Author Topic: Byzantine attacks on Unleavened (Azyme) Bread and 1 Cor 5:8: Catholic response  (Read 1209 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Xavier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 192
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
In response to the Byzantine claims about unleavened or azyme bread being allegedly forbidden by divine law, St. Thomas in Against the errors of the Greeks adduced many proofs showing it was perfectly legitimate. One of them was drawn from 1 Cor 5:8. How do those who maintain that untenable position explain away this text?

1 Cor 5:8 "Therefore let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth"
« Last Edit: December 30, 2017, 04:59:05 AM by Xavier »

Offline Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • Global Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,549
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: POC, but my heart belongs to Antioch
The 9th ode of the Great Thursday Canon:
“Go”, said the Word to the disciples,
“and prepare the Passover for those whom I call to share in the Mystery:
with the unleavened bread of the word of truth prepare the Passover
in the upper room where the mind is established,
and magnify the strength of grace.


Saint Paul's words correspond to the true Paschal Supper (the Old Testament Paschal Supper was prefiguration of the New Testament one), that's Divine Liturgy. And the way how Christian should celebrate: the true and eternal Pascha, any other feast (this year I've translated a Nativity Sermon from Arabic by late metropolitan Paul Saliba, and he has used st. Paul's words against the consumptionism around Christmas), Divine Liturgy.
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

My Orthodox liturgical blog "For what eat, while you can fast" in Polish (videos featuring chants in different languages)

Offline 123abc

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
In response to the Byzantine claims about unleavened or azyme bread being allegedly forbidden by divine law, St. Thomas in Against the errors of the Greeks adduced many proofs showing it was perfectly legitimate. One of them was drawn from 1 Cor 5:8. How do those who maintain that untenable position explain away this text?

1 Cor 5:8 "Therefore let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth"

Talk about twisting the Scriptures. You don't honestly believe this passage refers to Eucharistic bread, do you?

Why not quote the previous verse for context?

1 Cor 5:7 "Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us"

It is easy to see how this verse is to be understood in light of Christ's admonition warning the apostles of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees:

Matthew 16:6 "Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."

Luke 12:1 "....Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy."

Our position is hardly 'untenable.' Quit grasping at straws.

Offline ErmyCath

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 249
Here’s what your argument sounds like to people who don’t already agree with you:

John Calvin adduced many proofs showing his theology was perfectly legitimate. Yet Roman Catholics reject his proofs. How do those who maintain that untenable position explain away his texts and proofs?

In other words, arguing from a purported authority that the target of your proselytism doesn’t accept as authoritative is unavailing. Also, when your position is the innovation, you bear the burden of proving the tenacity of the change since, prior to that change, those in your camp agreed with the unchanged state of affairs.
"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

Offline RaphaCam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,762
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Leaven is a symbol for sin, and the way I see it, St. Paul is specifically suggesting its symbolic aspect in 1 Corinthians 5:8. It's not unleavened bread because it's made without literal leaven, but rather because it's not made with the leaven of malice and wickedness. St. John Chrysostom reads this passage symbolically.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2017, 11:12:22 AM by RaphaCam »
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

Check my blog "Em Espírito e em Verdade" (in Portuguese)

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,049
No one who is serious cares about the azymes anymore. Go back to the 12th century.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,563
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Jews ate leavened bread before Passover, and in Orthodoxy, the Last Supper was on Wednesday, two days before Passover. The Passover Haggadah says that on all other nights Jews can eat leavened bread.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2017, 11:50:28 AM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,278
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
No one who is serious cares about the azymes anymore. Go back to the 12th century.

+1
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
In response to the Byzantine claims about unleavened or azyme bread being allegedly forbidden by divine law, St. Thomas in Against the errors of the Greeks adduced many proofs showing it was perfectly legitimate. One of them was drawn from 1 Cor 5:8. How do those who maintain that untenable position explain away this text?

1 Cor 5:8 "Therefore let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth"

Saint John Chrysostom:

"For our Passover also has been sacrificed for us, even Christ; wherefore let us keep the feast: not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." So also Christ called His doctrine Leaven. And further he himself dwells upon the metaphor, reminding them of an ancient history, and of the Passover and unleavened bread, and of their blessings both then and now, and their punishments and their plagues."

"However, not on this account only does he remind them of the "unleavened bread," but also to point out the affinity of the Old Testament with the New; and to point out also that it was impossible, after the "unleavened bread," again to enter into Egypt; but if any one chose to return, he would suffer the same things as did they. For those things were a shadow of these; however obstinate the Jew may be."
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
No one who is serious cares about the azymes anymore. Go back to the 12th century.

I think it's important - and I don't understand why the Roman Catholic Church is that stringent with unleavened bread, given that the Roman Catholic Church views bread as something "merely disciplinary" (as they do with most of the liturgy as demonstrated by Vatican II), and we have historical evidence of the West using leavened bread by Saint Peter Chrysologos saying so, Eucharistic seals found in the West - mainly Germany, as well as the testimony of several Roman Catholic scholars who admit that the West used leavened bread, why they can't just hold a council and allow Rome to use leavened bread?

And may I ask, as a neophyte, why azymes are suddenly irrelevant as an issue? What suddenly made them unimportant unlike the 12th century? Did we receive a vision of Saint Michael telling us that it's no longer important?
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 36,336
And may I ask, as a neophyte, why azymes are suddenly irrelevant as an issue? What suddenly made them unimportant unlike the 12th century? Did we receive a vision of Saint Michael telling us that it's no longer important?

Ecumenism ruins everything!

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,338
  • Faith: Finnish Orthodox
No one who is serious cares about the azymes anymore.

AFAIK all of WRO across jurisdictions use leavened bread. So it still seems important to Moscow, Damascus and Bucharest.
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,049
No one who is serious cares about the azymes anymore. Go back to the 12th century.

I think it's important - and I don't understand why the Roman Catholic Church is that stringent with unleavened bread, given that the Roman Catholic Church views bread as something "merely disciplinary" (as they do with most of the liturgy as demonstrated by Vatican II), and we have historical evidence of the West using leavened bread by Saint Peter Chrysologos saying so, Eucharistic seals found in the West - mainly Germany, as well as the testimony of several Roman Catholic scholars who admit that the West used leavened bread, why they can't just hold a council and allow Rome to use leavened bread?

And may I ask, as a neophyte, why azymes are suddenly irrelevant as an issue? What suddenly made them unimportant unlike the 12th century? Did we receive a vision of Saint Michael telling us that it's no longer important?

