Question about the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter momor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

momor

Guest
A question came to mind during Mass this morning. Christ “broke” the bread and gave it to His disciples… I take this to reflect the brokenness of His scourged and crucified body and it also reflects on the sacrificial animals of the OT which were broken up into pieces and distributed to the Levite priests. So why is the priest the only one who “breaks” the host? Why are we not given bread broken from one common piece of bread, i.e., Christ’s body.

The wine is consecrated in a single vessel before it is split up into multiple chalices, which is consistent with the blood shed from the body of Christ and the sacrificial animals. So why the disconnect from the symbolism when it comes to the host?
 
momor said:
A question came to mind during Mass this morning. Christ “broke” the bread and gave it to His disciples… I take this to reflect the brokenness of His scourged and crucified body and it also reflects on the sacrificial animals of the OT which were broken up into pieces and distributed to the Levite priests. So why is the priest the only one who “breaks” the host? Why are we not given bread broken from one common piece of bread, i.e., Christ’s body.
Click to expand...
There is nothing that prevents this. The main two reasons, I would think, that this is not generally done are (1) it would be quite time-consuming to break off several hundred pieces from one host for a decent-sized congregation, and (2) breaking the host generally creates a lot of crumbs, which themselves need to be treated with the utmost reverence.

Personally, I have never quite understood the Biblical symbolism (if there is any) of the breaking.* I’ve always found it to be somewhat in tension with the way Christ’s actual body is treated in John 19 (cf. Ps. 34:20): “But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. . . . For this happened so that the scripture passage might be fulfilled: ‘Not a bone of it will be broken.’”
The wine is consecrated in a single vessel before it is split up into multiple chalices, which is consistent with the blood shed from the body of Christ and the sacrificial animals. So why the disconnect from the symbolism when it comes to the host?
Click to expand...
The wine most definitely should not be consecrated in one container and then poured into individual chalices. According to Redemptionis Sacramentum ¶ 106, “the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery.”
  • Edited to add: obviously, I understand this is from Lk 22:19 and Mt 26:26.
 
MarkThompson said:
The wine most definitely should not be consecrated in one container and then poured into individual chalices. According to Redemptionis Sacramentum ¶ 106, “the pouring of the Blood of Christ after the consecration from one vessel to another is completely to be avoided, lest anything should happen that would be to the detriment of so great a mystery.”
  • Edited to add: obviously, I understand this is from Lk 22:19 and Mt 26:26.
Click to expand...
I guess I have been misinformed about that. Wow. Pretend I’m not seeing that at Mass.
 
momor said:
I guess I have been misinformed about that. Wow. Pretend I’m not seeing that at Mass.
Click to expand...
Oh, it totally happens – it’s just not supposed to, and there’s no intended symbolism of pouring from one jug o’ consecration into various chalices.
 
Gentlemen,

I don’t have as educated a reply as you may want but rather my own understanding of what occurs at consecration. Isn’t “breaking of the bread” both actual and symbolic at the same time. It must be actual, because Our Lord actually broke bread and distributed it the disciples. And actual because His actual body was tortured and all but torn apart. His metaphoric body - his apostles were broken apart. However, isn’t it understood that the broken bread represents the body of Christ being broken into so many different faiths and denominations? Whether this is because it must be rather than because it is, is a different question I think. But I have always understood it this way since I was child in elementary school.
 
Christ’s body is broken and we receive it, and then Christ is remembered (opposite of dismembered) when we all become one in His Church
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top