The unleavened bread dispute

Until the middle of the eleventh century, the question of Eucharistic bread was not discussed by Latin and Greek theologians. By this time, two traditions had formed: in the Latin rite, unleavened bread was used in the sacrament of the Eucharist — unleavened bread ; in the Greek rite, the liturgy was performed on yeast bread. There are absolutely no historical sources about when these two traditions became generally accepted in each of the above rites. On the composition of the Eucharistic bread, historical information is very scarce. Epiphanius of Cyprus in the Panarion reports that the Ebionites served on unleavened bread ^{[1] [2]} . Two compositions against unleavened bread are placed in Patrologia Graeca , one of them is signed by the name of Athanasius the Great , the other is signed by the name of John of Damascus ; both of them are spuria - fake. Since the 7th century, the Armenian Apostolic Church has served the liturgy only on unleavened bread. In 862-63, there was a church cathedral in Shirakavan , where the issue of uniting the Greek and Armenian churches was decided. Patriarch Photius sent a message to the Catholicos of Armenian Zachariah with anathematisms , which he proposed to sign; in his message, unleavened bread is not mentioned at all ^{[3] [4]} . Patriarch Photius wrote in 867 a District Epistle against Latin errors; in his message, unleavened bread is not mentioned ^[5] .

In 1053, a church confrontation began for influence in southern Italy between the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Kirularius and Pope Leo IX . Churches in southern Italy belonged to Byzantium. Mikhail Kerulariy learned that the Greek rite was supplanted by the Latin one there, and closed all the temples of the Latin rite in Constantinople. The patriarch instructs the Bulgarian archbishop Leo of Ohrid to compose a message against the Latins, in which the liturgy service on unleavened bread would be condemned; fasting on Saturday during Lent ; lack of singing "Hallelujah" during Lent; eating strangled fish . The epistle was sent to Puglia and was addressed to Bishop John of Tranius, and through it to all bishops of the Franks and "the most venerable pope." Humbert Silva-Candida wrote the composition Dialogue, in which he defended the Latin rites and condemned the Greek. In response, Nikita Stifat writes a treatise, “Anti-Dialogue,” or “The Word on Unleavened Bread, Saturday Lent, and the Priests' Marriage,” against the work of Humbert. In 1054, Humbert went to Constantinople as a legate of the Pope, visits the Studios Monastery with the emperor, a colloquium was arranged between him and Nikita, according to which the latter pleaded defeated and abandoned his treatise, which was burned in the monastery courtyard. On July 16, 1054, in the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, papal legates announced the deposition of Cyrular and his excommunication . In response to this, on July 20, the patriarch anathematized the legates. After the Great Schism, the debate about unleavened bread continued. At the Ferrara-Florentine Cathedral in 1438-1445, a decision was made according to which the true body of Christ is in unleavened bread and in leaven bread at the liturgy. After this council, Latin theologians stopped polemics on this issue. Greek hierarchs and theologians rejected the decisions of the Ferraro-Florentine Cathedral in 1453, and after that the Orthodox theologians continued the unilateral debate about unleavened bread.

In the Singilion of the Council of Constantinople in 1583 it is said:

The Catholic Council of 1620 on Catholics decided:

In the course of the polemic about unleavened bread, Orthodox theologians wrote against the Armenians as well , the Greek and Slavic Chin renounced the heresies of the Armenian and Jacobite anathemas: “He doesn’t even put dough and salt into the proskura and doesn’t pour water into the holy cup, but it’s a sin to say. may they curse ( ανάθεμα ) ^[11] . ”:.

The following historical arguments support the justification of the unleavened liturgical bread: Jesus Christ celebrated the Liturgy at the Last Supper on Holy Thursday of Holy Week . From Holy Week to Passover, in Jewish homes, the search for leavened bread ( chametz ) began, which had to be destroyed before Passover. Passover was in the year of the crucifixion of Christ, or on Great Thursday, or on Good Friday of Holy Week ^[12] . In the homes of the Jews (and Christ himself obeyed the Law of Moses ) there was no leavened bread, he had nowhere to get ^[13] , so Christ celebrated the first Eucharist on unleavened bread. For this reason, following the example of Christ, supporters of unleavened liturgical bread celebrate the liturgy on unleavened bread - on unleavened bread.

Supporters of leavened liturgical bread believed that Passover was on Friday (and not Thursday), which means that there was still leavened bread in the homes of the Jews, and Christ performed the liturgy on leavened bread.

Supporters of leavened liturgical bread made the following symbolic arguments: only leavened bread is the perfect Eucharistic bread, it contains all the components - flour as a body, leaven as a soul, salt as a mind, water as a spirit and life. Therefore, leavened bread is alive, it warms and revitalizes the soul of the communion; and the unleavened bread is lifeless, dead, the communion of unleavened bread is communed with dead bread and will not have life after communion in itself; they are like dogs that eat carrion .

Some supporters of this tradition see the argument for the justification of kvass liturgical bread in the Greek text of the Gospels, which describes the establishment of the Eucharist by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper . The Greek word ἄρτος , literally “ bread ” used by the evangelists, is interpreted by them in the sense of leavened bread and it is indicated that unleavened bread in the Bible is indicated by the word ἄζυμος , literally - “unleavened”. Thus, the idea is affirmed that kvass bread is ordered by God Himself, and that the use of unleavened bread is “apostasy”.

The Bible testifies that for the ancient Greeks "artos" was a neutral concept and did not speak about the composition of bread. So in the Septuagint , in the book Exodus “artos”, in combination with “azimos” and without such a combination, it is mentioned precisely as unleavened bread prepared for a religious ceremony:

In the text of the Lord’s Prayer in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke : “ τὸν ἄρτον , ἡμἡν ​​τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμἡν ​​σήμερον ” - “give us our daily bread for every day,” the word “ ἄρτον ” means one "Bread", without specifying its composition.

• Azimites
• Debate of Panagiot with Azimite
• The split of the Christian church (1054)

• M.P. Cheltsov Polemic between Greeks and Latins on the issue of unleavened bread in the 9-12th centuries. St. Petersburg, - 1879. - 405 s.
• A.V. Barmin. Controversy and schism. The history of Greek-Latin disputes of the 9th-12th centuries. M .: Institute of Philosophy, Theology and History of St. Thomas, 2006 .-- 651 p. - (Bibliotheca Ignatiana. Theology. Spirituality. Science). ISBN 5-94242-025-4
• Leaven bread and unleavened bread: to the question of the theological meaning of the Schism of 1054 John H. Erickson (Chapter from the book: John H. Erickson, The Challenge of Our Past: Studies in Orthodox Canon Law and Church History, Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1991. Translation from English by Yulia Zubkova specifically for “Orthodoxy in Ukraine.)
• G.I. Benevich. The controversy about unleavened bread under the patriarch Michael Kirularia
• M. A. Busygina. The dogmatic content of the polemic about unleavened bread in the XI century , →