It is interesting that in many of our churches the bread is prepared for Communion beforehand (in our church sliced bread is half cut up into tiny squares) yet some of the Reformed have argued that the rite of the minister breaking the bread is essential to the Supper, which after all is called "The Breaking of Bread" (Acts 2:42; 20:7), the whole being named for the part. Without it "the sacrament is not celebrated according to its original institution.... to divide the bread into small pieces called wafers, and put a wafer into the mouth of each of the communicants, as is done in the Church of Rome, is grossly to corrupt this ordinance, for it takes away the significant action of breaking the bread."
Robert Shaw, Exposition of the Confession of Faith (Christian Focus, reprint 1998), pp355f. Quoted in Maclean, The Lord's Supper, p176
Alongside three other arguments in its favour, Robert L. Dabney says:
The breaking of the bread is plainly one of the sacramental role act, and should never be done beforehand, by others, nor omitted by the minister.... The proper significance of the sacrament requires it; for the Christ we commemorate is the Christ lacerated and slain.
Systematic Theology (Banner, 1878, repr. 1985) p802. Maclean, op cit.
Posts
2 comments:
I can't think why the practice of cutting slices of bread into squares came about. It only makes work for someone, doesn't it? Tearing off bits as you go round is much easier.
Personally, I could certainly manage it. It's strange, isn't it?
I remember one minister saying it makes the Supper feel like a dolls tea party.
I guess the half cut slices are marginally quicker? Completely cut would be quicker and easier.
May use less bread? Easier to tell how much you need / have got? May be a bit neater, people more likely to get eaqual size bits? Perhaps its incipient beurocratic communism?
Post a Comment