The use of unleavened bread dates back to some time before the 8th century in the Latin West. And the first arguments that we know of in detail against the azymes arose in the eleventh century. There were perhaps arguments against the practice earlier during the seventh century in the Greek East because we have recorded Armenian refutations of attacks on their usage of the azymes, but we do not have the original arguments against it at that time. As for the eleventh-century arguments against the azymes, we find them first in the writings of St. Niketas Stethatos against the Armenians. These arguments were later ripped off and deployed against the Latins. His arguments are based purely upon exegesis of the Divine Liturgy, which is theologoumenon at best, and less than clear cut historical arguments. The former is roughly the idea that the use of unleavened bread betrays a misunderstanding of Christ's nature and is tantamount to monophysiticism. He also alleges Apollinarianism. Whether or not the Armenians were truly such or not, I cannot say due to lack of familiarity with the Armenian Church. However, similar suspicions of the Latin's Christology were brought up as well because of their azymes. If anyone thinks the Catholics' Christology is not the same of St. Cyril's or that of Chalcedon, then they are ridiculous. As for the historical arguments, he basically says that the Last Supper occurred before Passover. However, three of the four Gospels are quite clear that it occurred during Passover, while one says the opposite (John). The Latin usage the azymes only became an issue with the Norman conquest of Italy and Sicily, whereby the Normans forced the native Greeks to use the azymes and abandon the veneration of their local saints. To say that such an issue is representative of Latin attitudes as a whole is erroneous. The Normans forced the Anglo-Saxons to abandon many of their local practices as well, but not the azymes since they already had it. It was originally a Norman vs. Greek matter. And if anything, the Greeks were the ones who first forced it as a theological issue without any sort of firm ground whatsoever, which is not to say that the Catholics did not respond in kind with their own very stupid opinions on 1 Corinthians 5:6-8. The azymes is a liturgical difference, not a theological one.

No one who is serious cares about the azymes anymore.

AFAIK all of WRO across jurisdictions use leavened bread. So it still seems important to Moscow, Damascus and Bucharest.

If is important to the central leadership of those churches for theological reasons rather than for reasons of liturgy, of traditions, or of practical condescension towards the less intelligent, then dare I say they have more in common with the Pharisees than they would like to admit.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2017, 05:40:06 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
No one who is serious cares about the azymes anymore. Go back to the 12th century.

I think it's important - and I don't understand why the Roman Catholic Church is that stringent with unleavened bread, given that the Roman Catholic Church views bread as something "merely disciplinary" (as they do with most of the liturgy as demonstrated by Vatican II), and we have historical evidence of the West using leavened bread by Saint Peter Chrysologos saying so, Eucharistic seals found in the West - mainly Germany, as well as the testimony of several Roman Catholic scholars who admit that the West used leavened bread, why they can't just hold a council and allow Rome to use leavened bread?

And may I ask, as a neophyte, why azymes are suddenly irrelevant as an issue? What suddenly made them unimportant unlike the 12th century? Did we receive a vision of Saint Michael telling us that it's no longer important?

The use of unleavened bread dates back to some time before the 8th century in the Latin West.


I have not found any evidence - at least for me - that suggests that leavened bread was used before the late 8th century and early 9th century in the Roman Church; a time period - mind you - where the issues of the Roman Church in terms of the Filioque and Papal Supremacy under Pope Nicholas really became apparent and widespread. The only evidence I have come across appears to be Thomas Aquinas's "historical arguments" against leavened bread, which I think is clear BS considering the abundance of evidence - as I've brought up before - that Rome in its origin did, in fact, use leavened bread.

Can you show me some sources which show as proof that Rome used unleavened bread prior to the 800s?

Quote
If anyone thinks the Catholics' Christology is not the same of St. Cyril's or that of Chalcedon, then they are ridiculous.

You mean the church which claims that Christ is a mediate cause or principle of the Holy Spirit, and the church that teaches that the Holy Spirit is formed from the Divine Love between the Son and the Father? The church that teaches the Son only exists because of the interactions of the Essence?

Quote
As for the historical arguments, he basically says that the Last Supper occurred before Passover. However, three of the four Gospels are quite clear that it occurred during Passover, while one says the opposite (John).

Archbishop Averky would disagree with you, for reasons I agree with.

http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/680/-bread-eucharist/

Quote
The Latin usage the azymes only became an issue with the Norman conquest of Italy and Sicily, whereby the Normans forced the native Greeks to use the azymes and abandon the veneration of their local saints. To say that such an issue is representative of Latin attitudes as a whole is erroneous.

You should read Cardinal Humbert's excommunication of Michael Celuarius, which lists the use of leavened bread as a reason for excommunication. And the Normans received the explicit approval of the Pope.

Although that was then; since Uniatism, the Roman Catholic Church noticeably has literally no problem with leavened bread liturgically - so may I ask, what is the problem with Rome returning to leavened bread?

Quote
The azymes is a liturgical difference, not a theological one.

Quote
If is important to the central leadership of those churches for theological reasons rather than for reasons of liturgy, of traditions, or of practical condescension towards the less intelligent, then dare I say they have more in common with the Pharisees than they would like to admit.

There are so many things wrong with this statement, but I think the root of all of it is your pride which is filled with the spirit of heretics.

The implication of your second quote is that those who hold the view that it is theological in nature are Pharisees, and as such, you are condemning Patriarchs and Bishops of the Holy Church, as well as Saint Niketas Stethatos, Saint Theodosius of the Kiev Caves, and Saint Cyril Lucaris, the lattermost who specifically anathematized anybody who says that Christ used unleavened bread in the Last Supper or anybody who uses unleavened bread. It's where the famous Sigillion (whether real or forged) which received its condemnation ("Thirdly,  whoever  says  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  at  the  Mystical  Supper had unleavened bread, like the Jews, and not leavened bread, that is, bread raised by yeast, let him depart far away from us and let him be anathema, as one holding Jewish views and as bringing the doctrines of Apollinarios and of the Armenians into our Church, on which account let him be doubly anathema.")

Your same attitude and spirit is the same spirit of the heretics, who believe their opinions to be more pearl-like and crystal than what the Church has taught in contradiction to their own opinions.

And also, why Pharisees? To me, that argument is one that is not effective towards me. I would've preferred "Pius XIII" or "Nazi" or "Byzantine Supremacist" or "Sophistic right-wing neophyte" over that - I've been called that name to justify literally every modernistic argument that people brought up in my 12 years of modernistic Roman Catholic theological education.

That is,

"You are judging people's choices about abortion? You Pharisee!"
"You are saying there is no salvation outside the Church? You Pharisee!"
"You are saying liturgy should be reverent and shouldn't involve instruments? You Pharisee!"
"You are saying that manifest adulterers can't receive communion? You Pharisee!"
"You are 'judging' people based on their manifest actions? You Pharisee! Love the sinner, hate the sin!"

And here we are - you, being a modernist, using the same weak and impotent ad-hominem argument.

