Why do the eastern Churches use unleavened host?

[SAVINGRACE]

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:

Similar is the history of some defined doctrines. They were Traditions practiced by early christians, it wasn’t until these “practices” were questioned or attacked that the Church defined them by making the Traditions dogma.

The Tradition wasn’t invented at the time of the declaration of the dogma, it was always practiced just never officially acknowledged.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Eastern churches in communion with Rome are allowed to continue their tradition of using leavened bread.

How magnanimous.

 

[prodromos]

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:

Have you read the research in the books I linked to? I realise the links probably no longer work, but their research gives very clear indication that unleavened bread was not used prior to the 8th century. What research do you present that confirms otherwise?

 

[dvdjs]

I have read the links. Like the passages you quote here, they do not indicate when unleavened bread was first used in the west, but date calls to uniformity in the use of unleavened bread to the 8-9th century,

 

[SAVINGRACE]

How magnanimous.

What’s that eyeroll supposed to mean? Very rude of you.

 

[prodromos]

I have read the links. Like the passages you quote here, they do not indicate when unleavened bread was first used in the west, but date calls to uniformity in the use of unleavened bread to the 8-9th century,

The only argument I have ever been given in the past is that the Latin Church uses unleavened bread, therefore the Latin Church ALWAYS used unleavened bread. Do you have anything to add that is actual evidence the Latin Church used unleavened bread prior to the 8th century?

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Prodomos…

Another one that comes up in the Latin Church is receiving communion on the hand. This was a practice that was common in the past but because of abuses, the reception on the tongue was the means of reception.

What I am initially seeing is the Roman penchant for universality of practice.

 

[DeusExMachina]

While we’re on the topic, can anyone tell me if the coptic church uses unleavened bread? I’m getting conflicting answers from various sources

 

[dvdjs]

The only argument I have ever been given in the past is that the Latin Church uses unleavened bread, therefore the Latin Church ALWAYS used unleavened bread.

Comments in CAF threads in which you participated in 2008, 2013, and 2014 are incompatible with this remark.

 

[guanophore]

The Eastern tradition likens yeast in bread to the soul in the body. The soul gives life, and therefore the “living bread” of the Eucharist must have yeast.

The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper. There was no leavened bread around at the time of the Last Supper/Passover; all leavened bread would have been destroyed, locked away, or given to Gentiles the day before Passover, as per Jewish religious practice.

The Council of Florence approved the use of either kind of bread in 1439, so the use of leavened or unleavened bread is a question of licitness, not validity. This was infallibly defined.

The council stated, “We have likewise defined that the body of Christ is truly effected in unleavened or leavened wheaten bread and that priests ought to effect the body of our Lord in either one of these, and each one namely according to the custom of his Church, whether that of the West or of the East” (Decree for the Greeks).

Roman-rite Catholics are not permitted to use leavened bread (Code of Canon Law 926). The Church desires uniformity to show that the sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice everywhere. Using leavened bread would not invalidate the Eucharist, but it would be a grave error to disobey the Church and a long, venerable tradition.

Eastern-rite churches in communion with Rome are allowed to retain their own tradition of using leavened bread.

Great informative post, thanks!

 

[prodromos]

Comments in CAF threads in which you participated in 2008, 2013, and 2014 are incompatible with this remark.

Its the argument in a nutshell. I don’t recall any liturgical or archaeological evidence of the use of unleavened bread prior to the 8th century being presented.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Great informative post, thanks!

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

While we’re on the topic, can anyone tell me if the coptic church uses unleavened bread? I’m getting conflicting answers from various sources

All Copts use leavened bread as far as I know. If you look up a video of a Coptic liturgy, you can see the priest waving the loaves of bread during their elaborate preparation rite at the beginning of the liturgy. Maronites and Armenians use unleavened bread, but they adopted this from the Latin West.

Its the argument in a nutshell. I don’t recall any liturgical or archaeological evidence of the use of unleavened bread prior to the 8th century being presented.

The biblical evidence in the Synoptic Gospels shows that unleavened bread was used at the Last Supper.

 

[prodromos]

The biblical evidence in the Synoptic Gospels shows that unleavened bread was used at the Last Supper.

Yes I know this is what Latins claim is the reason they use unleavened bread now (although the wafers are quite unlike the unleavened bread of 1st century Judaism) but what reason is given for the Latin’s documented use of leavened bread for the first 8 centuries?

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Because the important thing is the bread, not the yeast. In the early Church, Catholics used leavened bread because common bread was leavened. Catholics have never rejected leavened bread.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Because the important thing is the bread, not the yeast. In the early Church, Catholics used leavened bread because common bread was leavened. Catholics have never rejected leavened bread.

Why is it that Roman Rite Catholics are not allowed to use leavened bread but Eastern Catholics can?

 

[Kmon23]

Why is it that Roman Rite Catholics are not allowed to use leavened bread but Eastern Catholics can?

Eastern Catholics can because it is in their liturgical tradition to do so. It would be a terrible disservice to impose otherwise.

The Roman Rite however at the standardization of the use of unleavened bread then made it mandatory for its use in the Roman Rite in the code of canon law 926.

What Rome does concerning its own church/rite is its own matter, but it would definitely be wrong for Rome to impose the Eastern churches to use unleavened, which would be a latinization. After all, Pope John Paul II discusses the importance of the tradition of the East in his Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Eastern Catholics can because it is in their liturgical tradition to do so. It would be a terrible disservice to impose otherwise.

The Roman Rite however at the standardization of the use of unleavened bread then made it mandatory for its use in the Roman Rite in the code of canon law 926.

What Rome does concerning its own church/rite is its own matter, but it would definitely be wrong for Rome to impose the Eastern churches to use unleavened, which would be a latinization. After all, Pope John Paul II discusses the importance of the tradition of the East in his Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen.

Thank you Kmon. I still don’t understand why posters are arguing that either bread is invalid. They are both valid.

 

[Kmon23]

Thank you Kmon. I still don’t understand why posters are arguing that either bread is invalid. They are both valid.

Part of Orthodox thought that may contribute to this (though not all) is that the idea of validity/invalidity is foreign to Orthodoxy. For example, Roman Catholics accept baptism by affusion because it is valid. It is valid, hence it became acceptable in Catholic practice, and is now licit.

However for Orthodoxy, validity is a foreign concept, so we would not see affusion as a matter of validity or invalidity. If full triple immersion is the more traditional practice and/or more encapsulates the meaning of the sacrament, then there is little reason for anything less (and any other method should really be used only in extraordinary circumstances).

Same thing with the bread for the Eucharist. We have leavened bread in our tradition, but we don’t succinctly define of what constitutes valid matter per say. Same concept when viewing unleavened bread. We don’t define whether it is valid or invalid and call it a day, but whether it should be preferred or not. Hence we do not say “it is valid” and just say it’s okay because we don’t judge/define things in terms of validity.

Of course, the use of unleavened bread or not gets much more complicated by determining whether this practice is a lauded and acceptable one as part of Roman Rite tradition in the context of history, or whether it is a novelty in a later time that should be rejected. Of course the question regarding this is why we have a thread like this one, and is above my pay grade to answer.

 

[prodromos]

Because the important thing is the bread, not the yeast. In the early Church, Catholics used leavened bread because common bread was leavened. Catholics have never rejected leavened bread.

So what did Cardinal Humbert mean when he called us “prozymite heretics”