Why do Orthodox claim that Jesus didn't use unleavened bread at the last supper?

[marlo]

Whether it was during or before the Passover, the Jews have a tradition to remove all leavened in their house seven (7) days, before the passover, to ensure that no leaven is found. This is a part of their preparation to the passover.  so Its definitely unleavened bread.

The use of unleavened bread by the latins, is also considered as a legitimate liturgical difference even by some Eastern Orthodox bishop and should not be an issue anymore.

The use of Leavened and Unleavened bread by the Oriental Orthodox is never a cause of division as it was never been a cause of division by the early church until this was explicitly done by the EO as the only legitimate form of bread.

whether it was leavened or unleavened, it should not be a cause of division

While reading the list of Orthodox Church Synods and Councils I read that the Synod of Jerusalem declared that Jesus didn't use unleavened bread at the last supper...what is the reason for this? Wasn't the Last Supper during passover?

I'm astonished that people still ask this question.
Look at the time factor for the events which took place, and you will see that the Last Supper was not the Passover Meal:
1) Jesus and the disciples eat the Last Supper,
2) Jesus and the disciples crossed the Kidron Valley (John 18:1)
3) Jesus underwent the Agony in the Garden
4) Jesus was Arrested
5) Jesus was brought before Ciaphas
6) Jesus was taken from Ciaphas and brought before Pilate.
But St. John tells us that when Jesus was brought to Pilate the next morning (event No.6), the Jews who brought Him to Pilate would not enter the Praetorium, because doing so would render them unclean for the Passover:
"Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early morning. But they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, so that they might eat the Passover." (John18:28)
St. John the Beloved Disciple (who witnessed the events himself first hand) clearly says that the events listed 1-6 took place before the Passover, so leavened bread was still used.

[ozgeorge]

the Jews have a tradition to remove all leavened in their house seven (7) days, before the passover, to ensure that no leaven is found.

Do they? You sure about that marlo?

[Irish Hermit]

The use of unleavened bread by the latins, is also considered as a legitimate liturgical difference even by some Eastern Orthodox bishop and should not be an issue anymore.

Are you sure about that?  I ask because in the three Churches which allow the Western Rite to be used,  Antiochian, Serbian and the Russian Church Abroad, the bishops insist that it must be only leavened bread in the form of wafers for the Mass.  Until recently the Church of Romania had a small number of  Western Rite parishes in Europe and their bishops also required the use of leavened wafers.

[Irish Hermit]

The use of Leavened and Unleavened bread by the Oriental Orthodox is never a cause of division as it was never been a cause of division by the early church until this was explicitly done by the EO as the only legitimate form of bread.

whether it was leavened or unleavened, it should not be a cause of division

The use of leavened versus unleaved bread came to be a major cause of division in the Church in Italy and in fact it can be said to be one of the major causes of the Schism between us.

The southern parts of Italy were Byzantine provinces and ruled from Constantinople.  They came under the authority of the Patriarch and not the Pope.  Their liturgy was Byzantine and not Roman and all their clergy and their monasteries were also Byzantine.

When the (Roman Catholic) Normans invaded southern Italy they forced the use of unleavened bread on the churches and monasteries.  They also did away with Byzantine liturgy and monasticism and the Byzantine bishops and replaced them all with their own northern European practices.  They closed down around 400 Byzantine monasteries.

When word reached Constantinople that all this was happening in southern Italy this caused a major upset and many Italians were murdered in the riots which resulted. 

However, to be fair to Rome and the Pope of the time,  Rome did not approve of what its own Norman people were doing.  In fact, Rome itself was still using leavened bread. 

But a few years after their invasion of southern Italy the Normans succeeded in taking over the Roman papacy and they placed their own man on the papal throne.

[ialmisry]

Whether it was during or before the Passover, the Jews have a tradition to remove all leavened in their house seven (7) days, before the passover, to ensure that no leaven is found. This is a part of their preparation to the passover.  so Its definitely unleavened bread.

No.  They remove it the evening before Passover, Erev Pesach. 
Traditionally, Jews do a formal search for remaining chametz ("bedikat chametz") after nightfall on the evening before Passover (which is also the evening that precedes the Fast of the Firstborn). A blessing is read (על ביעור חמץ - al biyur chametz, "on the removal of chametz") and one or more members of the household proceed from room to room to ensure no crumbs remain in any corner. In very traditional families, the search may be conducted by the head of the household; in more modern families, the children may be the ones who do the search, under the careful supervision of their parents.

It is customary to turn off the lights and conduct the search by candlelight, using a feather and a wooden spoon: candlelight effectively illuminates corners without casting shadows; the feather can dust crumbs out of their hiding places; and the wooden spoon which collects the crumbs can be burned the next day with the chametz.