Who is the real Pharisee - is the one who rebels against what the Saints of the Church have specifically, theologically condemned unleavened bread, and what most of the hierarchy says about unleavened bread representative of Christ?

I should say that I am all for my mind being changed about unleavened bread being justified - but I don't find your arguments convincing, nor your weak ad-hominem attack.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2017, 11:46:14 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,049
No one who is serious cares about the azymes anymore. Go back to the 12th century.

I think it's important - and I don't understand why the Roman Catholic Church is that stringent with unleavened bread, given that the Roman Catholic Church views bread as something "merely disciplinary" (as they do with most of the liturgy as demonstrated by Vatican II), and we have historical evidence of the West using leavened bread by Saint Peter Chrysologos saying so, Eucharistic seals found in the West - mainly Germany, as well as the testimony of several Roman Catholic scholars who admit that the West used leavened bread, why they can't just hold a council and allow Rome to use leavened bread?

And may I ask, as a neophyte, why azymes are suddenly irrelevant as an issue? What suddenly made them unimportant unlike the 12th century? Did we receive a vision of Saint Michael telling us that it's no longer important?

The use of unleavened bread dates back to some time before the 8th century in the Latin West.


I have not found any evidence - at least for me - that suggests that leavened bread was used before the late 8th century and early 9th century in the Roman Church; a time period - mind you - where the issues of the Roman Church in terms of the Filioque and Papal Supremacy under Pope Nicholas really became apparent and widespread. The only evidence I have come across appears to be Thomas Aquinas's "historical arguments" against leavened bread, which I think is clear BS considering the abundance of evidence - as I've brought up before - that Rome in its origin did, in fact, use leavened bread.

Can you show me some sources which show as proof that Rome used unleavened bread prior to the 800s?

Alcuin of York references it in the eighth century as though it were long standing custom. So it clearly was established some time before him. As for the primary source reference, I cannot tell you. I am going off of Fr. Andrew Louth's Greek East and Latin West: The Church AD 681-1071. Since you, in your zeal, care so much about Orthodox credentials, see here: https://orthodoxwiki.org/Andrew_Louth

Secondly, during this period, Rome =/= the Latin West. There is plenty of diversity there. The single writing of Ratramnus of Corbie, which you allude to, in favor of papal primacy stands virtually alone aside from the arguments of Pope Nicholas.

Quote
If anyone thinks the Catholics' Christology is not the same of St. Cyril's or that of Chalcedon, then they are ridiculous.

You mean the church which claims that Christ is a mediate cause or principle of the Holy Spirit, and the church that teaches that the Holy Spirit is formed from the Divine Love between the Son and the Father? The church that teaches the Son only exists because of the interactions of the Essence?

You've confused Trinitarian theology with Christology.

Quote
As for the historical arguments, he basically says that the Last Supper occurred before Passover. However, three of the four Gospels are quite clear that it occurred during Passover, while one says the opposite (John).

Archbishop Averky would disagree with you, for reasons I agree with.

http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/680/-bread-eucharist/

Like I said, the historical arguments are far from clear cut. Again, a fact many Orthodox are willing to admit.

Quote
The Latin usage the azymes only became an issue with the Norman conquest of Italy and Sicily, whereby the Normans forced the native Greeks to use the azymes and abandon the veneration of their local saints. To say that such an issue is representative of Latin attitudes as a whole is erroneous.

You should read Cardinal Humbert's excommunication of Michael Celuarius, which lists the use of leavened bread as a reason for excommunication. And the Normans received the explicit approval of the Pope.

Although that was then; since Uniatism, the Roman Catholic Church noticeably has literally no problem with leavened bread liturgically - so may I ask, what is the problem with Rome returning to leavened bread?

Yes, as I mentioned before, Catholics quickly made theological arguments of their own in favor of the azymes. For centuries before it was but a liturgical difference. The problem with demanding that Rome "return" is that it does not pertain to doctrine or dogma. Are you seriously going to impair any hope for unity on a mere liturgical point? Did I forestall my own conversion to Orthodoxy because the Orthodox use a sweeter and weaker wine than the Catholics do for the Eucharist? No, because it is a liturgical issue, and to do so would be petty.

Quote
If is important to the central leadership of those churches for theological reasons rather than for reasons of liturgy, of traditions, or of practical condescension towards the less intelligent, then dare I say they have more in common with the Pharisees than they would like to admit.

There are so many things wrong with this statement, but I think the root of all of it is your pride which is filled with the spirit of heretics.

Pure speculation.

The implication of your second quote is that those who hold the view that it is theological in nature are Pharisees, and as such, you are condemning Patriarchs and Bishops of the Holy Church, as well as Saint Niketas Stethatos, Saint Theodosius of the Kiev Caves, and Saint Cyril Lucaris, the lattermost who specifically anathematized anybody who says that Christ used unleavened bread in the Last Supper or anybody who uses unleavened bread. It's where the famous Sigillion (whether real or forged) which received its condemnation ("Thirdly,  whoever  says  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  at  the  Mystical  Supper had unleavened bread, like the Jews, and not leavened bread, that is, bread raised by yeast, let him depart far away from us and let him be anathema, as one holding Jewish views and as bringing the doctrines of Apollinarios and of the Armenians into our Church, on which account let him be doubly anathema.")

I am not so much condemning those of the past, as much as saying that they are wrong. Those of the Church leadership today should know better than those venerable men and women of the past. Secondly, I am not obligated to strictly adhere to the Sigillion of 1583, which was passed by a local synod. Venerable, yes. Infallible, no.

Your same attitude and spirit is the same spirit of the heretics, who believe their opinions to be more pearl-like and crystal than what the Church has taught in contradiction to their own opinions.

The Church has no unified stance regarding the azymes, as the article you linked above indicates in its opening passages and in its footnotes.

And also, why Pharisees? To me, that argument is one that is not effective towards me. I would've preferred "Pius XIII" or "Nazi" or "Byzantine Supremacist" or "Sophistic right-wing neophyte" over that - I've been called that name to justify literally every modernistic argument that people brought up in my 12 years of modernistic Roman Catholic theological education.

I never called you a Pharisee. Reread my post.

That is,

"You are judging people's choices about abortion? You Pharisee!"
"You are saying there is no salvation outside the Church? You Pharisee!"
"You are saying liturgy should be reverent and shouldn't involve instruments? You Pharisee!"
"You are saying that manifest adulterers can't receive communion? You Pharisee!"
"You are 'judging' people based on their manifest actions? You Pharisee! Love the sinner, hate the sin!"

You're over-reacting and getting away from the topic.

And here we are - you, being a modernist, using the same weak and impotent ad-hominem argument.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Who is the real Pharisee - is the one who rebels against what the Saints of the Church have specifically, theologically condemned unleavened bread, and what most of the hierarchy says about unleavened bread representative of Christ?

