Is the physical breaking of bread necessary?

Status
Not open for further replies.
timfost

timfost

Puritan Board Senior
I haven't thought about the physical breaking of bread in the Lord's Supper. I've been at churches that have physically broken it and others that had pre-cut portions. I was reading Ursinus's exposition on Heidelberg 77, which says:

Christ then broke the bread not merely for the purpose of distributing it, but also to signify thereby, 1. The greatness of his sufferings, and the separation of his soul from his body. 2. The communion of many with his own body, and the bond of their union, and mutual love. “The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ; for we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.”(1 Cor. 10:16.) The breaking of the bread is, therefore, a necessary ceremony both on account of its signification, and for the confirmation of our faith, and is to be retained in the celebration of the Supper: 1. Because of the command of Christ, Do this. 2. Because of the authority and example of the church in the times of the Apostles, which in view of this circumstance, termed the whole transaction, the breaking of bread. 3. For our comfort, that we may know that the body of Christ was broken for us, as certainly as we see the bread broken. 4. That the doctrine of transubstantiation and consubstantiation may be rejected, and abandoned.
Click to expand...

1. Is there a general historic consensus on this, or do some understand the breaking part as a means of distribution and not of spiritual significance?

2. What is the practice of your church?

Thanks!
 
In part four of Gillespie's Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies (which has always struck me as perhaps one of the more important parts), he discusses following Christ's example (when we do and when we don't etc.). In this instance he makes the following point which I think most take for granted that there is nothing wrong with the practice, but G says all the breaking is part of the sacramental action and there should be no carving up beforehand.
§2. The fourth position we draw from the same rule is,* that it is not indifferent for a minister to omit the breaking of the bread at the Lord’s table after the consecration and in the distribution of it, because he ought to follow the example of Christ, who, after He had blessed the bread, and when He was distributing it to them who were at table, brake it, breaking into pieces in his hands the bread he had taken,1 but had it not carved in small pieces before it was brought to the table. Hence, G. J. Vossius2 does rightly condemn those who, though they break the bread in multas minutias [into many small pieces], yet they break it not in actu sacramentali [in sacramental act]. Such a breaking as this (he says well) is not mystica [related to mystery], but coquinaria [related to cooking]. EPC (2013), 403.
*we are bound to imitate Christ, and the commendable example of His apostles, in all things wherein it is not evident they had special reasons moving them thereto, which do not concern us. p. 388.
1. Paræus in 1 Cor. 11:24. manibus comminuendo panem acceptum in partes. [Cf. Ad Corinthios priorem (1609), col. 743.]
2. De Symb. Cœnæ Dom., disp. 2, thes. 5. [Cf. Theses Theologicæ et Historicæ, 1658 ed., p. 275.]​
 
It wouldn't "invalidate" the Supper if it is missed out but it is to be desired as the proper biblical practice.

We have precut portions, but the minister breaks a piece of bread before the congregation when he gives the words of institution.

I prefer having a soft loaf which is handed round from which the communicants can break a piece off themselves rather than having little precut "croutons".

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
 
I bake flatbread for the Lord's table one piece of which remains whole and is broken during the service. The rest I break into portions prior to the service. I'm told we have at least one session member opposed to a common loaf for health reasons.

I have wondered if Jesus was invoking the provision of the head of household -- the custom in ancient Hebrew households for the patriarch to break the bread to distribute to his sons and then out to the families? Not having seen the connection made in scripture, I do not want to make a leap. In some ways it would strengthen the concept of entering the service with unbroken bread. Of course, I defer to my elders on this.
 
Common loaf seems to me preferable-- if possible. The same goes for common cup. I think "health reasons" (unless serious-- like a contagious disease that could seriously hurt others) is silly. Many Christians throughout history and even today practice such and are sick no more than anyone else. Actually, it could actually be good for your health, as exposing yourself to more germs/contagions creates a tolerance.
 
Is it good/necessary/Biblical for the wine to be poured out into the chalice(s) before the congregation or is this just going beyond Scripture?

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
 
You mean as a sacramental action? I've never seen this done. It's not part of the original Westminster Directory. On what basis was it added; and what's the history of it?
 
timfost said:
What is the practice of your church?
Click to expand...

