Why do the eastern Churches use unleavened host?

[PatrickC]

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

He didn’t know what he was talking about is my guess.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

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

Do you have a independent source for that statement?

I’d be interested to know if it was made before/after the Council of Florence where the issue was decided.

 

[Kmon23]

Do you have a independent source for that statement?

I’d be interested to know if it was made before/after the Council of Florence where the issue was decided.

It’s in “Short History of the Catholic Church” by J. Derek Holmes, Bernard Bickers.
The quote is “… Let everyone who persists in atttacking the faith of the Holy Roman Church and its sacrifice be anathema, Maranatha, and not be considered as a Catholic Christian but a prozymite heretic!” (pg 65).

It’s when he was speaking about Patriarch Michael Cerularius around the time (after?) of the bull of excommunication of 1054.

 

[dvdjs]

It’s in “Short History of the Catholic Church” by J. Derek Holmes, Bernard Bickers.
The quote is “… Let everyone who persists in atttacking the faith of the Holy Roman Church and its sacrifice be anathema, Maranatha, and not be considered as a Catholic Christian but a prozymite heretic!” (pg 65).

Here is a document attributed to Humbert.
acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf

Cerulariues is indeed called a prozymite (which he is) heretic. It iw woth noting that in the East Cerularius was deposed and died in prison awaiting trial for treason and heresy. It is unfair to say that he was found to be a heretic, but that he was suspected as being one in both the East and the West.

It would, however, be a misreading to assert that Humbert was accusing Cerularius of heresy for being a prozymite. Rather the problem was that he seen as a prozymite extremist. The full document makes this clear:

Furthermore, when we, the Pope’s ambassadors, wanted to eliminate the causes of such great evils in a reasonable way, he denied us his presence and conversation, forbid churches to celebrate Mass, just as he had earlier closed the churches of the Latins and, calling them “azymites,” had persecuted the Latins everywhere in word and deed.

In fact, the reason the legates went to Constantinople in the first place was the persecution of the Latins, and the perceived whipping up of anti-Latin fervor because of their use of unleavened bread. This was the pivotal issue, with the attack on Latins an outgrowth of attacks on Armenians.

Here is a nice paper on the subject:
doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/crusades-from-the-perspective-of-byzantium-and-the-muslim-world/cr09.pdf

 

[dvdjs]

Its the argument in a nutshell.

Hardly. This argument is better characterized as your straw man.

The history of the departure from the use of common bread to unleavened bread is not well documented. Neither is the history departure from the use of common bread to legally prepared prosphora among the Byzantines. And there is little to \gained by making stuff up to fill in the blanks.

 

[dvdjs]

Here is a nice paper on the subject:
doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/crusades-from-the-perspective-of-byzantium-and-the-muslim-world/cr09.pdf

Even better are her books:
The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins
Inventing Latin Heretics: Byzantines and the Filioque in the Ninth Century

 

[Kmon23]

Here is a document attributed to Humbert.
acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf

Cerulariues is indeed called a prozymite (which he is) heretic. It iw woth noting that in the East Cerularius was deposed and died in prison awaiting trial for treason and heresy. It is unfair to say that he was found to be a heretic, but that he was suspected as being one in both the East and the West.

It would, however, be a misreading to assert that Humbert was accusing Cerularius of heresy for being a prozymite. Rather the problem was that he seen as a prozymite extremist. The full document makes this clear:

In fact, the reason the legates went to Constantinople in the first place was the persecution of the Latins, and the perceived whipping up of anti-Latin fervor because of their use of unleavened bread. This was the pivotal issue, with the attack on Latins an outgrowth of attacks on Armenians.

Here is a nice paper on the subject:
doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/crusades-from-the-perspective-of-byzantium-and-the-muslim-world/cr09.pdf

Interesting. I’m not too familiar regarding the context of 1054 and the legates and patriarch, so thanks for the info.

 

[prodromos]

Here is a document attributed to Humbert.
acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf

Cerulariues is indeed called a prozymite (which he is) heretic. It iw woth noting that in the East Cerularius was deposed and died in prison awaiting trial for treason and heresy. It is unfair to say that he was found to be a heretic, but that he was suspected as being one in both the East and the West.

“Cerularius quarrelled with Isaac I Komnenos over confiscation of church property.
Isaac I Komnenos exiled Michael to Proconnesus in 1058 and, as Michael refused to step down, had Psellus draw up the Accusation of heresy and treason against him. Cerularius died before coming to trial.”

It would appeae that the charge of heresy was no more than court intrigue, since the charge was not brought against him by the Church, but I guess you already knew that.

In fact, the reason the legates went to Constantinople in the first place was the persecution of the Latins, and the perceived whipping up of anti-Latin fervor because of their use of unleavened bread. This was the pivotal issue, with the attack on Latins an outgrowth of attacks on Armenians.

What you neglect to mention is that the closing of Latin churches in Constantinople was in response to the forced Latinisations by the Normans in churches under Constantinople’s jurisdiction in Southern Italy, compounded by the false claims made by Leo using the forged Donation of Constantine

 

[SyroMalankara]

The differences are not as simple as “leavened vs. unleavened”, there are other dimensions that are being ignored here.

Latin/Western Roman Church - unleavened
Greek/Eastern Roman Church - leavened
Armenian Church - unleavened
East/West Syrian Churches - loaf risen with malka - the starter loaf (legend says mixed with the water from the side of Christ) with 12 crosses impressed.
Coptic Church - leavened
Malankara and Malabar - see East/West Syrian (Malabar, as well as Maronite adopted the Latin host in the 15/16th century)

In addition, there are varying customs on water added to the wine prior to consecration - from the Armenians not adding any water, to some Oriental Churches adding up to 1/2 water. Some hot, some room temperature, others temperature doesn’t matter.

 

[dvdjs]

It would appease that the charge of heresy was no more than court intrigue, since the charge was not brought against him by the Church

The pretensions of Cerularius are well documented; he involved himself deeply in court intrigue, The Orthodox church has not seen fit to view him as some sort of passion bearer.

What you neglect to mention is that the closing of Latin churches in Constantinople was in response to the forced Latinisations by the Normans in churches under Constantinople’s jurisdiction in Southern Italy, compounded by the false claims made by Leo using the forged Donation of Constantine

That is not the historical sequence in the view of scholars. The Pope and the Byzantine emperor were allies against the Normans. Cerularius was an obstacle to that alliance, and “intriguingly” challenged the throne. If his perceived attack on azymites was really about territory and not misguided theological notions, the greater shame on him.

I am not sure what you mean by “compounded”. The possible (disputed by historians) reference to the Donation in the letter sent by Leo came later, and did the alleged affirmation of the Donation by Cerularius in his disputes with emperors.

Calabria and Sicily, btw, had been under the Pope of Rome in the early church until bishops under Constantinople were installed after conquest - a precedent for establishing Latin hierarchs in Antioch and Jerusalem some centuries later.

 

[KathleenGee]

History so complex.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Going back to the comment about was the Last Supper a Passover Seder or something else, here’s another practice that was developing among some Jewish sects that seems similar to what is the Passover meal, but is not exactly that:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tish_(Hasidic_celebration

 

[KathleenGee]

The impact of culture, politics, geography have such an impact on our beliefs.

But I look at modern communications, educational level in these areas, and theologians well grounded in them in context of our histories. So I am praying and having hope, with great diligence and humility, we can work at return of universal unity that recognizes such diversity, but without compromise.