Yawn. I've rebelled against no obligation. But by all means, continue.

I should say that I am all for my mind being changed about unleavened bread being justified - but I don't find your arguments convincing, nor your weak ad-hominem attack.

If you say so.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2017, 12:56:56 AM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
I respect the great maturity that you have showcased in your response to me; thank you! Something you don't get on the Internet often.

Although I foresee Rome returning to legitimate Orthodoxy as requiring an absolute miracle - I believe that the Donald Trump wall was built after Vatican I declared Papal Infallibility as an infallible doctrine, and even then Vatican II literally expanded the wall by 5x with the precedent that council sent (i.e., Liturgy as something that is completely disciplinary and can be abrogated or changed by anyone in an inorganic manner, and that liturgy can be something energetic, loud, and flamboyant with no distinction between the priest and the layperson; there is known, direct salvation by means of non-Catholic sects, that Muslims worship the same God as Christians, and that all things are ordered to man "as their center and their crown", as well as "ecumenism" with non-Christian or even non-Monotheistic sects).

I think the walls are closed unless the Roman Catholic Church admits they were wrong and changes some things for Orthodoxy; I don't see a 800's style reconciliation as something that would be viable, legitimate, or lasting. And I fear for Orthodoxy because - like days of old - they still have much more geopolitical influence than the Orthodox Church.

I think there is better hope "dialoguing" with people who don't have a shepherd and are much closer to Orthodoxy; like conservative Old Catholic groups, Orthodox vagante groups, schismatic conservative Anglican groups, Sedevacantist groups, SSPX - esque groups, etc. (at least, those groups that haven't succumbed to social liberalism and modernism; like those that allow female priests; especially those that broke away for these reasons).

And I think there is much greater hope with Oriental Orthodoxy - although the question of accepting the next 4 Ecumenical Councils is certainly an obstacle, although I think that it is contingent on seeing if Dyophysite Christology is acceptable to them.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2017, 01:30:29 AM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Xavier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 192
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Quote from: Dominika
Saint Paul's words correspond to the true Paschal Supper (the Old Testament Paschal Supper was prefiguration of the New Testament one), that's Divine Liturgy.

1. Of course. The true Paschal mystery is the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Does not Christ the Savior say "With desire I have desired to eat this Pasch with you?" (Luk 22:15) and "I make the Pasch with My disciples" (Mat 26:18)

In Exodus 12:8;19 etc we see God clearly commands the use of unleavened bread. So much is this the case that the passover begins with "the first day of the Azymes" (Mat 26:17) [or Unleavened Bread in other translations]. That Christ instituted the Sacrifice in leavened bread remains to be demonstrated; that He made it a divine law to celebrate with leaven, even more so.

2. ErmyCath, on the contrary, we don't claim the usage of your Church is illegitimate. Therefore, we don't need to demonstrate the Byzantine Churches need to give up leavened bread to enter Catholic communion (which we don't even claim; which St. Thomas explicitly rejects; which the praxis of Byzantine Catholic Churches shows is accepted in the universal Church, comprising Greeks and Latins alike) but IF you claim divine law requires leavened bread only (and we can see both that view and the contrary are held on this thread) THEN you need to demonstrate that. If not, we are in agreement. The sacrament can be validly confected in bread with or without leaven.

3. 123abc, this is what made the matter so serious - NewAdvent: "His [Michael Caerularius in 1054] chancellor Nicephorus burst open the Latin tabernacles, and trampled on the Holy Eucharist because it was consecrated in azyme bread." Will you deny this incident happened?

We're not interested in writing a polemic against your praxis; if we were, we could say you use bread with leaven signifying sin; only in defending our own from the polemics that were issued against it. St. Thomas even defends the Greek practice - he only counters the polemics of Caerularius, Nicephorus and Leo of Achrida with sufficiently proportionate defenses. Many in your own Church have given this issue up recognizing the strength of the facts below.

Quote
[3] Nonetheless, there is greater harmony with the purity of the mystical body, that is, the Church, of which there is also a figure in this sacrament, in the use of unleavened bread; as the Apostle has it: “Christ our pasch is sacrificed. Therefore let us feast... with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:7-8).

[4] Thus does one exclude the error of certain Greeks, who deny that this sacrament can be celebrated with unleavened bread. And this is even clearly destroyed by the Gospel’s authority, for we read in Matthew (26:17), in Mark (14:12), and in Luke (22:7) that on the first day of the unleavened bread our Lord ate the pasch with His disciples, and at that time instituted this sacrament. Now, since it was not permitted by the Law that from the first day of the unleavened bread anything leavened be found in the homes of the Jews (which is clear from Exodus 12:15), and since our Lord as long as He was in the world kept the Law, clearly He converted unleavened bread into His body and gave it to His disciples to receive. It is stupid, then, to attack in the use of the Latin Churches what our Lord observed in the very institution of this sacrament.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
I think it's important - and I don't understand why the Roman Catholic Church is that stringent with unleavened bread...
Well, not all Catholic Churches use azymes.  The Byzantine Catholic Churches use leavened bread.
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
I think it's important - and I don't understand why the Roman Catholic Church is that stringent with unleavened bread...
Well, not all Catholic Churches use azymes.  The Byzantine Catholic Churches use leavened bread.

I'm talking specifically about the "Roman Rite" of the Papal Church; I'm just saying that consider they see leavened bread - as they would put it, "licit and valid" - why wouldn't they be at least open to the idea of leavened bread for the "Roman Rite."

Although you do bring up the question of what to do with Armenian Catholics and Maronite Catholics; I think both would be far less open to the idea - specifically the former.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 02:59:45 AM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
I think it's important - and I don't understand why the Roman Catholic Church is that stringent with unleavened bread...
Well, not all Catholic Churches use azymes.  The Byzantine Catholic Churches use leavened bread.
I'm talking specifically about the "Roman Rite" of the Papal Church; I'm just saying that consider they see leavened bread - as they would put it, "licit and valid" - why wouldn't they be at least open to the idea of leavened bread for the "Roman Rite."
It is a good question, especially when leavened bread was once liturgical practice in the West too.  But I think that the fact that the Byzantine Catholics do have a "licit and valid" Eucharist, as it's typical of Rome, the question lies on "licit", not on "valid".  IOW, it's probably a matter of discipline that, in the Latin Church, the bread is azyme.
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline Xavier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 192
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Yes, the Catholic position is that both usages are licit. Now, if the Byzantine position is that divine law requires leavened bread, how do you reconcile it with the facts documented below? https://thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/ancient-use-of-unleavened-bread/

