Talk:Azymite

[Untitled]
This is clearly not NPOV. There are three examples just in the first paragraph: "There was, however, but little cause for bitterness on the Latin side, as the Western Church has always maintained the validity of consecration with either leavened or unleavened bread. Whether the bread which Our Lord took and blessed at the Last Supper was leavened or unleavened, is another question. Regarding the usage of the primitive Church, our knowledge is so scant, and the testimonies so apparently contradictory, that many theologians have pronounced the problem incapable of solution." This clearly from a Catholic point of view, and the Catholic church is a party to the dispute under discussion.

Removing POV tag. Edited the text to remove most flagrantly biased phrases, but did not attempt to check or alter the factual content of the material from Catholic Encyclopedia. Ideally one would add balancing material from Orthodox perspectives. --Mrhsj 10/19/2006 --

The information below deserves incorporation into the article to update and provide balance to the information used from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Catholic scholars say that the Church of Rome used leavened bread for the first 800 and more years. The change to unleavened bread took place towards the end of the first millennium.

Fr. Joseph Jungman -- in his book The Mass of the Roman Rite -- states that:

"In the West, various ordinances appeared from the ninth century on, all demanding the exclusive use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist. A growing solicitude for the Blessed Sacrament and a desire to employ only the best and whitest bread, along with various scriptural considerations -- all favored this development.

"Still, the new custom did not come into exclusive vogue until the middle of the eleventh century. Particularly in Rome it was not universally accepted till after the general infiltration of various usages from the North" [Joseph Jungman, The Mass of the Roman Rite, volume II, pages 33-34]

Fr. Jungman goes on to say that, ". . . the opinion put forward by J. Mabillon, Dissertatio de pane eucharistia, in his answer to the Jesuit J. Sirmond, Disquisitio de azymo, namely, that in the West it was always the practice to use only unleavened bread, is no longer tenable" [Jungman, The Mass of the Roman Rite, volume II, page 33]

"Now, the fact that the West changed its practice and began using unleavened bread in the 8th and 9th century -- instead of the traditional leavened bread -- is confirmed by the research of Fr. William O'Shea, who noted that along with various other innovative practices from Northern Europe, the use of unleavened bread began to infiltrate into the Roman liturgy at the end of the first millennium, because as he put it, "Another change introduced into the Roman Rite in France and Germany at the time [i.e., 8th - 9th century] was the use of unleavened bread and of thin white wafers or hosts instead of the loaves of leavened bread used hitherto" [Fr. William O'Shea, The Worship of the Church, page 128].

"Moreover, this change in Western liturgical practice was also noted by Dr. Johannes H. Emminghaus in his book, The Eucharist: Essence, Form, Celebration, because as he said: "The Eucharistic bread has been unleavened in the Latin rite since the 8th century -- that is, it is prepared simply from flour and water, without the addition of leaven or yeast. . . . in the first millennium of the Church's history, both in East and West, the bread normally used for the Eucharist was ordinary 'daily bread,' that is, leavened bread, and the Eastern Church uses it still today; for the most part, they strictly forbid the use of unleavened bread. The Latin Church, by contrast, has not considered this question very important." [Dr. Johannes H. Emminghaus, The Eucharist: Essence, Form, Celebration, page 162]

"Thus, with the foregoing information in mind, it is clear that the use of leavened bread by the Eastern Churches represents the ancient practice of the undivided Church, while the use of unleavened bread by the Western Church was an innovation introduced near the end of the first millennium."

Also: Francis Dvornik THE CRISIS OF THE ELEVENTH CENTURY Chapter 7 of “Byzantium And The Roman Primacy” After the election of Pope Leo IX (1049-1054), the nephew of Emperor Henry III, and quite favorable to reform, the Reform Movement took root also in Rome. The Pope had brought along with him to Rome some of the most zealous reformers, notably Humbert whom he named a Cardinal and Frederick of Lorraine who became Chancellor of the Roman Church. The Romans extended their activities over South Italy into the Byzantine territory where were found both Greek and Latin communities. Taking their stand on the privileges granted by the Donation of Constantine - this forged document had become one of the most “decisive arguments for the extension of papal power-the Pope tried to extend his direct influence over the whole of Italy. He also laid claim to Sicily, a territory considered to be Byzantine although occupied by the Arabs and he appointed an archbishop there. He convoked a Synod at Siponto in 1050 where a great number of decrees were voted with a view to furthering the reform. Some of these decrees were directed against Greek liturgical usages which had been established in Italy. The reforming clergy, thereupon, launched into an active campaign in all of the provinces, including Apulia, which was a Byzantine area.

The Greeks began to be disturbed. The Patriarch Michael Cerularius (1043-1058), an ambitious and haughty man, who had little love for Latins, reacted with counter measures. Since it seemed that the Latins intended to replace the Greek liturgy by the Latin rite in Italy, he gave orders that all the Latin establishments in Constantinople must adopt the Greek rite under penalty of being closed. Aiming at the Greeks in Apulia, he ordered Leo, the Archbishop of Ochrida, to compose a treatise defending the Greek rite and putting the blame on Latin usage. Leo sent his famous letter to the Latin bishop of Trani, in Byzantine territory, in which he criticized Latin practices and in particular the use of unleavened bread in the Sacrifice of the Mass. It is interesting to note that he made no mention of the Filioque.

http://www.geocities.com/ambrosius397/crisis.htm?200720#_ftnref16

Hieromonk Ambrose, 21 April 2007

Why hasn't the above information been incorporated into the article? The statement "Regarding the usage of the primitive Church, knowledge is so scant, and the testimonies so apparently contradictory, that many theologians have pronounced the problem incapable of solution," is both ludicrous and unsourced. -Cullinarn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullinarn (talk • contribs) 04:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose merging Azymes into Azymite. The former is an archaic word for matzah notable only as the origin for the latter term, and the contents of the short article seem like they would fit well in an etymology section here. — Moriwen (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. Azymes is a tiny article the bulk whereof duplicates material in this article. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)