I think we have had discussions on this before. As I recall it is was suggested that the Passover was celebrated on different days by different Jewish sects.
1 Cor 10:17: Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
I was thinking that, too, but, they were both, collectively, unnerving me in the same way, that is, I posted them in one thread to show where the answer was coming from so I wouldn’t get the, “because it’s a continuation of the Passover Sader,” reply. I already know that unleavened bread is part of the Sader, but, that really doesn’t give me the answer I needed.I think the Passover question should have its own thread
)Think about it. A typical Eastern or Orthodox Divine Liturgy is usually attended by 50 to 100 people. The typical Latin Parish has several hundred if not over a 1000 to 1500 at Mass. Do you know how long it would take to carefully cut up 10 to 50 or more loaves of bread, collect carefully all the particles, and then consume them? Just looking at it from a practical standpoint.
I doubt it really has much to do with the length of contact, but rather the use of unleavened bread itself for Passover. Among other references, Paul says (1 Cor. 5:7) “for Christ our Pasch is sacrificed” which rather alludes to Passover (pesach in Hebrew, pascha in Aramaic). In that light, the use of unleavened altar bread would make perfectly good sense.
No, that is probably due to contact with the Greeks whose influence spread widely. The Melkites claim they were originally Syrian in practice and tradition but today are Greek. Perhaps this is a carry-over of the effects of being the “King’s Men” and following the teachings of Chalcedon. Clearly there is no definitive answer for why leavened bread is used in part of the Church and unleavened bread in other parts.
I think you have it backwards. Jesus is not transubstantiated into bread. Rather, either form of bread can be transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus.
No, we’ve just become accustomed to that meaning because of our experience with “loaf” and leavened bread. It can also refer to a large unleavened “loaf” just as easily.
The problem with symbols is that we can make them say anything we want them to say. The key here is to understand the symbols as the early Church understood them. Jesus was said to be the “leavening” for humanity which allows us to “rise” from the dead. It is this idea that was used by the Eastern Church in using leavened bread. The Latin tradition of unleavened bread was draw directly from the idea of the bread of haste made without leavening since we are “passing through” this world (in it, but not of it).
Good question! If you look at m-w.com as I just did, you’ll find that loaf comes from German, while leaven comes from Latin.
I have some doubts as to weather Greek influence , liturgically, would extend to those christians outside of the Empire’s historical bounds whom are commonly reffered to (incorrectly) as nestorians. The East Syrians broke off first from the communion and before major constantinopolitan influence in the middle east.
Yes, regardless of which type of bread is used, either becomes truly the Body of Christ.
it is valid, but as I think you hinted at, it is illicit. As in illegal according to Canon Law
Yes. Valid but illicit. The point here is that there “could” be circumstances in which it might happen–war, persecution, natural disaster, are the typical extreme examples. I’ve also heard that a priest of one Church sui iuris could consecrate the Eucharist for another nearby parish of another Church if that other priest is not available–I say that I’ve heard of it, not that I know with certainty that it’s allowed.
With limited exceptions as noted in the CCEO, Canon 707.