Quote
The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the legitimacy of unleavened bread,{1} but the Catholic Church does not attack the legitimacy of leavened bread. Latin Catholics follow the institution of our Lord, Who did not transgress the Law [Mt 5:17] and thus used unleavened bread at the Last Supper [Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Lk 22:7]. Archbishop St. John Chrysostom the Great says that Christ celebrated the Last Supper with unleavened bread [PG 58:754]. Such use is fitting because it conforms to the sincerity of the faithful [1 Cor 5:7] and the fact that the body of Christ was not conceived with any corruption. There are plenty of witnesses to the use of unleavened bread well before the schism of Patriarch Michael I Cerularios of Constantinople. They include Alcuin of York [PL 100:289], Bl. Archbishop Rabanus Maurus of Mainz in the early 800s [PL 107:318,324], and Origen of Alexandria [PG 13:988CD–989ABC]. Several more are included in Cardinal Hergenröther’s magnum opus on Photios, vol. 3, p. 787. Moreover, in the first century Philo the Jew testifies that Christians in Alexandria used unleavened bread in the Liturgy [On the Contemplative Life p. 19 sec. X]. Other possible witnesses include Archbishop St. Gregory I the Theologian of Constantinople [PG 35:397A] and Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome [Sermon 63:7].


Notes & References
{1} Two Epistles of Patriarch Michael I Cerularios of Constantinople to Patriarch Peter III of Antioch; Encyclical of Metropolitan Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus (1440); Council of Constantinople with Patriarchs Jeremiah II Tranos of Constantinople, Silvester of Alexandria, and Sophronios IV of Jerusalem (1583); Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs Anthimos VI of Constantinople, Hierotheos II of Alexandria, Methodios of Antioch, and Cyril II of Jerusalem to Pope Pius IX of Rome (1848); Encyclical of Patriarch Anthimos VII of Constantinople to Pope Leo XIII of Rome (1895).

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,563
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Yes, the Catholic position is that both usages are licit. Now, if the Byzantine position is that divine law requires leavened bread, how do you reconcile it with the facts documented below? https://thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/ancient-use-of-unleavened-bread/

Quote
The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the legitimacy of unleavened bread,{1} but the Catholic Church does not attack the legitimacy of leavened bread. Latin Catholics follow the institution of our Lord, Who did not transgress the Law [Mt 5:17] and thus used unleavened bread at the Last Supper [Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Lk 22:7]. Archbishop St. John Chrysostom the Great says that Christ celebrated the Last Supper with unleavened bread [PG 58:754]. Such use is fitting because it conforms to the sincerity of the faithful [1 Cor 5:7] and the fact that the body of Christ was not conceived with any corruption. There are plenty of witnesses to the use of unleavened bread well before the schism of Patriarch Michael I Cerularios of Constantinople. They include Alcuin of York [PL 100:289], Bl. Archbishop Rabanus Maurus of Mainz in the early 800s [PL 107:318,324], and Origen of Alexandria [PG 13:988CD–989ABC]. Several more are included in Cardinal Hergenröther’s magnum opus on Photios, vol. 3, p. 787. Moreover, in the first century Philo the Jew testifies that Christians in Alexandria used unleavened bread in the Liturgy [On the Contemplative Life p. 19 sec. X]. Other possible witnesses include Archbishop St. Gregory I the Theologian of Constantinople [PG 35:397A] and Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome [Sermon 63:7].

Where does Philo say in this writing that he is talking about Christians or that he is talking about the Eucharist.

He writes about both "holy" leavened and unleavened bread in that passage (Sec. X):
Quote
"And when each individual has finished his psalm, then the young men bring in the table which was mentioned a little while ago, on which was placed that most holy food, the leavened bread, with a seasoning of salt, with which hyssop is mingled, out of reverence for the sacred table, which lies thus in the holy outer temple; for on this table are placed loaves and salt without seasoning, and the bread is unleavened, and the salt unmixed with anything else, (82) for it was becoming that the simplest and purest things should be allotted to the most excellent portion of the priests, as a reward for their ministrations, and that the others should admire similar things, but should abstain from the loaves, in order that those who are the more excellent person may have the precedence."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book34.html

Nowhere do I see a specification that he is talking about Christians in particular.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 03:54:17 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,666
I, for one, beware the leaven of the pharisees.
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,813
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Yes, the Catholic position is that both usages are licit. Now, if the Byzantine position is that divine law requires leavened bread, how do you reconcile it with the facts documented below? https://thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/ancient-use-of-unleavened-bread/

Quote
The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the legitimacy of unleavened bread,{1} but the Catholic Church does not attack the legitimacy of leavened bread. Latin Catholics follow the institution of our Lord, Who did not transgress the Law [Mt 5:17] and thus used unleavened bread at the Last Supper [Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Lk 22:7]. Archbishop St. John Chrysostom the Great says that Christ celebrated the Last Supper with unleavened bread [PG 58:754]. Such use is fitting because it conforms to the sincerity of the faithful [1 Cor 5:7] and the fact that the body of Christ was not conceived with any corruption. There are plenty of witnesses to the use of unleavened bread well before the schism of Patriarch Michael I Cerularios of Constantinople. They include Alcuin of York [PL 100:289], Bl. Archbishop Rabanus Maurus of Mainz in the early 800s [PL 107:318,324], and Origen of Alexandria [PG 13:988CD–989ABC]. Several more are included in Cardinal Hergenröther’s magnum opus on Photios, vol. 3, p. 787. Moreover, in the first century Philo the Jew testifies that Christians in Alexandria used unleavened bread in the Liturgy [On the Contemplative Life p. 19 sec. X]. Other possible witnesses include Archbishop St. Gregory I the Theologian of Constantinople [PG 35:397A] and Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome [Sermon 63:7].

Where does Philo say in this writing that he is talking about Christians or that he is talking about the Eucharist.

He writes about both "holy" leavened and unleavened bread in that passage (Sec. X):
Quote
"And when each individual has finished his psalm, then the young men bring in the table which was mentioned a little while ago, on which was placed that most holy food, the leavened bread, with a seasoning of salt, with which hyssop is mingled, out of reverence for the sacred table, which lies thus in the holy outer temple; for on this table are placed loaves and salt without seasoning, and the bread is unleavened, and the salt unmixed with anything else, (82) for it was becoming that the simplest and purest things should be allotted to the most excellent portion of the priests, as a reward for their ministrations, and that the others should admire similar things, but should abstain from the loaves, in order that those who are the more excellent person may have the precedence."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book34.html

Nowhere do I see a specification that he is talking about Christians in particular.