Because the house is assumed to have been thoroughly cleaned by the night before Passover, there is some concern that making a blessing over the search for chametz will be for nought ("bracha l'vatala") if nothing is found. Thus, ten pieces of bread smaller than the size of an olive are hidden throughout the house in order to ensure that there is chametz to be found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover#Spring_Mega-Cleaning

 It is not without importance that those who celebrated Pascha on the same date in Asia did so on the 14th Nisan, i.e. Erev Pesach.  Hence Quartodecimanians.

The use of unleavened bread by the latins, is also considered as a legitimate liturgical difference even by some Eastern Orthodox bishop and should not be an issue anymore.

Because the Vatican says so?

The use of Leavened and Unleavened bread by the Oriental Orthodox is never a cause of division as it was never been a cause of division by the early church until this was explicitly done by the EO as the only legitimate form of bread.

No, it became an issue when the Vatican tried to force it on the Orthodox in Southern Italy.

whether it was leavened or unleavened, it should not be a cause of division

I'd agree, but because who says so?

While reading the list of Orthodox Church Synods and Councils I read that the Synod of Jerusalem declared that Jesus didn't use unleavened bread at the last supper...what is the reason for this? Wasn't the Last Supper during passover?

I'm astonished that people still ask this question.
Look at the time factor for the events which took place, and you will see that the Last Supper was not the Passover Meal:
1) Jesus and the disciples eat the Last Supper,
2) Jesus and the disciples crossed the Kidron Valley (John 18:1)
3) Jesus underwent the Agony in the Garden
4) Jesus was Arrested
5) Jesus was brought before Ciaphas
6) Jesus was taken from Ciaphas and brought before Pilate.
But St. John tells us that when Jesus was brought to Pilate the next morning (event No.6), the Jews who brought Him to Pilate would not enter the Praetorium, because doing so would render them unclean for the Passover:
"Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early morning. But they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, so that they might eat the Passover." (John18:28)
St. John the Beloved Disciple (who witnessed the events himself first hand) clearly says that the events listed 1-6 took place before the Passover, so leavened bread was still used.

[/quote]

[Keble]

It's so much easier to belong to a church that doesn't care!

[francis-christopher]

Gracia et Pax Vobiscum,

An interesting link: http://www.prosphora.org/page27.html

 Potential duplicate account. Muting will continue until this situation is resolved.

+Fr Chris

 

 Confirmed duplicate account.

+Fr Chris
Administrator

[HandmaidenofGod]

Gracia et Pax Vobiscum,

An interesting link: http://www.prosphora.org/page27.html

Great article! Thanks for sharing!

[ialmisry]

It's so much easier to belong to a church that doesn't care!

About anything?

[witega]

Hello,

First of all, "validity" and "invalidity" are concepts essentially foreign to Orthodoxy.  Please see my post in the thread concerning the "validity" of Roman orders. 
We (Eastern Orthodox) would certainly not say that unleavened bread would not "work" in the sense that it would not become the Body of Christ just because it was unleavened.  But we think it is wrong to use it (which I suppose could prove problematic when it comes to relations between the Eastern Orthodox and the Armenian Orthodox,as well as the Catholic Church).

It seems from this post that you do have the concepts, even if you don't use the name. Validity and invalidity refers to "working" to become the Eucharist. For instance, a Betty Crocker double fudge nut brownie would not "work", that is it could not become the Eucharist, thus we say it is invalid (or more precisely, invalid matter). The issue of it being wrong to use is what we call licitness. If it is licit that means it is right and proper to use and in accordance with the law of the Church. If it is illicit, that means that it is wrong to use, even though it will "work". 

In extremis--as happened on multiple occasions in the prison camps of last century--Orthodox can and will use unleavened bread if there is no leavened bread available. And if there were some bizarre circumstance in which fudge brownies were the only grain-related item available, Orthodox would use that and it would be as effective as the proper leavened bread. As Pravoslavbob says, it's not an issue of 'valid' vs. 'invalid'--it's simply that there's an appropriate/best practice and if that practice is not possible then one moves to what is possible.

As I'm sure RC's agree, Communion is not a magic recipe which depends on the proper ingredients; it is the power of God made manifest. It is our duty to meet that Grace as appropriately as we are able (by using the proper leavened bread in accord with the most ancient practice of the Church) but defects on our side do not 'invalidate' the activity of God in the Eucharist.

[Veniamin]

Gracia et Pax Vobiscum,

An interesting link: http://www.prosphora.org/page27.html

Please provide some sort of introduction or synopsis of the article, so that readers know what you're actually linking here.  We have a general forum policy against bare links without such an introduction.  It doesn't have to be extensive; it just has to be enough to let us know what's on the other end of the link.

