"Today I wanted to *BAKE* a video on leavened bread." 🤨👀🤔.......Excellent👌🏻

@JetShanghai

2 жыл бұрын

I had to rewind to make sure I heard that right.

I like to think that the Leavened Bread for us is a fulfillment of the Unleavened Bread from the OT. Anyone else agree?

@bradvincent2586

2 жыл бұрын

Can you elaborate on that idea?

@Nina_Mo2

2 жыл бұрын

Yes

@Nina_Mo2

2 жыл бұрын

@@bradvincent2586 OT sacramental symbols did not have life in them.

@Nina_Mo2

2 жыл бұрын

@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Interestingly, most Protestants still hold an OT view of sacraments i.e empty symbols and rituals.

@latinboyyy305

2 жыл бұрын

@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese can you correct your sentence please. I didn't understand it? "Was......?"

I could not agree with you more, it is not talked about nearly as much as it should. What a fantastic and very educational video David. I appreciate this video so much and I am so glad you took the time to create it. This is dismissed as a legalistic item then the symbolism and meaning that it actually brings representing Christ.

2:20 “make the bread eatable”. Thank you. 😂

Thank you for this video. I especially hate it when the monophysites use the culture copout as if culture cancels out the theology behind leavened bread

@darklord7069

2 жыл бұрын

@OrthodoxyChloroQuine that’s why using culture is an extremely bad argument because you’re making theology like it’s some ethno-cultural thing. That’s what nestorians do by arguing that the Syriac is how we understand their theology when it doesn’t change the underline meaning of what gnome is to nestorius. It’s honestly just dishonesty and not accepting the heresies behind their churches

Overall, I am enjoying this video, but yeast is not a bacteria. Yeast is a fungus.

@Cobruh_Commander

2 жыл бұрын

Cool, I knew it was a plant life form before. Thanks for the interesting fact.

@redlander55

2 жыл бұрын

@@Cobruh_Commander technically speaking, nowadays fungi are considered different from plants. They are their own category.

@Cobruh_Commander

2 жыл бұрын

@@redlander55 What separates them?

@redlander55

2 жыл бұрын

@@Cobruh_Commander I don't know. Last time I actually studied this was something like 15 years ago.

@Cobruh_Commander

2 жыл бұрын

@@redlander55 lolzers

I kind of suspect that the Latins transitioned their liturgy to missa (unleavened) at some point in the 5th century. A lot of things were going wrong in the West with the Vandals, Goths, Huns etc and the collapse of the Western Roman system. So, I could see why otherwise Orthodox priests there would consider a celebratory liturgy to be inappropriate and instead call for something penitent. Then maybe enough time passed that they forgot. I've also heard a theory that the loss of grain shipments from Africa meant that they had to start making bread with local winter wheat which would need starter to leaven, as opposed to Egyptian grain which already had natural yeast on it. So the cutting off of trade might have made unleavened a simple matter.

@jeremiasitkonen9322

11 күн бұрын

Show me one event in the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, from history where you see unleavened bread used when celebrated Divine Liturgy (Eucharist). There were none, for they used leavened. I know that the filioque heresy started to spread in Spain among the people at 6th century, but these two are different subjects to look at.

“Comment some cool stuff?” *leaves the chat*

Would love to see a video on long hair in the Orthodox clergy and 1 Corinthians 11 thanks. Good video here 👍🏻

@TheMhouk2

2 жыл бұрын

its to reflect the nazarites iirc

another great video!!

i wonder if jesus wanted us to focus so much on yeast (something poorly understood in the general population then and now) when he said to remember him and that the bread was his body.

Does anyone have the source for the St. Peter of Antioch quotes? I cannot find them online (everything shows St. Peter the Apostle) and this book David uses I also cannot find online, or any information on the author. I know this video is "dead" at the time of this comment but I figured I'd just throw out the request anyway.

‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭5:7‭-‬8‬ ‭ Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Yes. Leavened bread used at the Last Supper.

yeast is not a bacteria. yeast is fungus

Leaven symbolises sinfulness ,Christ used unleavened & at Passover unleavened bread was used ,so I go with unleavened bread .1 Corinthians 5:6-8 [6]It is not right for you to be proud! You know the saying, “A little bit of yeast makes the whole batch of dough rise.” [7]You must remove the old yeast of sin so that you will be entirely pure. Then you will be like a new batch of dough without any yeast, as indeed I know you actually are. For our Passover Festival is ready, now that Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. [8]Let us celebrate our Passover, then, not with bread having the old yeast of sin and wickedness, but with the bread that has no yeast, the bread of purity and truth.

