Controv. XIII.III: Is breaking ordinary bread in the Supper required by Christ's institution — or may wafers replace it?
Third: the breaking of ordinary table bread in the Holy Supper.
However they first broke it — by fingers or knife, by the consecrators themselves or left after consecration for others to break and tear into portions — and however the broken bread is put into communicants' hands for sacramental eating: is that rite only pious or useful, as they grant, or also necessary by Christ's institution, when He told us to do what He Himself did?
Not as if breaking belonged to the bare essence of the sacrament, yet as belonging to its integrity — which is why the supper was called, preeminently, the breaking of bread.
Or is the rite simply indifferent, freely dropped — so that little hosts or round wafers, placed by the minister in the communicants' mouths, may rightly replace ordinary bread?
Lutherans deny the first and affirm the second — yet not all of them, and not from Luther. The Reformed take the other side.
Latin
III. An Fractio panis cibarii in Sacra Coena, (quocunque modo fregerint primitus, sive digitis, sive cultro, sive ipsi Consecrantes, sive à Consecratione frangendum aliis ac discerpendum in μερίδας reliquerint) fractique panis distributio in manus communicantium, ad manducationem Sacramentalem sit Ritus non modo pius aut utilis, ut fatentur, sed etiam necessarius ex praecepto institutione Christi, quâ jussit nos hoc facere, quod ipse met fecit; Faciens idem non simpliciter ad essentiam Sacramenti, sed tamen ad integritatem illius, quod indè vocatum ἐξοχῶς fuit, Fractio panis? An verò sit Ritus simpliciter ἀδιάφορος, liberè intermissus; ut loco Panis cibarii vel usualis, rectè substituantur Hostiolæ, seu placentulae orbiculares, in os communicantium à Ministro ingestæ? Prius negant, Posterius affirm. Luth. nec omnes tamen, sed nec ex Luthero; Contra Reform.