Rev. Hyde,

Can you give us a little more information on what you mean, when you say, "vis-a-vis the Lutherans (who did not break it to say, "he is locally here")." I thought the Lutherans did break the bread to say, This is my body, meaning I am here. Maybe I misunderstand their position.

Hi John,

I am talking about sixteenth-century Lutheran practice . . . they rejected the fractio panis on the grounds that it was adiaphora as well as the fact that the Calvinists broke the bread as a confession that Christ was not locally present in his humanity.

DH,

I don't think I have ever heard that. Interesting. I have always heard that it was related to whether or not his body was to be considered "broken" on the Cross, as well as something to do with his seamless garment. It was always confusing to me. I hope you can clear some of that up.

I have participated in both Lutheran and Reformed (Episcopal, Presbyterian) communions. I have to say that the "broken for you" language is very important to me--in bringing to my consciousness once again the fact that the passive obedience of Christ even to death on the Cross was FOR ME.

Thank you, Richard! But . . . what about the necessity and meaning of actually breaking the bread? Any thought?

D

Pastor Hyde,
Growing up in the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, we did not break the bread (actually, communion wafer) on the grounds this was the physical body of our Lord. As a Reformed Christian, who believes He is truly present in the Supper, I wouldn't say the breaking is necessary (I guess I would say it is adiaphora), but instead helpful as a reminder to His people of what He has done for them. I think it's fascinating that the Reformed have seen the breaking as a way of distinguishing themselves from the Lutheran belief, but frankly this isn't important to me when all the emphasis in the evangelical world is in the opposite direction--i.e., that He isn't present in any special way in the Supper.

DH,

I think the matter has always been adiaphora, but given the historical background of the fractio panis, it was an important thing to do at that time, as a shorthand way of asserting Reformed Christology. The responses above seem to indicate that most people don't get that message from it anymore (I wouldn't if I hadn't stumbled upon it in my reading), so it's pretty much lost its significance for today.

I'm not sure about the history but it is purely adiaphora in confessional Lutheran churches. In fact, my understanding is that some will break it but not for theological reasons.

Besides - the idea of not breaking it (or breaking it) because it is the body of Christ is really quite silly and totally misunderstands the concept of the sacramental union between the bread and the body. Its not like if you broke it the top half of Christ is on one side, and the other on the other side. After all, this is something that in a couple of minutes is going to be masticated

So - if the reformed did break it to make a point, that's fine, but today I don't think it would make a bit of difference one way or the other.

I think the use of wine vs. grape juice can be a bigger issue (and even Horton mentioned this during the q/a session at the Word and Sacrament conference a couple years of go at WSCAL).

Also - I think the reformed made a bigger statement about the "real presence" by refusing to kneel while receiving the sacrament. But even now its not uncommon to find confessional Lutheran churches give the sacrament while standing. Frankly - either option is better than some URC churches who simply pass the elements down the aisle.

Well - hope that lends some color to the discussion.

"In that paper I describe how the act of breaking the bread at communion became a mark of confessional identity for the Reformed (who broke it to say, "his body is not locally 'here'") vis-a-vis the Lutherans (who did not break it to say, "he is locally here")."

It seems odd to do a thing in Christian worship to show how you are different from another group...is that what you mean was going on here?

I consider myself a confessional Lutheran pastor, for I hold to the confessions contained in the Book of Concord 1580. Anyway, it has been my experience that some Lutheran pastors break the bread, and some do not. I am one that does not. However, it is not for a theological reason, just that I have never done it that way. Of course, I always speak the verba (the words of institution), and the word "broke" is there.

I suppose one way to think about it is that the bread Jesus had needed to be broken in order to be received. However, in I Corinthians, Jesus says that His body is "broken for you."

In my opinion, the 16th Century Lutheran Fathers were right not to break the bread, for the very act of breaking the bread had been associated with a confession contrary to the Word of God. Now, however, I don't think that most people understand this distinction. I seem to remember a post regarding a man who had never heard of this before. If it weren't for Dr. Norman Nagel at Concordia Seminary St. Louis, I probably wouldn't have heard of it either.

To sum up, I don't break the bread. But I've got nothing against breaking the bread, unless of course by this you mean to show that Jesus' body isn't "really present" in, with, and under the bread.

The way that I've come to some peace on the issue of the real presence is simply this: Whose words are these? The words of Jesus, true God and true Man, the Word made flesh for us. If He wants His body to be somewhere, who am I to say no? And this is especially important when we see that this is "for the forgiveness of sins." If it's God's action on behalf of me, Jesus, undivided, coming to me in the sacrament, then I can believe these words. If it's some kind of action that I do in order to receive the forgiveness of sins, well, then you know something is messed up.

Faith simply says AMEN to the Word of God.

Yours in Christ,

Rev. Mueller.