@diegobarragan4904

2 жыл бұрын

If leaven only represents sinfulness then why does Christ compare the growth of the kingdom of Heaven with leaven?

@balukuroben7458

2 жыл бұрын

@@diegobarragan4904 Christ was showing how the Kingdom will grow from small beginnings ! Leaven in itself is not bad ,but the issue we are handling here s not a parable but a literal unleavened bread at Passover ,so there is no way it can become leavened at the Eucharist .

@diegobarragan4904

2 жыл бұрын

@@balukuroben7458 you just contradicted yourself. You said leavened bread is not bad in itself. That destroyed your argument. Leaven has more than one meaning in scriptures. This is why even in the Old Testament it was used in sacrifices and even at the holy feast of Pentecost

@balukuroben7458

2 жыл бұрын

@@diegobarragan4904 There is no contradictions, for the Passover bread is UNLEAVENED, that is the bread for the Eucharist ,there is no debate about it, that does not matter whether leavened bread has 100meanings or not, in this particular case leaven is not need ed because it symbolises sin & slavery to sin in the case of those who are saved through the Passover of Christ .NO COMP ROMISE ON THAT. Similar situation is to show you that " blood sacrifice of humans is wrong " but the blood sacrifice of Christ is acceptable to the Lord God Almighty " .

@midokhader5509

5 ай бұрын

​@@diegobarragan4904 you cannot apply same meaning on a different context.

I hate to break it to you, but yeast (leaven) is not a bacterium but a fungud. It is a unicellular fungus but it is still a fungus. You really should get this basic information right. (PS why does everyone overuse the term "bacterium" and why use the plural (bacteria) inappropriately- unless talking of different types of bacteria?)

@SILLY_BILLY_777

5 ай бұрын

My brother you are incredibly autistic and I'm all for it

1 Corinthians 5:6-8 [6]It is not right for you to be proud! You know the saying, “A little bit of yeast makes the whole batch of dough rise.” [7]You must remove the old yeast of sin so that you will be entirely pure. Then you will be like a new batch of dough without any yeast, as indeed I know you actually are. For our Passover Festival is ready, now that Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. [8]Let us celebrate our Passover, then, not with bread having the old yeast of sin and wickedness, but with the bread that has no yeast, the bread of purity and truth.

@SILLY_BILLY_777

5 ай бұрын

Matthew 16: 6-12 Mat 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. Mat 16:7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. Mat 16:8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? Mat 16:9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Mat 16:10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Mat 16:11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Mat 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

You can generate symbolism from theology, but you cannot generate theology from symbolism, i.e., say that some symbolic connections are doctrine, i.e., you cannot say that for the whole church leavened bread is ok and unleavened bread is not ok because of symbolic reasons. Each tradition is free to to generate symbolism as it wishes and this might result in different approaches. This seems to be just a difference in rite. Symbolically you can go both ways, right? Sunday is a day for celebrating the resurrection, a day of joy, so you can go for a bread which symbolizes this, i.e., leavened bread. But also the Eucharist is a commemoration of Christ's death for us, so you can go for a bread which symbolizes our powerlessness, i.e., unleavened bread. Even more so, since in the Eucharist the people eat and drink the body and blood of Christ crucified, the image is more that of death, sacrifice, not resurrection, so maybe one would actually expect the Church to go for the unleavened bread. Canon 11 of Trullo can be interpreted in different ways, I think. The same for similar canons. Also canon 11 of Trullo sounds so antisemitic. It's not a canon that can be simply and easily be brought to the table. Now, maybe there are other reasons for the Church to reject unleavened bread, but the fact that she usually talks of the symbolic argument is a bit concerning. The biblical artos argument is nice, if it is true -- though I think this is debatable. The historical argument, i.e., the Catholics changed universal Church tradition such that they switched from leavened to unleavened bread, is a much better approach than the symbolical argument, though it, too, has some flaws. Although the exclusive usage in the West of unleavened bread came close to the schism, the practice was present in some Western regions much earlier and the East had enough time to rebuke the West, but it didn't. Also, ancient practices, viewed as inspired, even symbolic ones, were changed by the Church in some places due to specific reasons, so even when symbolism seems to be set in stone by the Church, it isn't.

