all the apostles were raised in the jewish faith, they were celebrating Passover in the upper room.I don’t know of any commentary from Patristics regarding this scripture verse. I’m just thinking that it’s the wrong kind of question to ask because leavened bread is used in multitude of ways in scripture.
But how exactly do you all reconcile using leavened bread with the verse i mentioned from corinthians? Im still unclear on that
But it becomes a little bit complicated when considering the 14th of Nisan or 15th, whether it’s the Passover as practiced by the Essenes and Pharisees. In that case, it’s a possibility that there could have been leavened bread still present in that household depending on which was being followed. And considering Christ was instituting a new covenant, it’s not impossible for Him to have used leavened bread for this purpose.
Jewish religious tradition directs that all the leavened bread was given away to gentiles or discarded prior to Passover.
Having said that, one could argue that they didn’t celebrate Passover properly because the “fourth cup” of wine was not drunk in the upper room. Unthinkable for a room full of people who were raised in the Jewish faith to overlook. That would never happen, they drink four cups of wine every time. Why did they only drink 3 cups during the Last Supper?
The meal is not finished until the fourth cup of wine is drunk.
On the Cross, Jesus said “I thirst”.
At that time, Jesus was given Wine. Sour Wine, but wine none the less, the fourth “cup”. After Jesus drank, He said, “it is finished”. These words according to
Scott Hahn refer to the passover meal.
star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/4cp.html
See my previous post about Luke and Matthew.But how exactly do you all reconcile using leavened bread with the verse i mentioned from corinthians? Im still unclear on that
. But to the extent of what I have been taught, that’s what I would expect is how 1 Corinthians is to be interpreted. Hence, it’s not talking about using leaven or unleavened for the Eucharist because that’s not what it’s about.interesting. thanks for the infoAnd regarding the fact that scripture uses leaven/yeast in both a positive and negative light, and in each circumstance does not actually imply to use leaven/unleavened bread for the Eucharist, there is also Matthew 16:5-12 (I’m not too knowledgable about this honestly, so referred to a friend of mine).
“In coming to the other side of the sea,* the disciples had forgotten to bring bread. Jesus said to them, “Look out, and beware of the leaven* of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” They concluded among themselves, saying, “It is because we have brought no bread.” When Jesus became aware of this he said, “You of little faith, why do you conclude among yourselves that it is because you have no bread? Do you not yet understand, and do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many wicker baskets you took up? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up? How do you not comprehend that I was not speaking to you about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees*” (Matthew 16:5-12, USCCB, New American Bible)
Just saying I’m no scholar on this so this is my own understanding of this from a rather (limited) Orthodox understanding (recent convert). Even then, perhaps I’m completely wrong about this
And at least in the context of tradition, the New Covenant is supposed to supercede and be superior to the Old Covenant. Hence the New Passover uses leavened bread over the Old Covenant unleavened bread. At least in tradition, that is the understanding from Orthodoxy (and I would assume Matthew 13:33 is used for this interpretation that we use leavened for the new Passover meal, the Eucharist).
Actually, in 1054, Patriarch Peter III of Antioch said that Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria should tolerate Rome’s practice with unleavened host. He said “If we want to get all, we will lose all.” Which means, we should allow Rome to keep at least unleavened bread, or Rome will break away.
Antioch it seems had a soft spot for rome
I don’t see your proposition validated in anything that you quoted. What happened in 8th and 9th century was the call, within the Roman church, to adopt a uniform practice of using unleavened bread; there is no indication that the use of unleavened bread “began” in the 8th and 9th century. I think that Kmon’s reading better represents the research:
It is interesting to note that the use of unleavened bread was a flashpoint for the schism dated to the 11th century, even though it had been in use for centuries. What was the impetus for Constantinople seeking to regulate such practices in other ritual churches?