I will say again, You people are always trying to spiritualize scriptures to justify Catholic doctrine.
…
By the way in the Book of Acts, they met at homes to eat togerther and share. To me, if one says that is a Mass, again it is spiritualizing scripture.
Peace, Golfjack
GJ, I don’t think you have a very good understanding of the social interaction in the early church at all. The early church used to have a tradition called a love feast or agape feast that Protestants tried to revive in modern times but as you can see from Paul in 1 Cor 11 he did not want this to be done at the same time that others were present only for Eucharist. It was not only irreverent but it was also impolite to eat a full meal in front of others who were fasting (e.g. “had nothing” 1 Cor 11:22) in order to receive the Eucharist. As well Paul knew that some were NOT WORTHY (e.g in mortal sin) to receive the Eucharist and would not discern the difference between
The Lord’s Supper from the regular Agape meal of common food (“
his own supper”) and be tempted to eat it as regular food and commit sacrilege. See 1 Cor 11:19-22. Here is Paul’s admonishment:
*1 Cor 11:34 If anyone is hungry,
let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment The remaining matters I will arrange when I come. *
For the origin of the agape or “love feast”, we need to look no further than the Last Supper. “As they were eating (regular traditional passover food), Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body’” (Matt. 26:26).
So the very first Eucharist was instituted in the context of a full meal! A meal continued to be the normal setting in which Christians met together for fellowship and worship. Acts 2:46 tells us: “Continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart.” There can be no doubt that the expression, “breaking bread,” includes the celebration of the Eucharist as that part of the meal called “The Lord’s Supper”. However, the phrase, “they ate their food with gladness” would also indicate that this was more than communion; it was also a meal. Catholic and Protestant scholars agree on this.
Nowhere is this practice more clearly confirmed than in the communion passage of 1 Corinthians 11:20-34. Paul begins that passage by saying, “Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the
Lord’s Supper. For in eating, each one takes **his own supper **ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk.” Now, this is obviously talking about more than just the Eucharist. Nobody gets drunk from the small amount of wine taken in communion, nor is it credible that various persons would receive communion before others because they were hungry. No, Paul is obviously describing a meal—the love feast—that preceded the actual Eucharist.
Yet, that the Eucharist was celebrated at the end of the love feast (or, as part of it) is quite clear from verses 23-30 of that passage. In those verses, Paul expressly mentions Jesus taking bread and saying, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you” (1 Cor. 11:24).
Jude also refers to those who are “spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves” (Jude 12). Here Jude uses the Greek word agape to refer to what is commonly known today as the love feast.
*Jude 12:12 These are the men who are hidden reefs [ed: deadly obstacles or blemishes] in your **love feasts **when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water [ed: empty of The Spirit], carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; *
The classic NT ref. is 1 Cor. 11:17-34, where abuses which accompanied the common meals that preceded the Eucharist are condemned.”
*1 Cor 11:17-34 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. 20Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, 21for in your eating each one takes
his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or **do you despise the church of God **and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you?
In this I will not praise you. *
Can you see how Paul was angry that people were turning “The Church” into a bring your own lunch bucket cafeteria and not reverencing The Lord’s meal? He told them to stay at home and eat and stop the food orgies in The Church.
This both proves the sanctity of The Church and the sanctify and reverence for The Eucharist. Here it is right in plain scripture text - The HUGE distinction between common food and The Lord’s Food. There is NO excuse for a Protestant to not believe that the early church did not reverence the Eucharist as real presence since Paul condemned those who did not make the distinction. Thus in a few short verses the bible completely ratifies the physical church as well as the the early version of the Catholic Mass and consecration of the Eucharist.
How ironic that you would complain about the Church of spiritualizing the bible when the Bible IS NOTHING BUT GOD BREATHED HOLY SPIRIT INSPIRED SCRIPTURE! Hello - that is what it is - it is not a secularized cafeteria menu to pick and choose the fruits and morsels that suit your tastes.
BTW: The apostolic pattern was eventually altered. Some churches began changing this after the apostles died. During the second and third centuries, the agape was eventually separated from the Eucharist. Churches began celebrating the Eucharist in the morning and hosting the love feast in the evening. Eventually it was stopped.
James