Xavier and Co. misquoting or mischaracterizing an ancient source? It can't be!
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,563
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Yes, the Catholic position is that both usages are licit. Now, if the Byzantine position is that divine law requires leavened bread, how do you reconcile it with the facts documented below? https://thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/ancient-use-of-unleavened-bread/

Quote
The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the legitimacy of unleavened bread,{1} but the Catholic Church does not attack the legitimacy of leavened bread. Latin Catholics follow the institution of our Lord, Who did not transgress the Law [Mt 5:17] and thus used unleavened bread at the Last Supper [Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Lk 22:7]. Archbishop St. John Chrysostom the Great says that Christ celebrated the Last Supper with unleavened bread [PG 58:754]. ...

and Origen of Alexandria [PG 13:988CD–989ABC].
When I click on the link to Patrologia Graeca, it doesnt open. It says I need a password.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 36,336
You'll save yourself from a lot of headaches if you remember that not all interpretive principles used with Scripture are equally beneficial with Church history or patristics. For example, the idea that a doctrine or practice is validly demonstrated "by two or three witnesses" usually works fine with the Bible, but is less helpful with Church history. One involves a (comparatively) small collection of inspired texts, the other is a mish mash of tens of thousands of texts from all sorts of sources. It doesn't matter that you can find 5 quotes from throughout church history which say crazy thing X; you don't need to build your beliefs around X, nor let it throw you for a loop.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,563
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
I am curious about the quote by Origen that was not clearly cited.
The one by Philo turned out to be garbage - not relevant / made up relevancy.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,813
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
I am curious about the quote by Origen that was not clearly cited.
The one by Philo turned out to be garbage - not relevant / made up relevancy.

When they do not hesitate to falsely cite the Evangelists, I doubt their reverence for Origen is much higher.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Xavier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 192
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
The Evangelists, especially the Synoptics, explicitly say it was the first day of the Azymes or of Unleavened Bread. What is false about that? See Mat 26:17 for e.g. "the first day of the Azymes"

As for Philo, it is evident from the context, and the explicit identification of early Church historians like St. Eusebius, that the comtemplatives described by him were Christians. This identification was almost unanimous for 1800. Will cite St. Eusebius on this later. An Orthodox source below on Philo.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/patrology/scouteris_theraputae.htm

Quote
In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, referring first to apostolic foundations of the Church of Alexandria by St. Mark, points out that Philo's Therapeutae were the first Christian monks. He sees in their renunciation of property, in their chastity of life, in their severe fasting, in their solitary lives, in their devotion to scriptural reading and in other aspects of their ascetic life, the Christian monks.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,563
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Quote
East: Priest Origen of Alexandria
2. "According to Origen (Commentary on Matthew, XII.6 [PG 13:988CD-989ABC]) the people of the East 'sometimes,' therefore not as a rule, made use of leavened bread in their Liturgy." Pohle, Joseph. "The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 1 Aug. 2009 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm>.

OK, so now let's check Commentary on Matthew 12:6, which does talk about Leavened bread:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm
Here is what it says:
Quote
So long, then, as we have Jesus with us fulfilling the promise which runs, "Lo, I am with you always unto the consummation of the age," Matthew 28:20 we cannot fast nor be in want of food, so that, because of want of it we should desire to take and eat the forbidden leaven, even from the Pharisees and Sadducees. Now there may sometimes be a time, when He is with us, that we are without food, as is spoken of in the passage above, "They continue with me now three days and have nothing to eat;" Matthew 15:32 but, even though this should happen, being unwilling to send us away fasting lest we faint on the way, He gives thanks over the loaves which were with the disciples, and causes us to have the seven baskets over from the seven loaves, as we have recorded.

It says that since Jesus is with us we cannot be in want of food so that we would take the forbidden leaven, even from the pharisees. But there is sometimes a time when he is with us without food so he gives thanks over the loaves which were with the disciples.

It looks like tortured logic to switch this into saying that Eastern Christians "sometimes" use leavened bread.
Origen was commenting on Jesus' ban on taking the leaven of the pharisees, and saying we shouldn't take the forbidden leaven. Origen and Jesus didn't say that all leaven is forbidden, or that the Eucharist can't use leaven. He was talking about Jesus' metaphor of the pharisees' "leaven" being bad. The Catholic writer is turning this into some kind of commentary on whether the Eucharist can use leavening.

Even if this does talk about the leaven in the Eucharist, he seems to be saying that there is a time when we are in want of food, and this is when Jesus gives us loaves. If these are leavened loaves, then there seems to be no limitation about us getting leavened loaves only "sometimes".
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,563
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
The Evangelists, especially the Synoptics, explicitly say it was the first day of the Azymes or of Unleavened Bread. What is false about that? See Mat 26:17 for e.g. "the first day of the Azymes"

As for Philo, it is evident from the context, and the explicit identification of early Church historians like St. Eusebius, that the comtemplatives described by him were Christians. This identification was almost unanimous for 1800. Will cite St. Eusebius on this later. An Orthodox source below on Philo.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/patrology/scouteris_theraputae.htm

Quote
In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, referring first to apostolic foundations of the Church of Alexandria by St. Mark, points out that Philo's Therapeutae were the first Christian monks. He sees in their renunciation of property, in their chastity of life, in their severe fasting, in their solitary lives, in their devotion to scriptural reading and in other aspects of their ascetic life, the Christian monks.
Eusebius equated the two groups, but it's not clear to me that they were the same. Philo nowhere refers to Christians, Christ, or the Messiah in that chapter on the sect. Philo died in 50 AD, so I suppose Christian groups  could have started in Egypt, but it still would have been in the early stage of Christian missionizing, so it's not certain he would have been describing a Christian group. Taken at face value, he was simply describing a monotheistic ascetic group of the time.

So I would like to see more evidence that the sect in Philo was Christian.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 11:49:57 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Xavier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 192
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Well, Rakovsky, if the authority of St. Eusebius doesn't suffice, how will his arguments be refuted? St. Eusebius painstakingly shows that the practices described by Philo can only be true of the early Christians. From Ecclesiastical History, Book 2, Chapter 17 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm

Quote
3. In the work to which he gave the title, On a Contemplative Life or on Suppliants ...

7. Philo bears witness to facts very much like those here described and then adds the following account: Everywhere in the world is this race found. For it was fitting that both Greek and Barbarian should share in what is perfectly good. But the race particularly abounds in Egypt, in each of its so-called nomes, and especially about Alexandria.

8. The best men from every quarter emigrate, as if to a colony of the Therapeutæ's fatherland, to a certain very suitable spot which lies above the Lake Maria upon a low hill excellently situated on account of its security and the mildness of the atmosphere.

9. And then a little further on, after describing the kind of houses which they had, he speaks as follows concerning their churches, which were scattered about here and there: In each house there is a sacred apartment which is called a sanctuary and monastery, where, quite alone, they perform the mysteries of the religious life. They bring nothing into it, neither drink nor food, nor any of the other things which contribute to the necessities of the body, but only the laws, and the inspired oracles of the prophets, and hymns and such other things as augment and make perfect their knowledge and piety.

