The (First) Last Supper

[St. Drogo]

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?"

There is no established tradition ruptured if our Lord anticipated the Passover meal outside the feast of Azymes, which appears to be the case.

EDIT: 14 Nisan was no earlier than Friday, April 3 (Julian), AD 33. Do you believe the Mystical Supper was on a Thursday? What year do you believe our Lord died in? The Synoptics all say our Lord broke artos—certainly, this is a generic term, but it's not as if they're unfamiliar with the specific term azymos, seeing as they mention the Mystical Supper in the context of the feast of Azymes. In light of the universal discernible tradition of all liturgies throughout the first four centuries (including the Roman rite) to use leavened bread in the re-enectment of the Mystical Supper, I think it's more likely that the Synoptics specifically chose artos to refer to leavened bread rather than azymos.

[St. Drogo]

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?

Everything our Lord did is theologically relevant. (I also don't dispute the validity of unleavened hosts.) I am concerned that the Roman liturgies lost touch at some point with their essential identity. The historical evidence suggests that the adoption of unleavened bread in the West was a concession to the Frankish fetish of convenience.

[St. Drogo]

In consequence to the late medieval (12th century) Roman adoption of unleavened bread, communion under both species became impractical. That's a major theological issue, considering our Lord's injunction "Drink ye all of this!" While the Armenians use unleavened bread (since after Chalcedon), no other liturgical tradition in the Catholic Church communicates under one kind.

[Melkite]

In consequence to the late medieval (12th century) Roman adoption of unleavened bread, communion under both species became impractical. That's a major theological issue, considering our Lord's injunction "Drink ye all of this!" While the Armenians use unleavened bread (since after Chalcedon), no other liturgical tradition in the Catholic Church communicates under one kind.

This is the main reason I prefer the Ordinariate to Tridentine mass.  I think the Ordinariate mass, while beautiful and reverent, is somewhat clunky and feels more like a Novus Ordo mass than a Tridentine one.  I think the Tridentine mass is more solemn and more beautiful than the Ordinariate mass.  But I think receiving the Eucharist in both kinds is very important since Christ instituted it that way.

I believe and accept that I receive Christ in full in receiving either the host or the chalice alone.  The practice of the laity communing with the host alone began as a way of correcting the heretical belief that was becoming popular that one must, of necessity, receive both in order to truly receive Christ.  Since that is no longer an issue, the reason for restricting communion to the host alone for the laity is no longer present.  Imo, this makes reception of the host only somewhat of an abuse, though perhaps not a serious or significant one.  It certainly isn't invalid.

[St. Drogo]

The only historically and astronomically plausible way I can think of in which our Lord would have used unleavened bread (note: Jews don't normally eat unleavened bread; indeed, to this day, one of the four questions at Passover seder is, Why on this night do we eat only unleavened bread?) is if (a) he was celebrating in the home of an Essene sectarian, and (b) it was a Tuesday, not Thursday.

[Michael Wilson]

EDIT: 14 Nisan was no earlier than Friday, April 3 (Julian), AD 33. Do you believe the Mystical Supper was on a Thursday? What year do you believe our Lord died in? The Synoptics all say our Lord broke artos—certainly, this is a generic term, but it's not as if they're unfamiliar with the specific term azymos, seeing as they mention the Mystical Supper in the context of the feast of Azymes. In light of the universal discernible tradition of all liturgies throughout the first four centuries (including the Roman rite) to use leavened bread in the re-enectment of the Mystical Supper, I think it's more likely that the Synoptics specifically chose artos to refer to leavened bread rather than azymos.

St.D.
Our Lord celebrated the Azymes on Thursday, as is clear from the Gospels.
In what year? Probably 34 A.D. Which would accord with St. Luke's chronology that Our Lord was beginning to be 30 years old when He began His public life.
St. Luke Ch. 3, 

23 And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph,

And St. Luke mentioned earlier that St. John the Baptist began his public life in the 15 year of Tiberius Caesar or 29 A.D.

1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar......the word of the Lord was made unto John, the son of Zachary, in the desert.  3 And he came into all the country about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of penance for the remission of sins;

And St. John mentions 4 Passovers in the public ministry of Our Lord. So therefore....
Re."The universal use of the leavened bread"; that Our Lord was performing the Passover ceremony, is certain; therefore He used unleavened bread in order to accomplish this ceremony; the rest is just guess work.

[Michael Wilson]

The only historically and astronomically plausible way I can think of in which our Lord would have used unleavened bread (note: Jews don't normally eat unleavened bread; indeed, to this day, one of the four questions at Passover seder is, Why on this night do we eat only unleavened bread?) is if (a) he was celebrating in the home of an Essene sectarian, and (b) it was a Tuesday, not Thursday.

Again, Our Lord was accomplishing the Passover ritual symbolically as He himself had prescribed to Moses; He was to accomplish what this ceremony signified the next day on Mt. Calvary, as He was "the living bread from Heaven".

