Communion Bread : Unleavened or Leavened - David Bercot 

Very superstitious

@calebknieper You can find it on thehistoricfaith.com under the course "True Greatness" or you can buy it on Scroll Publishing: scrollpublishing.com/products/audio-what-true-greatness-looks-like/

Thanks brother, I appreciate what you have to share.

I agree.

@TyrannicalReigner I agree that either way can provide meaningful symbolism, since in Scripture both leavened and unleavened bread are used to symbolize what is good. I've searched and have been unable to find evidence that leavened bread was required early on. Do you know of such evidence? Do you believe that Jesus and the apostles ate leavened bread at the Last Supper? If you read the early church fathers, you'll find that they believed Scripture to be perspicuous and that the doctrines of the apostles are clearly taught in Scripture. The view that Scripture is obscure is a later view, as far as I can tell. I don't think anyone on this channel has taught that it is up to us as modern individuals to discover what the Scriptures mean. On the contrary, we rely heavily on the teachings of the earliest Christians to provide a witness for how the Scriptures were interpreted in the beginning and should be interpreted today. God bless. -Lynn

@@SoundFaithChannel Certainly one could construct their own theory of symbolism for unleavened bread in the Eucharist, but the question is what was the Eucharist that was actually instituted by Christ and His Church. I can appreciate your desire for the truth, and thus coming to the conclusion that the scriptures are uncertain on the matter, but doesn't this undermine the fact that you do believe the scriptures are perpiscuous? You have to understand that the Early Church Fathers operated under the context of apostolic succession, which is not only a succession of ordained ministry but a "handing down of the faith from one generation to the next." This is absolutely, universally the witness of the early Church onward with no exception, including within the first century while the apostles were alive. So if you believe that the ECFs affirmed a perpiscuity of scripture, it is under a completely different context than that of what a protestant has. It can be demonstrated that the protestant notion of perpiscuity of scripture is completely false by the fact that protestants can agree on almost nothing outside a very low common denominator of beliefs, despite earnestly studying the scriptures. For early church evidence of leavened bread, I would point you to depictions of the Eucharistic bread in the early Church catacombs. A leavened loaf of bread is what is depicted. For more evidence, I recommend searching online for the article "the bread on the table - an ancient controversy that changed the supper" from the website stoned Campbell disciple dot com. The author conclusively proves that the early Church onward used leavened bread and it was a much later Latin development to use unleavened. All sources are cited. I encourage you to consider the overwhelming preponderance of evidence which leaves an unreasonable amount of plausible deniability that it was possible the Eucharistic bread was unleavened.

@TyrannicalReigner If the Scriptures don't tell us something, we don't assume the Scriptures are obscure. We just assume that God doesn't command one way or another. You said that since the ECFs believed in apostolic succession, the Protestant notion of the perspicuity of Scripture is incompatible with theirs. We aren't Protestants, but it's true that we don't believe the Eastern Orthodox version of apostolic succession. However, neither did the ECFs. They taught that the continuation of church leaders from a church’s apostolic origin helped indicate that a church was continuing to teach the original doctrines. And we agree! The early churches, because of their proximity to the apostles, are our best commentary on Scripture. It's true that different churches believe contradictory things today. However, in the beginning, there was widespread agreement as to what the apostolic doctrines are. We follow that widespread consensus of the early church fathers. None of the above indicates that Scripture is not perspicuous. Especially when read in context of the consistent teachings of the early church, the apostolic doctrines are very clearly taught in Scripture. The straightforward reading of Scripture is pretty much always perfectly in line with what the church taught in consensus for the first few hundred years. As far as I can tell, none of the early sources in the article you cited taught that leavened bread was required early on. I agree that leavened bread was common for the Eucharist, but I see no early argument that it *had* to be leavened. Feel free to correct me if I'm missing something. Also, do you believe that Jesus and the apostles ate leavened bread at the Last Supper? -Lynn

@@SoundFaithChannel But the very fact that you do not conclusively see whether it is leavened or unleavened bread in the scriptures makes this issue, by definition, obscure. I find your assumption, as you put it, "that God doesn't command one way or another" to be ad-hoc reasoning. The ECFs were very clear about what apostolic succession was. Here are St Clement of Rome's thoughts in the first century on the matter: "Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached; and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty: for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier” (Epistle to the Corinthians 42:4-5 [A.D. 80]). “Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. As for these, then, who were appointed by them, or who were afterwards appointed by other illustrious men with the consent of the whole Church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ without blame . . . we consider it unjust that they be removed from the ministry” (Epistle to the Corinthians 44:1-3 [A.D. 80])." Here are St. Ignatius of Antiochs thoughts in the early second century: "Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me.” (Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1 [A.D. 110]). “Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and soul, in faith and love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father, so that there may be unity in both body and spirit” (Epistle to the Magnesians 13:1-2 [A.D. 110]). “Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore-and such is your practice-that you do nothing without the bishop and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found if we live with him” (Epistle to the Trallians 2:1-3 [A.D. 110]). “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. “Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2 [A.D. 110]" Here is St. Irenaeus' thoughts in the late second century: “It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion” (Against Heresies 4:26 [A.D. 180])." As you can see, the ECFs were not only explicit that there was an ordained ministry of bishops, presbyters and deacons, but that this ordained ministry be in an ordained succession from the apostles. There is no other provision for becoming a minister whether in scripture or from the early Church. This is important because this successive, ordained ministry was the means by which Christ and the apostles chose to be the safeguard for the faith. Christ left us a Church, not a book. The book was a product of the Church, so what that Church has always believed is the means by which God preserves the faith. Now back to the bread. I think you make another false assumption that the ECFs had to be explicit in their writings that unleavened bread was not to be used. I think that is an unreasonable standard because if all early Christians believed the same regarding the Eucharistic bread, then there would have been no need to explicate this in writing. Besides, absence of evidence is not evidence. And since we do have evidence for leavened bread very early, I would say that the preponderance of evidence easily falls in favor of leavened eucharistic bread. Besides this, I will leave you from this quote from a book titled "Thinking Orthodox:" ' "What is the earliest reference to...?" But the early Church did not commit even most of its beliefs and practices to writing. Supplying written proof of these early beliefs and practices is impossible, and Orthodox Christians should not entertain any demands to defend Tradition on the basis of written documents. Such demands reveal a complete miscomprehension of the life and practice of the early Church. That is the hallmark of the western (mindset)... To assume that everything important in the early Church would have been memorialized in a written document is illogical, anachronistic, and unhistorical. Furthermore, imposing our cultural norms and expectations- which demand scientific proof and historical documentation in writing on people living in an entirely different time, place, and culture in unfair, unrealistic, and ethnocentric."