10. And after some other matters he says:

The whole interval, from morning to evening, is for them a time of exercise. For they read the holy Scriptures, and explain the philosophy of their fathers in an allegorical manner, regarding the written words as symbols of hidden truth which is communicated in obscure figures.

11. They have also writings of ancient men, who were the founders of their sect, and who left many monuments of the allegorical method. These they use as models, and imitate their principles.

12. These things seem to have been stated by a man who had heard them expounding their sacred writings. But it is highly probable that the works of the ancients, which he says they had, were the Gospels and the writings of the apostles, and probably some expositions of the ancient prophets, such as are contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in many others of Paul's Epistles.

13. Then again he writes as follows concerning the new psalms which they composed: So that they not only spend their time in meditation, but they also compose songs and hymns to God in every variety of metre and melody, though they divide them, of course, into measures of more than common solemnity.

14. The same book contains an account of many other things, but it seemed necessary to select those facts which exhibit the characteristics of the ecclesiastical mode of life.

15. But if any one thinks that what has been said is not peculiar to the Gospel polity, but that it can be applied to others besides those mentioned, let him be convinced by the subsequent words of the same author, in which, if he is unprejudiced, he will find undisputed testimony on this subject. Philo's words are as follows:

16. Having laid down temperance as a sort of foundation in the soul, they build upon it the other virtues. None of them may take food or drink before sunset, since they regard philosophizing as a work worthy of the light, but attention to the wants of the body as proper only in the darkness, and therefore assign the day to the former, but to the latter a small portion of the night.

17. But some, in whom a great desire for knowledge dwells, forget to take food for three days; and some are so delighted and feast so luxuriously upon wisdom, which furnishes doctrines richly and without stint, that they abstain even twice as long as this, and are accustomed, after six days, scarcely to take necessary food. These statements of Philo we regard as referring clearly and indisputably to those of our communion.

18. But if after these things any one still obstinately persists in denying the reference, let him renounce his incredulity and be convinced by yet more striking examples, which are to be found nowhere else than in the evangelical religion of the Christians.

19. For they say that there were women also with those of whom we are speaking, and that the most of them were aged virgins who had preserved their chastity, not out of necessity, as some of the priestesses among the Greeks, but rather by their own choice, through zeal and a desire for wisdom. And that in their earnest desire to live with it as their companion they paid no attention to the pleasures of the body, seeking not mortal but immortal progeny, which only the pious soul is able to bear of itself.

20. Then after a little he adds still more emphatically: They expound the Sacred Scriptures figuratively by means of allegories. For the whole law seems to these men to resemble a living organism, of which the spoken words constitute the body, while the hidden sense stored up within the words constitutes the soul. This hidden meaning has first been particularly studied by this sect, which sees, revealed as in a mirror of names, the surpassing beauties of the thoughts.

21. Why is it necessary to add to these things their meetings and the respective occupations of the men and of the women during those meetings, and the practices which are even to the present day habitually observed by us, especially such as we are accustomed to observe at the feast of the Saviour's passion, with fasting and night watching and study of the divine Word.

22. These things the above-mentioned author has related in his own work, indicating a mode of life which has been preserved to the present time by us alone, recording especially the vigils kept in connection with the great festival, and the exercises performed during those vigils, and the hymns customarily recited by us, and describing how, while one sings regularly in time, the others listen in silence, and join in chanting only the close of the hymns; and how, on the days referred to they sleep on the ground on beds of straw, and to use his own words, taste no wine at all, nor any flesh, but water is their only drink, and the reish with their bread is salt and hyssop.

23. In addition to this Philo describes the order of dignities which exists among those who carry on the services of the church, mentioning the diaconate, and the office of bishop, which takes the precedence over all the others. But whosoever desires a more accurate knowledge of these matters may get it from the history already cited.

24. But that Philo, when he wrote these things, had in view the first heralds of the Gospel and the customs handed down from the beginning by the apostles, is clear to every one.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,563
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Nowhere in Christian literature were Christians called Therapeutæ, except in identifications of Philo's group as Christian. Yet there were other pagan groups worshiping pagan gods in other regions called by the same name, Therapeutæ. And nowhere does Philo mention the Messiah or Christians specifically in relation to them.

Eusebius quotes Philo's naming of the sect's founders as "ancient men":
"They have also writings of ancient men, who were the founders of their sect, and who left many monuments of the allegorical method." And: "But it is highly probable that the works of the ancients, which he says they had, were the Gospels and the writings of the apostles, and probably some expositions of the ancient prophets, such as are contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in many others of Paul's Epistles."

The founders of Christianity and gospel writers and apostles were not "ancient" men in Philo's time but rather his contemporaries. James, Peter, and John outlived Philo, who died in c. 50 AD!

He says:
Quote
None of them may take food or drink before sunset, since they regard philosophizing as a work worthy of the light, but attention to the wants of the body as proper only in the darkness, and therefore assign the day to the former, but to the latter a small portion of the night.

17. But some, in whom a great desire for knowledge dwells, forget to take food for three days; and some are so delighted and feast so luxuriously upon wisdom, which furnishes doctrines richly and without stint, that they abstain even twice as long as this, and are accustomed, after six days, scarcely to take necessary food. These statements of Philo we regard as referring clearly and indisputably to those of our communion.
First, I haven't heard of this as a common practice among Christians, and I don't know why it would be exclusive to them and not existing among Jewish or pagan sects.

Most scholars today AFAIK don't equate the two sects.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2018, 12:00:12 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,813
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Eusebius was often inaccurate. It does seem quite unlikely Philo, a contemporary of Christ in Alexandria, could have known Christians. They were barely known there to the generation after him. That said, I do personally like the fancy that he is describing the first Christians.

But none of that helps you. Philo describes the ceremonial use of both leavened and unleavened bread. He explains the difference -- that one goes to some kind of special participants, the other to average participants -- but his explanation is arcane. He describes as well the use of salt and herbs in the same, ceremonial, fashion. This is more curious than definitive. But, again, none of this helps you. We know when Holy Orthodoxy ruled on the matter of leaven in the Blessed Gifts. I doubt anyone here is under the impression some command against unleavened bread in the Eucharist fell from our Lord's own lips. You -- as always -- erect a straw man.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Xavier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 192
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Is it divine law, or is it ecclesiastical law, then? That each Church should follow their own local discipline is our position. Western Catholic Churches use unleavened bread and Byzantine and other Eastern Catholic Churches use leavened bread. We hold both legitimate. What precisely is yours, exactly? Are both legitimate or not? Were they forbidden by Christ the Lord or not? Is it a matter of ecclesiastical precept or of divine law?

