Why does the bible use the term "breaking bread"?

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

milimac

Guest
As an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion it bugs me when people refer to the consecrated bread and wine as “bread” and “wine” rather than the Jesus’ precious Body and Blood.

However, several places in the Bible also refer to “breaking bread” (Luke 24:35; Acts 2:42,46). Why do the writers of sacred scripture refer to the Eucharist as “bread” rather than as the Body of Christ (if this is indeed what the scripture is referring to)? Why refer to the accidents (“bread”) rather than the substance (“Christ”)? Was there not yet a deep enough understanding of the Eucharist to make a more accurate statement?
 
milimac said:
As an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion it bugs me when people refer to the consecrated bread and wine as “bread” and “wine” rather than the Jesus’ precious Body and Blood.

However, several places in the Bible also refer to “breaking bread” (Luke 24:35; Acts 2:42,46). Why do the writers of sacred scripture refer to the Eucharist as “bread” rather than as the Body of Christ (if this is indeed what the scripture is referring to)? Why refer to the accidents (“bread”) rather than the substance (“Christ”)? Was there not yet a deep enough understanding of the Eucharist to make a more accurate statement?
Click to expand...
I think it may be the opposite. Because they had a much deeper understanding of the Eucharist than the average Catholic today, they could freely use the descriptive word “bread” and not be afraid that the faithful would misconstrue it’s meaning, as would happen today in our present generally dreadful state of adult catechesis.

Biblically speaking, when you use the term “bread” you bring up a deep and wide treasure of imagery; everything from the miraculous manna in the desert, to the sacrifice if Melchizedek, to the multiplication of the loaves, to John 6, to the Last Supper, to the Lords Prayer. Early believers would have been able to bring these to mind — if we say bread today, most Catholics, unfortunately think of just bread.

Catechesis, catechesis, catechesis…
 
Thank you for your reply and for the website in your signature. Looks like a good one.
 
milimac said:
As an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion it bugs me when people refer to the consecrated bread and wine as “bread” and “wine” rather than the Jesus’ precious Body and Blood.

However, several places in the Bible also refer to “breaking bread” (Luke 24:35; Acts 2:42,46). Why do the writers of sacred scripture refer to the Eucharist as “bread” rather than as the Body of Christ (if this is indeed what the scripture is referring to)? Why refer to the accidents (“bread”) rather than the substance (“Christ”)? Was there not yet a deep enough understanding of the Eucharist to make a more accurate statement?
Click to expand...
It is more than just “breaking” bread – Most familiarly, perhaps, in 1 Corinthians:
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. (11:26-29)
Click to expand...
:twocents: Myself, as the Church in her scriptures, liturgy, and catechism does not seem to have a problem with references to “bread”, I try to not have one either (unless I have reason to believe my interlocutor may be confused; but if he assures me he is not I don’t press the matter). :twocents:

tee
 
In John 6 did not Jesus himself say he was the bread sent down from heaven?
 
I consider it a reference to a miracle. Look at it this way. When Jesus fed the multitudes, one of the terms the authors used was “He broke the bread”. This was one of Jesus greatest miracles. And, of course, it points to the Eucharist.

Now, we have the breaking of the bread. It brings to mind the miracles performed by Jesus, invoking in the minds of the listeners that there is much more going on here than simply breaking the bread.

Am I making any sense here?
 
Hi Millimac,

It says in the gospels tha Jesus broke bread. It also says that the disciples at Emaus recognized Jesus at the breaking of the bread. So there is nothing wrong with these expressions. Jesus is present under the appearances of bread and wine. This is what comes under our senses. It is not necessary to talk in theological terms to express our faith.

Verbum
 
milimac said:
As an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion it bugs me when people refer to the consecrated bread and wine as “bread” and “wine” rather than the Jesus’ precious Body and Blood.

However, several places in the Bible also refer to “breaking bread” (Luke 24:35; Acts 2:42,46). Why do the writers of sacred scripture refer to the Eucharist as “bread” rather than as the Body of Christ (if this is indeed what the scripture is referring to)? Why refer to the accidents (“bread”) rather than the substance (“Christ”)? Was there not yet a deep enough understanding of the Eucharist to make a more accurate statement?
Click to expand...
Jesus is the bread of life. Like the substance of bread nourishes our body, the substance of God with the accident of bread nourishes our soul. If we are going to be picky we cannot call the accident of bread the body, and the accident of wine the blood. Both are the complete person of Jesus. A simple naming convention is never accurate to explain the mistery of God. The important thing is to make time and to go through a detailed explanation when sharing our faith with people that are confused.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top