[ignatius]

Gracia et Pax Vobiscum,

An interesting link: http://www.prosphora.org/page27.html

Please provide some sort of introduction or synopsis of the article, so that readers know what you're actually linking here.  We have a general forum policy against bare links without such an introduction.  It doesn't have to be extensive; it just has to be enough to let us know what's on the other end of the link.

The link is an article which addresses unleavened and leavened bread and their possible symbolisms used into our prospective traditions. Pretty neat.

 Potential duplicate account. Muting will continue until this situation is resolved.

+Fr Chris

[Pravoslavbob]

Whether it was during or before the Passover, the Jews have a tradition to remove all leavened in their house seven (7) days, before the passover, to ensure that no leaven is found. This is a part of their preparation to the passover.  so Its definitely unleavened bread.

Definitely nothing.  Please show us some reputable scholarship in which you can put a first century (or earlier) date on this practice so that your argument can be considered, together with reasons why we should doubt Ialmisry's arguments concerning the time before passover.  I know that this practice exists, but I would bet that like so many practices surrounding passover, it is very late, much later than the first century in origin.

The use of unleavened bread by the latins, is also considered as a legitimate liturgical difference even by some Eastern Orthodox bishop and should not be an issue anymore.

Source?

The use of Leavened and Unleavened bread by the Oriental Orthodox is never a cause of division as it was never been a cause of division by the early church until this was explicitly done by the EO as the only legitimate form of bread.

Nonsense.

whether it was leavened or unleavened, it should not be a cause of division

Thanks so much for your opinion.  But as you can see from this thread (that is, if you have actually read any of the posts, which I tend to doubt from the content of your writing) the Orthodox think differently.

BTW, is  your future intent to actually post arguments that one can discuss and debate, or do you intend to simply continue trolling as you have up until now?

[ozgeorge]

The link is an article which addresses unleavened and leavened bread and their possible symbolisms used into our prospective traditions. Pretty neat.

Hmmmm....
Ignatius,
you who are "OCA (Diocese of the South)", why are you answering for francis-christopher who is "Roman Catholic (Diocese of Richmond)"?

[Athanasios]

Hello,

First of all, "validity" and "invalidity" are concepts essentially foreign to Orthodoxy.  Please see my post in the thread concerning the "validity" of Roman orders. 
We (Eastern Orthodox) would certainly not say that unleavened bread would not "work" in the sense that it would not become the Body of Christ just because it was unleavened.  But we think it is wrong to use it (which I suppose could prove problematic when it comes to relations between the Eastern Orthodox and the Armenian Orthodox,as well as the Catholic Church).

It seems from this post that you do have the concepts, even if you don't use the name. Validity and invalidity refers to "working" to become the Eucharist. For instance, a Betty Crocker double fudge nut brownie would not "work", that is it could not become the Eucharist, thus we say it is invalid (or more precisely, invalid matter). The issue of it being wrong to use is what we call licitness. If it is licit that means it is right and proper to use and in accordance with the law of the Church. If it is illicit, that means that it is wrong to use, even though it will "work". 

In extremis--as happened on multiple occasions in the prison camps of last century--Orthodox can and will use unleavened bread if there is no leavened bread available. And if there were some bizarre circumstance in which fudge brownies were the only grain-related item available, Orthodox would use that and it would be as effective as the proper leavened bread. As Pravoslavbob says, it's not an issue of 'valid' vs. 'invalid'--it's simply that there's an appropriate/best practice and if that practice is not possible then one moves to what is possible.

As I'm sure RC's agree, Communion is not a magic recipe which depends on the proper ingredients; it is the power of God made manifest. It is our duty to meet that Grace as appropriately as we are able (by using the proper leavened bread in accord with the most ancient practice of the Church) but defects on our side do not 'invalidate' the activity of God in the Eucharist.

Yes and no. Yes, it is the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Priest and/or Bishop, which is ministering 'in persona Christi', that transform the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

But, a brownie will not work. According to Catholic sacramental theology, a Sacrament is composed of both matter and form. For example, in Baptism the matter is water and the form is immersion or pouring while saying "I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". That bare basics of matter and form is what is known in the Catholic Church as the essential rite of the Sacrament. There is almost always 'extras' added on. In Baptism, there is anointing with the Chrism Oil after Baptism,  anointing with the Oil of the Catechumens beforehand, reception of the white garment and candle, etc.

