Lax16,
Sorry not to have answered your clarification questions sooner.
- I have thought more about this since your question and the link you posted about the cave and the altar.
Bear in mind, first, that the LDS belief is that since the early members at the time of Peter and after Christ’s ascension, didn’t have the use of the temple, they practiced those ordinances that needed to be kept “hidden” from the world, in places which were hidden. So a cave would be a logical place for that, and an altar being there would be totally expected. (LDS have altars in their temples, not for the law of sacrifice but for making covenants “across the altar” as a covenant that is being done “on earth and in heaven”.)
Secondly, there is the possibility that some of the early members who had been Jews did not really understand that there was no longer a need to practice the law of sacrifice, and thus there may have been altars used for that until they fully understood that the law of sacrifice was no longer to be done with animal sacrifice. (This is less likely than the above-noted situation about “hidden” ordinances and covenants.)
This is interesting because I did some reading on the altar in Jerusalem vs. the altars in the early church(es). The altar in the temple was a very large square with a ramp and stairs. It had to be large enough to allow for animal sacrifices. There was also a perpetual fire (Lev 6:5).
**The altars in the early churches were much smaller and rectangular in shape. They looked like tables because we are called to the “Lord’s Supper”. **
- It appears to me from 1 Corinthians 11 that Paul was telling the members to ensure they were worthy as they partook of the “bread” and the “cup”, and that part of being worthy was that they would not be in a situation where one person was “hungry” and another person was “drunken” (meaning had plenty to eat). It appears that they were excluding some members who were poor (v. 22), and were certainly not commemorating the Lord’s supper in a righteous way.
Why was Paul so passionate about it then?
V. 30 is very clear: “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.” (The words “many sleep” would mean “many no longer have the light of the gospel in their life.”) Being “weak” and “sickly” could mean both “spiritually weak” and “physically sick” meaning the Spirit was not enlivening their life.
Okay.
I certainly have every reason to believe and know that the apostles would want the members to commemorate the Lord’s supper faithfully each week, and to also “present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” (1 Corinthians 12:1) Thus they were to “become transformed” (v. 2) into a new creature–becoming “born again” and going on to perfection in Christ.
Any translation from the original language that now uses the word “Eucharist” was making that meaning from the word that would be transliterated into the word “thanksgiving”, as some have noted on this thread. So the word “Eucharist” does not go into a meaning that has all the connotations that Catholics associate with that word, if thinking about the original intent of the writer.
I would fully expect that since many Jews became the early members of the church, that there would be differences among them as to what exactly commemorating the Lord’s supper meant, and that when Ignatius writes that some members would not partake of the commemoration because of what was being talked about that it signified, that they were abstaining because they were being true to their conscience about not appearing to do something they didn’t believe in. (I would have been in that same position had I been there and was hearing what was being taught. I would have abstained.)
Then why were the Jews so offended and angry at Jesus for saying that we are to eat his body and drink his blood? If it was not to be taken literally, why would they react the way they did? By showing their reaction, God allows us to see His meaning.
- None of those references talk about the “Real Presence” in the way it is described by Catholics as not being a metaphor. The word “communion” has to do with being “in community” for commemorating the Lord’s supper, which is totally in agreement with how the Lord Himself showed what the disciples and apostles should do–partake in community with each other to show their unity of the faith and show that they were willing to become “one” with Christ. Christ showed that desire and blessing that the apostles and members would become “one” with Him in His great intercessory prayer, which you are familiar with in John 17.
**I am assuming you are aware that the Early Church Fathers believed in the Real Presence and wrote about it extensively. But most important, we know that the belief in the Real Presence was in existence because it was finally challenged by Berengar of Tours in 1088. Obviously, the Early Church accepted the belief because it went unchallenged for one thousand years! **
Peace to you and all.