[St. Drogo]

The only historically and astronomically plausible way I can think of in which our Lord would have used unleavened bread (note: Jews don't normally eat unleavened bread; indeed, to this day, one of the four questions at Passover seder is, Why on this night do we eat only unleavened bread?) is if (a) he was celebrating in the home of an Essene sectarian, and (b) it was a Tuesday, not Thursday.

Again, Our Lord was accomplishing the Passover ritual symbolically as He himself had prescribed to Moses; He was to accomplish what this ceremony signified the next day on Mt. Calvary, as He was "the living bread from Heaven".

Precisely, which is why it was most fitting for him to use leavened bread, which is "living." The feast of azymes commemorates exile and captivity.

[St. Drogo]

EDIT: 14 Nisan was no earlier than Friday, April 3 (Julian), AD 33. Do you believe the Mystical Supper was on a Thursday? What year do you believe our Lord died in? The Synoptics all say our Lord broke artos—certainly, this is a generic term, but it's not as if they're unfamiliar with the specific term azymos, seeing as they mention the Mystical Supper in the context of the feast of Azymes. In light of the universal discernible tradition of all liturgies throughout the first four centuries (including the Roman rite) to use leavened bread in the re-enectment of the Mystical Supper, I think it's more likely that the Synoptics specifically chose artos to refer to leavened bread rather than azymos.

St.D.
Our Lord celebrated the Azymes on Thursday, as is clear from the Gospels.
In what year? Probably 34 A.D. Which would accord with St. Luke's chronology that Our Lord was beginning to be 30 years old when He began His public life.
St. Luke Ch. 3, 

23 And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph,

And St. Luke mentioned earlier that St. John the Baptist began his public life in the 15 year of Tiberius Caesar or 29 A.D.

1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar......the word of the Lord was made unto John, the son of Zachary, in the desert.  3 And he came into all the country about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of penance for the remission of sins;

And St. John mentions 4 Passovers in the public ministry of Our Lord. So therefore....
Re."The universal use of the leavened bread"; that Our Lord was performing the Passover ceremony, is certain; therefore He used unleavened bread in order to accomplish this ceremony; the rest is just guess work.

So you contend our Lord ministered for four full years, not three, and that there was exceptionally bad weather on the Wednesday that was 14 Nisan in AD 34, and that the significance of Passover is not the sacrificial lamb but rather the amalgamated penitential commemoration of Israel's flight from captivity, and that the whole Church completely forgot what kind of bread our Lord used at the Mystical Supper for several centuries?

EDIT: Four Passovers means three years, not four. Of course he was performing the Passover, but he wasn't doing so during the amalgamated feast of azymes. Rather, he died exactly when the passover lamb should have been sacrificed, 3:00 p.m. April 3, AD 33. Our Lord beginning his public ministry in his thirtieth year means he was 29, in our parlance. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-by-one_error

[Melkite]

Our Lord celebrated the Azymes on Thursday, as is clear from the Gospels.
In what year? Probably 34 A.D. Which would accord with St. Luke's chronology that Our Lord was beginning to be 30 years old when He began His public life.

This raises an interesting question for me.  I wasn't aware that leavened bread was used unanimously for the first four centuries.  So, let's assume for the sake of argument that Jesus used unleavened bread for the Eucharist.  What would explain everyone using leavened bread instead?

[Michael Wilson]

This raises an interesting question for me.  I wasn't aware that leavened bread was used unanimously for the first four centuries.  So, let's assume for the sake of argument that Jesus used unleavened bread for the Eucharist.  What would explain everyone using leavened bread instead?

Our Lord also consecrated leavened bread at Emmaus; and leavened bread is the most common form of bread. But again, leaven doesn't add any substance to what makes bread what it is i.e. Milled wheat mixed with water and salt and baked. I just don't see the importance of the use of one or the other in regards to the validity of the sacrament.

[Michael Wilson]

Precisely, which is why it was most fitting for him to use leavened bread, which is "living." The feast of azymes commemorates exile and captivity.

No, until the Passion and death of Our Lord, mankind was in the "captivity of Egypt".

[Michael Wilson]

St. Drogo,
On the year 33 A.D. You are probably correct I went back and did the numbers and it works out to 33.
On the use of leavened bread at the Passover ceremony; highly unlikely and as another poster pointed out, every time that Our Lord would break with Jewish law or custom, it was mentioned in the Gospels; there does not appear to be any reason for Our Lord not to use unleavened bread, as He specifically mentioned that He was going to celebrate "the Pasch"
[Matthew 26:2]

You know that after two days shall be the pasch, and the son of man shall be delivered up to be crucified:

[Matthew 26:17]

And on the first day of the Azymes, the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pasch?

[Matthew 26:18]

But Jesus said: Go ye into the city to a certain man, and say to him: the master saith, My time is near at hand, with thee I make the pasch with my disciples.