@TheMhouk2

2 жыл бұрын

i'm not sure a canon being perceived as anti semitic makes it less valid. Also yes there is some symbolism that is unique to different rites but there is some canonically disallowed, for example bestial or animal representations of Christ. Semiotics are not just something we play around with according to whimsy or "taste". Regardless I think the texts in leviticus lay out a pretty good pattern as to why we would use leavened bread, paired with the departure of tradition by the west as you mentioned above.

@redlander55

2 жыл бұрын

Well, I do believe leavened bread is the best option, but there aren't rock solid arguments to reject unleavened bread. And when it comes to issues dividing the Church, you need rock solid arguments to keep that issue on the table. If you are to quote a canon (or anything else) against the Roman position, it needs to be a clear statement, not something which is open to interpretation. The canons which are referenced associate unleavened bread with the customs of the Jews, but Catholics are not Jews. This is obvious. Such an argument cannot be made. Also, fear of judaization is not really reasonable in our time. Even more so, are priest telling people not to go to Jewish doctors? Or buy medicine from them? Including in Israel? If the Church teaches this today, probably it will be a laughingstock, and rightly so. This fear or hatred of Jews is the context of the canons that allegedly forbid unleavened bread. These canons are antisemitic and should better be forgotten. They come from a bygone era (when perhaps they made some sense) but today they should never be brought forth. It is logical and it is common sense to avoid them.

@redlander55

2 жыл бұрын

​@OrthodoxyChloroQuine Which are St Photios the Great's arguments exactly? I have tried to look for his critique, but could not find it :( Maybe you have a link? Rome made some mistakes concerning pushing unleavened bread to Byzantine churches (and even claiming at some point that Filioque was in the original creed) but this is in the past. They don't push unleavened bread to Byzantine churches anymore. And they did have a justification for changing to unleavened bread. Well, it looks like there is no Consensus of the Fathers here :) I found out that Rome had explicitly reiterated the canon from Trullo at some point after the Schism. So it is clear that Rome held a different interpretation of it all along, since they did not rejected it, nor did they reject unleavened bread. Probably they see the "unleavened bred of the Jews" as referring to a particular Jewish practice, which does make sense, a practice which they are not following, therefor the canon does not condemn them and neither should the Orthodox Church. God bless!

@redlander55

2 жыл бұрын

@OrthodoxyChloroQuine This is not the whole narrative. "A growing solicitude for the Blessed Sacrament and a desire to employ only the best and whites bread, along with various scriptural considerations - all favored this development" This is from a book passage which can be found by looking at the links in the description of this video. So it's not like "we suddenly decided this, we are Rome, that's it". It seems difficult to find the information you are referencing. I could not find the book you mentioned. Also, even if I managed to find it, finding info about the Eucharist might be difficult in a book about something else. I think anyone can see why this seems to be a wild goose chase. Maybe this is not your intention, but this is what it looks like. So I understand that you read something somewhere, but can't really bring it here. This is not a nice way to close the discussion. Again, maybe this is not you intention, but this is what it does. Well, the Church changed. Confession initially used to be different, for example. Now, probably there is more to it than just "Rome changed the bread". I'm just saying that change, by itself, might not be a good argument. lol You recommended me to (re)watch this video.

@redlander55

2 жыл бұрын

@OrthodoxyChloroQuine One could find examples of the Orthodox Church changing Apostolic Tradition, in general or in certain regions. And we are not talking here about the papacy or Filioque or Catholicism in general. Also, we are not talking about specific mistakes the Catholics made in the past concerning the Eucharist, which they don't presently make. So let's not digress, nor be anti-Catholic for the sake of being anti-Catholic. We are talking about leavened and unleavened bread. The Orthodox Church also has it's problems, with the situation in Ukraine. So a Catholic, too, can say something like "one only need to look at the current state of Orthodoxy to ascertain that its no-pope paradigm is clearly false and self-destructive". So this is not an argument.