A few comments below after watching that were made that I obviously don't understand as a reformed protestant.

Quote:

---

"That bread and wine is placed on the altar as a symbol of my heart; it's placed on the altar as an extension of me, of what I have to offer…"

---

I have never heard any tradition mention the idea that the bread and wine is a symbol of myself.

Quote:

---

"That drop of water (in the chalice) represents us…"

---

Kind of the same as first comment above, not familiar of interjecting myself into this sacrament like this. Is that symbolizing my sin within the cup that Christ drank?

Quote:

---

"The priest stands in the person of Christ…"
(It is Christ that baptizes, confirms, etc.)

---

So this is again, not something symbolic but Christ is actually doing these things?

We hold the ancient, Christian belief that the Eucharist is not merely symbolic but that the Eucharist is truly the physical, real body and blood of Christ that we receive on our tongues and feeds our bodies and our souls. The simple bread and wine we offer to God through the consecrated hands of our priest is miraculously and mysteriously transformed into the very body and blood of Jesus Christ Himself. It is no longer bread and wine. It is not symbolic. It becomes the very flesh of our Lord and Savior body, soul, blood, and divinity. It is real.

John chapter 6 said:

---

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."

---

I like what was said in the video about the drop of Holy water being added to the wine and the representation and meaning behind it. We are reborn through the water of Baptism and we live to conform our lives to Christ. Once the drop of water is mixed into the wine it cannot be separated. I am sure there is much to be said about this, but I'll have to dig deeper on this.

Our understanding and beliefs with respect to the Sacraments highlight a significant distinction between the Reformed, PROTESTant traditions and those with Apostolic Succession. Namely the idea of an authentic, sacerdotal priesthood passed down through the ages with an unbroken lineage to the original Apostles and ultimately the authority bestowed by Christ.

So yes, we believe that only through the validly consecrated hands of the priest does the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus. The priest is there in "persona Christi" and through him we are able to receive the bread that has come down from heaven, the flesh of Jesus, and we eat of his flesh because it is true food that we may live forever.

I truly believe that if Satan were to be able he would slowly break the Church apart through the Great schism and then onto the Reformation and American Liberal Protestantism. I feel as if he would sense victory once he deceived these new churches to forgo their traditions and lessons and eventually have them forsake the Eucharist.

too bad it was something as unimportant as the type of bread to use in communion that broke the church apart

if transubstantiation is real, then it wouldn't matter

10andBOUNCE said:

---

too bad it was something as unimportant as the type of bread to use in communion that broke the church apart

---

I noticed the winky face which means you know darn good and well that's not what that was about.

I can't defend the RCC all the time.

right, but my second point, stands true

how impotent is God if the type of bread would limit Him in becoming the actual bread and wine

that isn't what caused the great schism though

10andBOUNCE said:

---

right, but my second point, stands true

how impotent is God if the type of bread would limit Him in becoming the actual bread and wine

---

It wouldn't. It's just differences in tradition. It's not theological or soteriology it's just how some one does it.

God would be present either way.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

right, but my second point, stands true

how impotent is God if the type of bread would limit Him in becoming the actual bread and wine

---

I think if I were Protestant I would be very cautious to make light of the Eucharist even if I did not participate in it. You can't just dismiss 2000 years of the most important Christian tradition just because you decided not to the last hot minute.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

right, but my second point, stands true

how impotent is God if the type of bread would limit Him in becoming the actual bread and wine

---

It wouldn't. It's just differences in tradition. It's not theological or soteriology it's just how some one does it.

God would be present either way.

---

That's absolutely not true. Using unleavened vs. leavened bread is theological and is a substantial disagreement between east and west.

1. Do Catholics believe Christ's body is ubiquitous? It's not limited by time and space like all other bodies?

2. How is the bread and wine a sacrament? If it's truly Christ's body and blood, where is the sign?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

right, but my second point, stands true

how impotent is God if the type of bread would limit Him in becoming the actual bread and wine

---

It wouldn't. It's just differences in tradition. It's not theological or soteriology it's just how some one does it.

God would be present either way.

---

That's absolutely not true. Using unleavened vs. leavened bread is theological and is a substantial disagreement between east and west.

---

I don't think the tradition of using leavened versus unleavened bread has much to do with the study of God himself.

No more so that trying to claim that God is everywhere and therefore the study of trees is theology.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

right, but my second point, stands true

how impotent is God if the type of bread would limit Him in becoming the actual bread and wine

---

It wouldn't. It's just differences in tradition. It's not theological or soteriology it's just how some one does it.

God would be present either way.

---

That's absolutely not true. Using unleavened vs. leavened bread is theological and is a substantial disagreement between east and west.

