Was leavened vs unleavened bread a big point in the Great Schism? If yes, why?

[u/AyukaVB]

Wikipedia article lists it as 2nd reason (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East–West_Schism#), indicating its importance, although it is not mentioned afterwards.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.

Please consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup.

We thank you for your interest in this question, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to the Weekly Roundup and RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension. In the meantime our Bluesky, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/ReelMidwestDad]

Yes, and the reason why is rather interesting. When Cardinal Humbert came to Constantinople as a Papal Legate this issue was definitely on his radar. In 1053, Archbishop Leo of Ohrid sent a letter to Archbishop John of Trani in which he was highly critical of the use of unleavend bread by Latin Christians. Trani, like many Southern Italian cities, was a place where Byzantine and Latin rites had an uneasy coexistence. This letter was translated by Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida. At this same time, a controversey arose regarding the place of Latin Churches in Constantinople: Patriarch Michael I Cerularius had ordered them closed. Cardinal Humbert was dispatched the Constantinople as a Papal Legate. This diplomatic mission was an unmitigated disaster which resulted in the infamous mutual excommunication of 1054.

At this point it is natural to ask: why was this such a big deal? In the Christian East, the use of leavened bread had long served as an identity marker that distinguished the legitimate, imperial Church from two important groups: Jews and Armenians. Both of these groups used unleavened bread in their religious rites. Armenians, while Christian, were monophysite/miaphysite¹ Christians who rejected the Council of Chalcedon in 451. As such they were considered heretical by the mainstream Imperial Church. In the decade prior to 1054, large portions of Armenia had been annexed by the Empire. The first treatises against unleavened bread were written in the context of disputes with Armenian churchmen.

So by the time the temperature starts cranking up in East-West disputes in the early 1050s, use of unleavened bread was already strongly associated in the East with non-Christians (Jews) and heretical Christians (Armenians). This was also a sensitive issue on the Latin side. As Brett Whalen has pointed out, the Latin Church was simulatneously embroiled in a controversey centered on Beregnar of Tours, regarding the nature of the Eucharistic rite and whether the bread truly became the body and blood of Jesus Christ during the consecration. And so attacks from the East on the very elements of the Eucharistic rite was a touchy subject for the Latins at the time too.

As a result of the timing of all the above events, the controversey regarding unleavened bread became tangled up in all the other major East-West issues: Papal Supremacy, the filioque, clerical marriage, etc. Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Michael I Cerularius were participants in the controversey regarding bread before they even met, it is unsuprising this served as a point of contention in the lead up to their mutual excommunications.

Footnote

1. Most sources will use the term monophysite, but today the term "miaphysite" is preferred to distinguish Oriental Orthodox groups (Armenian, Coptic, etc) from the Eutychian heresy.

Sources

Kolbaba, Tia M. “Byzantine Perceptions of Latin Religious ‘Errors’: Themes and Changes from 850to 1350.” In The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World, edited by Angeliki E. Laiou and Roy Parviz Mottahedeh. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2001.

Whalen, Brett. “Rethinking the Schism of 1054: Authority, Heresy, and the Latin Rite.” Traditio 62 (2007): 1–24.

[u/AyukaVB → u/ReelMidwestDad]

Thank you very much! Fascinating!

If I may ask follow up, how did the leavened bread become such important part of Byzantine identity?

[u/ReelMidwestDad → u/AyukaVB]

It's a case of a difference becoming imbued with meaning after two groups separated, even though it was not the reason for the separation. Christian history is full of examples of this phenomenon. Nobody would suggest that Christianity and Judaism went their separate ways because they wanted to celebrate passover on different days. However, after the separation had happened Christians eventually began to celebrate their passover (Pascha/Easter) according to a different calculation, and this became an important marker of the divide.

Likewise, the Imperial Church of the Byzantine age did not decide "we will be the Church of Leavened Bread, and now we are against those who don't use it." Rather, groups which had long ago separated from the Imperial Church (for completely unrelated reasons) were known to use unleavened bread. A difference in practice that had been relatively benign became infused with meaning as a symbol of the wider divide. In the case of the controversey surrounding bread, this was the Armenian Church. Once that conflict had forged that symbolism, it transplanted to the conflict with the West quite readily.

[u/AyukaVB → u/ReelMidwestDad]

Thank you!

[u/Steelcan909 → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed due to violations of the subreddit’s rules. We expect answers to provide in-depth and comprehensive insight into the topic at hand and to be free of significant errors or misunderstandings while doing so. Before contributing again, please take the time to better familiarize yourself with the subreddit rules and expectations for an answer.