The (First) Last Supper

[St. Drogo]

I think this is a more appropriate forum for discussion, and mea culpa for continuing (since I didn't broach) it in an in a different subforum. Basically, did our Lord use azymos (unleavened bread) or leavened bread at the (first) Last Supper? When did our Lord die? If AD 33, how do we reconcile John and the Synoptics, since 14 Nissan was April 3 and indisputably the earliest possible date, meaning the Last Supper could not have been an ordinary Passover meal?

[Michael Wilson]

Leaving the date issue aside, lets delve into the question of "why wouldn't Our Lord celebrate the Passover meal according to established Jewish tradition?"

[Melkite]

Leaving the date issue aside, lets delve into the question of "why wouldn't Our Lord celebrate the Passover meal according to established Jewish tradition?"

What is the theological significance of this question?  Jesus broke with established Jewish tradition on other occasions.  There isn't anything in the text that suggests this couldn't also have been one of those occasions.

Would this question be important if the Latin church still used leavened bread?  That is, if there weren't a need to defend the practice of using unleavened bread, is this still a question you would have?

[LausTibiChriste]

Leaving the date issue aside, lets delve into the question of "why wouldn't Our Lord celebrate the Passover meal according to established Jewish tradition?"

What is the theological significance of this question?  Jesus broke with established Jewish tradition on other occasions.  There isn't anything in the text that suggests this couldn't also have been one of those occasions.

Would this question be important if the Latin church still used leavened bread?  That is, if there weren't a need to defend the practice of using unleavened bread, is this still a question you would have?

Great question

[Michael Wilson]

What is the theological significance of this question?  Jesus broke with established Jewish tradition on other occasions.  There isn't anything in the text that suggests this couldn't also have been one of those occasions.

Would this question be important if the Latin church still used leavened bread?  That is, if there weren't a need to defend the practice of using unleavened bread, is this still a question you would have?

I believe that the shoe is on the other foot; if you want to affirm that Our Lord broke with Jewish Tradition; not the invented traditions of the Pharisies; but of the very Traditions that He commanded Moses and the Jews to keep in celebrating the Passover; then you better come up with some strong reasons.
As for defending the use of unleavened bread at Mass, we have the authority of the infallible magisterium which has approved the custom.
But the case is that the Orthodox allege that the use of unleavened bread in the Mass invalidates the sacrament, but they do not have any substantial or even rational argument to back this up, only an: "I say so".
Its a case of "swallowing a Camel (rejection of the Filioque) and straining on a gnat (no leaven in the bread!!! Oh no!!). 
The use of leaven or non-leaven does not alter the substance of the bread.
Its like alleging that only Red wine is valid matter and white is invalid or vice versa.

[KreKre]

What is the theological significance of this question?  Jesus broke with established Jewish tradition on other occasions.  There isn't anything in the text that suggests this couldn't also have been one of those occasions.

If our Lord broke with the Jewish tradition when celebrating the Passover, there would have to have been a good reason for it, and this reason would very likely be mentioned in the Gospels. Our Lord didn't break traditions on a whim, for no valid reason.

Would this question be important if the Latin church still used leavened bread?  That is, if there weren't a need to defend the practice of using unleavened bread, is this still a question you would have?

There is no need to defend this practice. Those who criticize the Church for using unleavened bread have no basis on which to form this criticism. The Church has been using unleavened bread long before the Council of Trent. Tradition alone is sufficient to justify it, not that it needs justification. The use of leavened bread in liturgy is an exception, granted to appease the other rites within the Church.

[Melkite]

The use of leavened bread in liturgy is an exception, granted to appease the other rites within the Church.

[KreKre]

I have no counter-argument to a Trump GIF. Your rhetoric is just too powerful, I am defeated.

[Melkite]

I believe that the shoe is on the other foot; if you want to affirm that Our Lord broke with Jewish Tradition; not the invented traditions of the Pharisies; but of the very Traditions that He commanded Moses and the Jews to keep in celebrating the Passover; then you better come up with some strong reasons.
As for defending the use of unleavened bread at Mass, we have the authority of the infallible magisterium which has approved the custom.
But the case is that the Orthodox allege that the use of unleavened bread in the Mass invalidates the sacrament, but they do not have any substantial or even rational argument to back this up, only an: "I say so".
Its a case of "swallowing a Camel (rejection of the Filioque) and straining on a gnat (no leaven in the bread!!! Oh no!!). 
The use of leaven or non-leaven does not alter the substance of the bread.
Its like alleging that only Red wine is valid matter and white is invalid or vice versa.

Just off the top of my head, Christ broke with the Mosaic tradition of clean and unclean foods.  He also broke with the Mosaic tradition of one's bodily emissions making them unclean.  He broke with the tradition of needing to wash before eating.

I'm not questioning the validity of using unleavened bread for the Eucharist.  I believe and profess that both leavened and unleavened bread are equally valid and acceptable matter.  My question is more about why is it theologically important to assert one or the other definitively as the type of bread Christ used, if both are valid matter for the sacrament?

Previously, I had thought St. Jerome didn't make the best possible translation when he translated artos as panem.  But perhaps he did, and his intention was catechetical.  The passage is left significantly vague as to which type of bread was used, and there are points in the text that can be used to argue for one or the other.  But by translating simply as bread, rather than translitersating the Greek word, as he did with azymos, perhaps he was saying we don't need to know which one Christ used, and any form of bread is appropriate and valid matter.

[Melkite]

I have no counter-argument to a Trump GIF. Your rhetoric is just too powerful, I am defeated.

I respectfully appreciate you humbling yourself to my superior intellect 

Hugs, brother.

[LausTibiChriste]

The use of leavened bread in liturgy is an exception, granted to appease the other rites within the Church.

If I ever wanted to kill myself I'd climb to the heights of your ignorance and jump down to your IQ

[Michael Wilson]

I'm not questioning the validity of using unleavened bread for the Eucharist.  I believe and profess that both leavened and unleavened bread are equally valid and acceptable matter.  My question is more about why is it theologically important to assert one or the other definitively as the type of bread Christ used, if both are valid matter for the sacrament?

I wasn't trying to argue this either, so why are we arguing?

[Bonaventure]

I have no counter-argument to a Trump GIF. Your rhetoric is just too powerful, I am defeated.

If only Trump pulled a Viganò and formally denounced Bergoglio and V2.

75% of this forum would follow.

[LausTibiChriste]

I'm not questioning the validity of using unleavened bread for the Eucharist.  I believe and profess that both leavened and unleavened bread are equally valid and acceptable matter.  My question is more about why is it theologically important to assert one or the other definitively as the type of bread Christ used, if both are valid matter for the sacrament?

I wasn't trying to argue this either, so why are we arguing?

Because it's the internet Michael, that's what we do.

[Melkite]

I'm not questioning the validity of using unleavened bread for the Eucharist.  I believe and profess that both leavened and unleavened bread are equally valid and acceptable matter.  My question is more about why is it theologically important to assert one or the other definitively as the type of bread Christ used, if both are valid matter for the sacrament?

I wasn't trying to argue this either, so why are we arguing?

Because it's the internet Michael, that's what we do.

Y'all remember back around 2007 or 2008 this Facebook group called "Have Religion, Will Argue"?  I think Rosarium was in it, and he recommended Fisheaters to me.  15+ years later, I'm still arguing, lol.