[Matthew 26:19]

And the disciples did as Jesus appointed to them, and they prepared the pasch.

[Mark 14:12]

Now on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the pasch, the disciples say to him: Whither wilt thou that we go, and prepare for thee to eat the pasch?

In all the Gospels it states that Our Lord was to celebrate "Pasch" also it specifically mentions that it was on "the first day of the unleavened bread"; so if Our Lord was observing the Pasch and it was the first day of the "unleavened" bread, then logically He used unleavened bread to consecrate His Body and Blood.
Even if you could provide some proof that Our Lord used leavened bread in the celebration of the Last Supper, this still would not be any proof that unleavened bread is invalid matter in the sacrament. The whole argument doesn't have any basis in sacramental theology.

[KreKre]

But again, leaven doesn't add any substance to what makes bread what it is i.e. Milled wheat mixed with water and salt and baked.

Not to be nitpicky, but commonly used hosts do not contain any salt. It's just white flour and water, mixed in a fairly loose batter and baked in special tongs that imprint various designs on it (cross, chi-rho, iota-eta-sigma). When cooled, the large sheet is cut into individual hosts.

But I agree, none of that changes the the actual substance of bread. Although archbishop Lefebvre did criticize (and rightfully so) the practice in some Novus Ordo parishes where other forms of bread were used, like cookies with sugar, as this lacks dignity that the Body of our Lord deserves (which is pure, holy and spotless).

[St. Drogo]

It should be noted, contrary to misinformation online, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church does not use true azymes for its liturgy on Holy Thursday. In his translation of the Anaphora of St. Epiphanius, appointed for the liturgical celebration of Holy Thursday, Fr. Marcos Daoud comments on the verse beginning "he took into his hands the unleavened bread of wheat": "This is the literal translation, but it refers to the ordinary bread which is lightly leavened and baked on the same day unlike the native bread (injerra) of Ethiopia which is left to be leavened for two or three days." In the scant catechetical material available in English, it appears to be the stance of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church that Our Lord used leavened bread in the celebration of the Mystical Supper. See, e.g., http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/dogma/sacaracommunion.html:

There are two visible signs in this sacrament: (1) the bread & wine (2) the service of mass, especially those prayers through which the Holy Ghost descends upon the bread and wine changing them into the body and blood of the Lord.
(1) The bread should be made of pure wheat, and should be leavened, because the sacrament was instituted at a time when all the Jews were using leavened bread.

A plausible explanation (I use the term loosely) of the Ethiopian custom of using lightly leavened bread and confusingly calling it "unleavened" in the Anaphora of St. Epiphanius can be found in an anonymous Amharic commentary from the twelfth century:

And the case of the unleavened bread is as follows. The Lord told them in the Torah to use unleavened bread, to say, "Regarding the law, you are yet unleavened." Thursday evening, after the Torah sacrifice, he gave them unleavened bread in the same manner they were used to. But he did not lay an ordinance for them, only he said in the Gospel of John chapter 18, number 12, "I still have many things (fol. 255r) to say to you," and said to them, "The Spirit of truth will come and guide you into all the truth."145 The Apostles defined everything after they received the Holy Spirit. They said, "Let not the bread be sour or unleavened." They said, "Let it be new medium unleavened." The proof of this is (what) Saint Paul said in the First Corinthians, chapter 5, number 7, "Remove the old yeast so that you may be for the new dough, for you are yet unleav- ened." A new dough rises a bit, not well leavened. A bit later, he said, "Celebrate your feast, not with the old yeast, but with the yeast of sanctity."146 This statement explains that Jesus Christ is centrally a new God and new man.147 And the reason he said, "He performed a single offering for all time,"148 is (to mean) it is not (an offering) that would be changed from day to day or year to year, like that of the high priest of the Old Testament. He rather said, "It is the same single offering of Thursday evening that is offered until the Second Coming." He did not want unleavened bread.

And the reason for why they said, "It is alright if any is used," is as follows. The Westerners and the Armenians preferred to use (fol. 255v) unleavened bread, arguing, "The offering he used on Thurs- day was unleavened bread." There was a discord when the Eastern- ers said, "No; the Apostles have made a decision on (this)." For them not to say, "It should not be unleavened," it is the ordinance of the Apostles. So, they decided saying, "Any is alright." Further- more, the bread of the Easterners is a single one, because the Lord had offered them from one single bread. If this bread were unleav- ened, it would be (hard) like a rock and would not be fit to be for an offering. Therefore, it was decided on a new yeast.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324455185_An_Amharic_Study_on_the_Liturgy_and_Symbolism_of_the_Ethiopian_Church

Make of that what you will.  The same document explains the peculiar and unparalleled Ethiopian custom of using practically unfermented wine on Holy Thursday; I suppose it is technically wine, albeit very fresh—the wine is prepared very early on Holy Thursday, so some fermentation would have taken place by the time of their evening liturgy.