For the Eucharist, the form is the Liturgy, particularly the Eucharistic Prayer (Anaphora) -- in the Latin Church, we emphasize the Institution Narrative. The matter is wine made only from grapes and wheat flour (whether leaven is used or not doesn't matter). While the use of leaven doesn't matter, in the Latin Church and some of the Oriental Churches, traditionally the bread to be consecrated have been unleavened bread. In the Eastern Churches and the other Oriental Churches the bread to be consecrated has traditionally been leavened bread.

This is also authoritatively addressed by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University: http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur85.HTM

[JoeS]

Actually, leavened bread has always been used in the Eastern Church. In fact, at one point in time, a great controversy raged over the fact that in the Eastern Church leavened bread was used, while in the Christian West unleavened bread was the norm.

In the Christian East there is no concern for using the exact type of bread used at the Last Supper -- known in the Orthodox Church as the "Mystical Supper." Christ "leavens" our lives, so to speak, and the purpose of the Eucharistic celebration is not to "recreate" or "reproduce" a past event but, rather, to participate in an event that is beyond time and space and which, in fact, continues to happen each time the Eucharist is celebrated in fulfillment of Our Lord's command.

Leavened bread also symbolizes the Risen Christ which is celebrated each Liturgy.

JoeS

[Keble]

In the Christian East there is no concern for using the exact type of bread used at the Last Supper -- known in the Orthodox Church as the "Mystical Supper." Christ "leavens" our lives, so to speak, and the purpose of the Eucharistic celebration is not to "recreate" or "reproduce" a past event but, rather, to participate in an event that is beyond time and space and which, in fact, continues to happen each time the Eucharist is celebrated in fulfillment of Our Lord's command.

That's why Anglicans don't care. There were some very early BCPs which specified what sort of bread should be used, but all such requirements were quickly dropped. Part of the problem with the symbolism is that scripture gives so many different possibilities for meaning of leavening and unleavened bread that picking and choosing is unavoidable. If one likes the Pascha Nostrum passage in St. Paul, for instance, then unleavened bread is the best symbol for that.

I suspect the real divergence came as a result of reservation. Leavened bread cannot be reserved very long, whereas unleavened hosts will keep indefinitely.

[Ebor]

It's so much easier to belong to a church that doesn't care!

About anything?

Sigh.  No, just about what kind of baked ground-grain products are used for the Eucharist....

But that was probably obvious 

[Entscheidungsproblem]

Thread Split:  Communing Infants in the West

-- Nebelpfade

[marlo]

I apologize if i may have been uncharitable in my words..

for my response please read this link http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=128&letter=L
also, you may want to know that The final search for leaven is made the night before the Passover, it is not the starting time to find the leaven bread. The jewish housewives already removed from the house of any leaven many days before the master of the house starts the ceremony.


I should not have raised this, as this was a personal conservation from a very reliable source. I will not discuss this further.

The use of unleavened bread by the latins, is also considered as a legitimate liturgical difference even by some Eastern Orthodox bishop and should not be an issue anymore.

It was cleared to me by some OO friends that the type of bread is not an issue with them since their theology is the same.

The use of Leavened and Unleavened bread by the Oriental Orthodox is never a cause of division as it was never been a cause of division by the early church until this was explicitly done by the EO as the only legitimate form of bread.

This was never my intention, apologies again

differently.

BTW, is  your future intent to actually post arguments that one can discuss and debate, or do you intend to simply continue trolling as you have up until now?

Whether it was during or before the Passover, the Jews have a tradition to remove all leavened in their house seven (7) days, before the passover, to ensure that no leaven is found. This is a part of their preparation to the passover.  so Its definitely unleavened bread.

Definitely nothing.  Please show us some reputable scholarship in which you can put a first century (or earlier) date on this practice so that your argument can be considered, together with reasons why we should doubt Ialmisry's arguments concerning the time before passover.  I know that this practice exists, but I would bet that like so many practices surrounding passover, it is very late, much later than the first century in origin.



Source?




Nonsense.

whether it was leavened or unleavened, it should not be a cause of division

Thanks so much for your opinion.  But as you can see from this thread (that is, if you have actually read any of the posts, which I tend to doubt from the content of your writing) the Orthodox think differently.

BTW, is  your future intent to actually post arguments that one can discuss and debate, or do you intend to simply continue trolling as you have up until now?

[Fr. George]

I suspect the real divergence came as a result of reservation. Leavened bread cannot be reserved very long, whereas unleavened hosts will keep indefinitely.

In the earlier part of your post (not quoted), you made a good point about the choices in symbolism available.

However, I'd like to note that we're able to keep our leavened hosts at least a year, thanks to the quick-drying process and cutting of the Lamb; in some Churches, the host sits in the tabernacle far longer than that (if it's not used very often, as in very small parishes or chapels).

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Why do Orthodox claim that Jesus didn't use unleavened bread at the last supper?