We try to follow Christ's institution as closely as possible, as such,

1. We use actual bread and actual wine.
2. We sit together at a table.
3. The loaf is broken by the pastor when he says the words of institution.
4. We all drink from the same cup.

I know you didn't ask about some of these things, but I mention them to make a point: the minister should seek to imitate Christ's actions in the institution of the sacrament as closely as he can.

I certainly don't think that the supper is invalidated by having portions that are cut beforehand, but why try and modify what Christ commanded to be done?
 
Peairtach said:
Is it good/necessary/Biblical for the wine to be poured out into the chalice(s) before the congregation or is this just going beyond Scripture?
Click to expand...

Is that the way it's done in your church? It's interesting--our churches have a common tradition, but our cup is always poured before the service.

In any case, I don't remember anything in the Scriptures about pouring wine.
 
It's not done that way in our church, but I seem to remember it done in some Presbyterian church I was in. I better not say which one in case I'm wrong. The communion plate not only included two large silver chalices but a large silver jug like receptacle for the wine, from which it was poured into the chalices by one of the elders.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
 
I like pouring it out as I recite the words "This is my blood, poured out for the remission of sins." I don't think it is necessary, but it doesn't hurt the symbolism. As to the bread, Vos disagrees with the older divines on this point, and argues that the breaking of the bread is not necessary to be done in the act. I don't know whether I agree with him or not. I can see the argument of Gillespie above, and it certainly has plausibility. However, I am not convinced that such is the only possible interpretation of Jesus' words and actions. That being said, I still like to break a part of the bread while serving it.
 
It might have been done by an elder to "top up" the chalices " between tables" at one of the better attended communion services I was at?

At communion services where there is a large number of people and an actual table at the front with limited capacity, rather than communion being served in the pews, traditionally, a portion of the communicants go forward and are addressed and then there is another table which is also addressed, until everyone has partaken of the Lord's Supper.

With a table at the front their is a clearer separation in the congregation, apart from anything else.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
jwithnell said:
I bake flatbread for the Lord's table one piece of which remains whole and is broken during the service. The rest I break into portions prior to the service. I'm told we have at least one session member opposed to a common loaf for health reasons.
Click to expand...

I suppose catching something is possible. As a Roman Catholic I drank from a common cup hundreds of times and I can't say if I caught a bug from doing it or not. In any event I'm infinitely more grateful to be saved from the Transubstantiation rather than any communicable bodily disease.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your responses.

Ursinus, while promoting the physical breaking of bread, also writes that the type of bread used (unleavened) was "accidental." I'm trying to understand if the breaking was part of the sacrament or accidental as a means of distribution. Since He said "this is My body which is broken for you..." it seems that there is symbolism in breaking where the type of bread used was of lesser significance.

Thanks, Chris, for the quote.
 
Although the bread at the institution of the Supper surely must have been unleavened due to the occasion, there's no direct mention of this in any of the accounts, whereas there is mention of breaking. Assuming the Scriptures mean to draw our attention to what is important, I would think there's far more warrant for breaking than there might be for insisting on unleavened bread.

That said, I don't think we should insist that the breaking happen in front of the congregation for the sacrament to be valid. And if the bread is broken as part of the sacrament, breaking a piece or two rather than all of it ought to be sufficient to convey the message Jesus spoke.
 
1 Corinthians 10:16, "The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"
 
Sorry if this is off topic though it is a similar discussion or question. Below I found in Rutherford's Divine Right, but I have to ask, given Gillespie's rule, how is there clear warrant to add a sacramental action of pouring the wine that was not a clear action of Christ's? This was published a year after the directory for the public worship of God was published. While it may be Rutherford wrote a full year earlier, I’m not sure, and this seems to be even after the directory was discussed an passed (I've found no discussion of pouring the wine in the Minutes of the Assembly). The directory did not specify or authorize pouring the wine as a sacramental action. William Pemble makes reference to the act of pouring in Christian Directions for Receiving the Sacrament (see below). It may be that it was a practice to pour the wine but not to treat it as a sacramental action? I'm not sure how one avoids treating it as such if one assigns meaning to it.