Rakovsky, we must agree to differ on that. I'll take St. Eusebius and the unanimous consent of almost 1800 years of all scholars over a minority opinion of some modern scholars. Some modern scholars don't like whatever demonstrates and manifests the divine origin of Christianity, e.g. the testimony of Flavius Josephus, or the Acts of Pilate, though St. Ambrose, St. Justin and others beside St. Eusebius document it. St. Eusebius purpose in Ecclesiastical history is mainly this - to show clearly and incontrovertibly that Jesus Christ is divine, that all His prophesies concerning Jerusalem came true, that His Apostles were holy and divinely sent, that all the sufferings of Jerusalem came about because she rejected them, that His Church is ever guided by Him etc. He doesn't exalt "secular historians" over Christian historians like some moderns do but uses Jewish and pagan historians to demonstrate the facts recorded in the Gospel history. The fact that the monks described by Philo practiced such a lofty contemplative life, that they fasted much, regularly read the Prophets, sang hymns throughout the night, gave up their property, were already found throughout the world etc accords well with what we know about the early Christians.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 05:24:12 AM by Xavier »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,563
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
I think you need to address the substance of the criticism. I wrote:

Quote
Eusebius quotes Philo's naming of the sect's founders as "ancient men":
"They have also writings of ancient men, who were the founders of their sect, and who left many monuments of the allegorical method." And: "But it is highly probable that the works of the ancients, which he says they had, were the Gospels and the writings of the apostles, and probably some expositions of the ancient prophets, such as are contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in many others of Paul's Epistles."

The founders of Christianity and gospel writers and apostles were not "ancient" men in Philo's time but rather his contemporaries. James, Peter, and John outlived Philo, who died in c. 50 AD!
I don't see how the gospels could be called ancient works of ancient men in 45 A.D.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 02:44:03 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,813
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
I think you need to address the substance of the criticism. I wrote:

Quote
Eusebius quotes Philo's naming of the sect's founders as "ancient men":
"They have also writings of ancient men, who were the founders of their sect, and who left many monuments of the allegorical method." And: "But it is highly probable that the works of the ancients, which he says they had, were the Gospels and the writings of the apostles, and probably some expositions of the ancient prophets, such as are contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in many others of Paul's Epistles."

The founders of Christianity and gospel writers and apostles were not "ancient" men in Philo's time but rather his contemporaries. James, Peter, and John outlived Philo, who died in c. 50 AD!
I don't see how the gospels could be called ancient works of ancient men in 45 A.D.

It sounds like Eusebius' "highly probable" was about as questionable as some experts' today.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 02:50:40 PM by Porter ODoran »
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,563
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
St Augustine said that there could not be people on the other side of the world, because they would be unsaved, not hearing the word. One doesn't get to just point to a saint and say we have to accept everything he says because he said so and others agreed with it. If St Augustine said that a Council held a year before was ancient or that the gospel of Matthew was written by Elijah in 6000000 BC, that would not make sense either.

We don't have a doctrine of infallibility or inerrancy of the saints.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 02:55:04 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,813
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
St Augustine said that there could not be people on the other side of the world, because they would be unsaved, not hearing the word. One doesn't get to just point to a saint and say we have to accept everything he says because he said so and others agreed with it. If St Augustine said that a Council held a year before was ancient or that the gospel of Matthew was written by Elijah in 6000000 BC, that would not make sense either.

We don't have a doctrine of infallibility or inerrancy of the saints.

Eusebius ain't no saint.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,039
  • Excelsior
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Eusebius_of_Caesarea

Nevertheless, this is interesting. Under the least strict definition that every person in Heaven is a saint, albeit maybe not with a feast on the calendar...
My only weakness is, well, never mind

He said he had a horrible house
I looked in it and learnt to shut my mouth

Come back my dream into my arms, into my arms

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,813
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Eusebius_of_Caesarea

Nevertheless, this is interesting. Under the least strict definition that every person in Heaven is a saint, albeit maybe not with a feast on the calendar...

Nowhere in the article you link does it refer to his as Saint or give his feast day in any jurisdiction. I'm not going to pretend I can't be wrong, but you aren't proving it.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 636
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
The Evangelists, especially the Synoptics, explicitly say it was the first day of the Azymes or of Unleavened Bread. What is false about that? See Mat 26:17 for e.g. "the first day of the Azymes"
In the Christian East this is very important: the Eucharistic bread is not a fast, but a feast.  That's why leavened bread is used.  Even in the West the core of this idea was preserved in that Sundays are never a day of fasting (though not so in the East).  Regardless of the laws that guide this in the Christian Churches, using leavened bread makes much more sense as a symbol of God's abundance in the Eucharist.
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline Xavier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 192
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Great. No problem with that signification. We use unleavened Bread to show that Jesus Christ is the sinless Lamb in the Holy Eucharist. We don't object to the East having a different understanding, like the one you mentioned about abundance. The question is, why the East objects to our practice.

Rakovsky, why would not the works of the Prophets which the early Christians were accustomed to read count as ancient works? Of course, St. Eusebius is not infallible, but can you find any Church Father that denies the reference? There are many early Christian works that say the Therapeutae were Christian monks "our Divine leaders have deemed them worthy of sacred appellations, some, indeed, calling them "Therapeutae," and others "Monks," http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/areopagite_14_ecclesiastical_hierarchy.htm

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,049
St Augustine said that there could not be people on the other side of the world, because they would be unsaved, not hearing the word. One doesn't get to just point to a saint and say we have to accept everything he says because he said so and others agreed with it. If St Augustine said that a Council held a year before was ancient or that the gospel of Matthew was written by Elijah in 6000000 BC, that would not make sense either.

We don't have a doctrine of infallibility or inerrancy of the saints.

Eusebius ain't no saint.

That's your big takeaway?
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An arrogant neophyte to Ortho!
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
Eusebius was often inaccurate. It does seem quite unlikely Philo, a contemporary of Christ in Alexandria, could have known Christians. They were barely known there to the generation after him. That said, I do personally like the fancy that he is describing the first Christians.

But none of that helps you. Philo describes the ceremonial use of both leavened and unleavened bread. He explains the difference -- that one goes to some kind of special participants, the other to average participants -- but his explanation is arcane. He describes as well the use of salt and herbs in the same, ceremonial, fashion. This is more curious than definitive. But, again, none of this helps you. We know when Holy Orthodoxy ruled on the matter of leaven in the Blessed Gifts. I doubt anyone here is under the impression some command against unleavened bread in the Eucharist fell from our Lord's own lips. You -- as always -- erect a straw man.

The "straw man" is probably my comments.
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!