---

I don't think the tradition of using leavened versus unleavened bread has much to do with the study of God himself.

No more so that trying to claim that God is everywhere and therefore the study of trees is theology.

---

Whether it meets your limited definition of "theology", it goes beyond differences in tradition. If that were true, it wouldn't be listed as one of the causes of the 11th century schism.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

right, but my second point, stands true

how impotent is God if the type of bread would limit Him in becoming the actual bread and wine

---

It wouldn't. It's just differences in tradition. It's not theological or soteriology it's just how some one does it.

God would be present either way.

---

That's absolutely not true. Using unleavened vs. leavened bread is theological and is a substantial disagreement between east and west.

---

I don't think the tradition of using leavened versus unleavened bread has much to do with the study of God himself.

No more so that trying to claim that God is everywhere and therefore the study of trees is theology.

---

Whether it meets your limited definition of "theology", it goes beyond differences in tradition. If that were true, it wouldn't be listed as one of the causes of the 11th century schism.

---

I didn't come up with the definition of theology dude.

Is this some kind of weird "you can't define my words" kind of thing? Words have meanings.

Why does the west use unleavened bread and the east use leavened bread? Why can't they reconcile over it today?

like much of western history and the run-up to the schism it comes back to Carolingian changes.

What was that?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

What was that?

---

The Carolingian changes come down to the Frankish dynasty that created Charlemagne.

When they exerted control/influence over the RCC and the Pope many changes were made to influence the more barbaric nature and needs of the Franks seeking legitimacy.

It's why the Orthodox say that RCC and Protestants are more alike to one another than like us. RCC has many influences that are not present in the East.

At this point y'all have spent the last 1100 years together.

So the western/Latin church used leavened bread before this?

Yes, originally east and west both used leavened bread.

What was the reasoning behind the change?

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=history+of+the+use+of+leavened+bread+in+the+west

Your link is broken or something. It's like a google search that doesn't show any results.

Bummer, guess we'll never know

I asked chatgpt why the western church changed.

1. Scriptural association with the Last Supper and Passover
The most direct reasoning came from the belief that the Last Supper was a Passover meal, at which Jews were commanded to eat unleavened bread (matzah) (Exodus 12).

• Western theologians concluded that since the Eucharist was instituted at that meal, the bread used by Christ must have been unleavened.
• This interpretation became dominant in the Latin West, while Eastern theologians (who read the chronology of the Passion week differently) did not see the Last Supper as a Passover meal and thus saw no reason to exclude leaven.

2. Symbolism of unleavened bread
Western spirituality developed a strong symbolic sense of purity, simplicity, and sinlessness in unleavened bread.

• Leaven (yeast) came to be viewed allegorically as a symbol of sin or corruption ("a little leaven leavens the whole lump," Galatians 5:9).
• Therefore, unleavened bread seemed more fitting for the spotless body of Christ.
• The East, by contrast, viewed leaven as a symbol of life and resurrection so leavened bread better expressed the risen Christ.

3. Practical and ritual evolution in the Latin rite
As the Western liturgy developed, certain ritual and practical aspects favored unleavened bread:

• Flat wafers (hosts) kept longer and were easier to handle, distribute, and store.
• The Western emphasis on the visible separation of the Host and the Elevation made the thin, white unleavened bread more suitable for veneration.
• Monastic production of standardized hosts reinforced uniformity.

4. Divergent development and later controversy
By the time of the Great Schism (1054), the difference had become a major point of contention:

• The Eastern Church accused the West of "Judaizing" by reverting to the Old Covenant symbol of unleavened bread.
• The West, in turn, charged the East with corrupting apostolic tradition.
• Both sides defended their practice as the original one.

Wait, is there more than one apostolic tradition? Who knows if one is right, unless it is written down?

I'm not sure, but this is probably the 4th or 5th tradition that I have found is not apostolic, but rather "developed" in the middle ages. Particularly the 8th and 9th centuries.

That's the time period of the Carolingian reforms.

You hold fast to what was passed down, by word or by letter.

St. Ignatius, before he was fed to the lions for Christ, said that the Eucharist is the "Medicine of immortality." Good enough for me!

Both leavened and unleavened forms of the Eucharist are found TODAY in the Catholic Church that are in communion with Rome. This is not the issue that some of you seem to want it to be.

St. Paul got it right....

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'm not sure, but this is probably the 4th or 5th tradition that I have found is not apostolic, but rather "developed" in the middle ages. Particularly the 8th and 9th centuries.

---

The entire protestant reformation is a dark ages religion. The entire thing is lunacy.

I'm not sure that your knock on the RCC for changes in tradition really prove any point for you.