5. We know the Tabernacle and Temple were corporall things made with hands, and that they are things different from the spiri∣tuall things that they signifie; as the sign and the thing signified; as therefore the Lord is expresse in the elements and Rites of the Supper of the Lord, because all of them, Bread, Wine, taking, eating, breaking, pouring out the Wine, drinking, are teaching and edifying signes; and our Lord never left it to the wisdom of men, to devise signes to teach themselves: so in like manner, should the Lord ex∣presly specifie all the teaching and signifying signes in the Old Te∣stament; and as Moses might devise none of his own, but was tyed to follow the patern, which the Lord himself shewed to him in the Mount: So are we now under the New Testament, tyed to the patern of that same will revealed in the Word; and it is laid on us, Not to be wise above that which was written; and it is of perpe∣tuall equity: The supream Law-giver, never left it to the wisdom of Angels, or Men, or Prophet, Apostle or Church, to serve and Worship God as they thought good: But he himself particularly prescribed the way, signes, and means: And because God hath not been pleased in the New Testament to specifie types of Christ in∣carnate, and come in the flesh already; therefore are we obliged in Conscience to believe, and practise no more, either in Doctrinals, or teaching types, or Positives of Church-Policy, then our Patern in the Mount, the Scripture hath warranted to us, to be the will of God, and in this and this only, standeth the force of the present Argument unanswered by paterns of unwritten Traditions, and not in these loose consequences, that we under the New Testament should have these types and Policy that the Church of the Iews had, which is the Doctrine of Papists and Formalists following them, not ours; for they prove their Pope and Prelat from the Ie∣wish High Priest, their Surplice, from the linnen Ephod of Jewish Priests; their Humane Holidayes, from the Iewish dayes; their kneeling to bread, from their bowing toward the Ark.Page 49-50.

*Willaim Pemble, Directions for Receiving the Sacrament, Works, p. 494. "When thou seest the Bread broken and wine powred forth, think on Christ torn and rent...."​
 
And Bannerman implies it is part of the sacramental action: "The broken bread representing the broken and crucified body, -- the wine poured out, the shed blood,--the eating and drinking of them, participation in Christ's blessings to nourish the soul and make it glad...." Church of Christ (1869) 2.133.
 
earl40 said:
Maybe this is a stupid question. Who is the "we"? Ministers or those who are served?
Click to expand...

In the context the point is to show that participating in communion is an act of communion, and with that example it will be proven that participating in an idolatrous feast is an act of idolatry. On that basis I would take it that the pronoun "we" is corporate in nature and does not specify individual actions. The next chapter refers back to the institution of the supper in order to show its nature as the Lord's ordinance, and there it is clarified that the bread is to be broken by the person administering the ordinance.
 
I asked Glen Clary about this and got this reply. The Knox bit rang a bell but no real recollection:
John Knox is the one who popularized that. If memory serves me well, Knox thought it was an essential part of the rite. I can't remember where I got that info, probably from Calderwood or Sprott.

As far as I can tell, Knox picked up the practice from Jan Laski when he was in England. Laski is also where Knox got the practice of serving communion to people sitting at a table.

Laski (Johannes Alasco) wrote,
As far as the breaking of the bread and the pouring of wine in the Lord’s Supper, they signify to us through their symbol the passion of Christ’s body broken for us and the shedding of his blood in his death. Thus, it is the breaking of bread and pouring of wine that represents, testifies, signifies, and announces to us visibly by their form that God is our Lord and the judge of us all.​
 
I'm pretty certain I haven't seen the pouring done as a specific sacramental action. It would have been an elder filling the silver chalices on the table from a silver jug before the service, and then topping them up between tables.

In our church in Perth the chalices are filled in the kitchen before they are taken through to the "sanctuary"/meeting hall before the service.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

NaphtaliPress
Gillespie: it is not indifferent to omit the breaking of the bread at the Lord's Table after the consecration and distribution of it
Replies
3
Views
957
C. M. Sheffield
C. M. Sheffield
servantofmosthigh
  • Locked
Leaven Bread or Unleaven Bread
Replies
11
Views
3K
Me Died Blue
Me Died Blue
Joseph Scibbe
  • Locked
Bread and Wine
Replies
7
Views
2K
Pergamum
P
George Bailey
  • Locked
Gluten-free communion bread?
Replies
3
Views
2K
DonP
DonP
Saiph
  • Locked
Good And Necessary Deduction
Replies
13
Views
2K
JohnV
JohnV
Back
Top