此外，亦有一位神父 Peter Stravinskas 指出：我們應避免將主耶穌在最後晚餐中的一些行為，作為「彌撒當中應如何如何做」的理據。此論點誠然值得注意，但我認為關鍵是在於正確闡釋「教會如何在其傳統的實踐中，實現救主的命令和意願。
[...] For me, it seems the issue involves how should we interpret the "institution narrative" in accordance with the liturgical tradition of the Church.
As far as the liturgical text and [rubrics] are concerned, it appears as follows -
[89. In formulis quae sequuntur, verba Domini proferantur distincte et aperte, prouti natura eorundem verborum requirit.]
Qui prídie quam paterétur,
[accipit panem, eumque parum elevatum super altare tenens, prosequitur:]
accépit panem in sanctas ac venerábiles manus suas,
et elevátis óculis in caelumad te Deum Patrem suum omnipoténtem,
tibi grátias agens benedíxit, fregit, dedítque discípulis suis, dicens:
[parum se inclinat] ...
From the context of the liturgy, the Eucharistic Prayer corresponds to the benedixit of what our Lord commands the Church to do. It is interesting to note that historically, what the Lord "broke" was already the "bread that had been blessed" or "eucharistic bread" (i.e. the Body of Christ). And what he gave to the disciples was his own "broken" Body. So as St. Thomas Aquinas sings "se dat suis manibus" in Pange Lingua.
As we can see thus -
Therefore, I think that the current English (and Chinese also) translation rendering the narrative "... he broke the bread ..." to be rather misleading.
Breaking the Host at consecration betrays a rather superficial understanding of this text, as well as a profound misunderstanding regarding the actio within the framework of the Eucharist.
Concerning the (to me, rather unfortunate) CDW ruling of "... Ubi rubricae Missalis Pauli VI nihil dicunt aut parum dicunt singillatim in nonnullis locis, non ideo inferendum est quod oporteat servare ritum antiquum ..." as published in Notitiae 14  301-302, I wish to draw to your attention that it was also reiterated in another ruling regarding the triple striking of breast at the Agnus Dei in Novus Ordo - "... Uti dictum est in responsione n.2 Commentariorum 'Notitiae' , p. 301: ubi rubricae Missalis Pauli VI nihil dicunt, non ideo inferendum est quod servare oporteat antiquas rubricas. Missale instauratum antiquum non supplet, sed substituit ..." (cf. Notitiae 14  534-535). These seem to me to be beyond reasonable doubt that the competent authority in liturgical discipline was quoting it as a general rule in interpreting ritual prescriptions in the Reformed Liturgy.
No matter how "unfortunate" or even "wrong" the decision(s) may seem to me, I regard myself as owing complete fidelity and submission to these (seemingly unreasonable) norms until the same authority declares otherwise (for example, the issue of "self-intinction" in Hong Kong). Certainly we may ask God in our daily prayers that our pastors may be "enlightened" in this aspect. But meanwhile, the hermeneutic of continuity has to be sustained with a morale of faithful obedience to the legitimate authorities of our beloved pastors. In discerning disciplinary measures, it is THEY who are guided by the Holy Spirit and not US.
Thanks for reading my long message.