What did the Corinthians do wrong?

[CivisRomanusSum]

For this thread I’m referring specifically to 1 Corinthians 11:14-37.

As I understand it, and as is the Catholic interpretation, there was some kind of liturgical abuse in the Corinthians’ celebration of the Lord’s Supper. St. Paul admonished them for this, saying things like them being drunk, or that they should just eat at home, or embarrassing the poor. Apparently, it was so serious that whatever they were doing was not really the Lord’s Supper.

Now here’s my problem. St. Paul then moves to the Eucharist. Catholics always cite 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 in reference to receiving the Eucharist unworthily. I have no problem believing in the Real Presence. However, what struck me is the protestant interpretation. I’ve read their literature, and they say that the liturgical abuse was nothing more than an agape, or potluck, to commemorate the Lord’s Supper. What they were doing wrong was that the rich ones brought much food while the poor brought almost none, so that the rich ate only their food while leaving the poor to starve (v. 21). The rich-poor thing might have been only one of the divisions in this early Christian get-together thing. The Catholic sources I’ve read state that the agape was sometimes held before the Eucharistic Celebration. If so, how am I now to understand “eating and drinking unworthily?” The protestants say that because of the divisions, we are doing damage against the body of Christ by not having solidarity with members of his body, and that being so divided while receiving communion was against the spirit of the Lord’s Supper. Because of this, they disregard the early Christian belief in the Real Presence entirely, simply stating that there should not be divisions while commemorating the Lord’s Supper.

So what exactly did the Corinthians do wrong? What’s the Catholic interpretation of this? I find that our concept of receiving the Eucharist unworthily (because of mortal sin) strays from the context of the entire passage (being in communion with members of Christ’s body). Correct me please!

 

[runningdude]

I did a quick read through of the passage, and what come to mind is the “biblical sandwich”. This is a literary technique employed by the biblical authors I learned about at several retreats: the author begins by writing a narrative about one subject, which is interrupted by a teaching moment, and then resumes the original narrative. This particular technique found in several spots through scripture.

In 1 Cor 11, it seems Saint Paul begins by admonishing the rich for not sharing with the poor during a community dinner. He then uses this a spring board to discuss an even more important meal, the Lord’s Supper - admonishing both the rich and poor to exam their hearts before receiving the sacrament.

Now that Paul has reminded them about the wonderful gift that is the Eucharist, he conclude the passage by reminding them that its petty to not share the community dinner, whilst Christ gave so much for them.

So, it seems that the Corinthian’s were being petty, and Paul used it as a teaching moment!

 

[ChristisRisen32]

For this thread I’m referring specifically to 1 Corinthians 11:14-37.

As I understand it, and as is the Catholic interpretation, there was some kind of liturgical abuse in the Corinthians’ celebration of the Lord’s Supper. St. Paul admonished them for this, saying things like them being drunk, or that they should just eat at home, or embarrassing the poor. Apparently, it was so serious that whatever they were doing was not really the Lord’s Supper.

Now here’s my problem. St. Paul then moves to the Eucharist. Catholics always cite 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 in reference to receiving the Eucharist unworthily. I have no problem believing in the Real Presence. However, what struck me is the protestant interpretation. I’ve read their literature, and they say that the liturgical abuse was nothing more than an agape, or potluck, to commemorate the Lord’s Supper. What they were doing wrong was that the rich ones brought much food while the poor brought almost none, so that the rich ate only their food while leaving the poor to starve (v. 21). The rich-poor thing might have been only one of the divisions in this early Christian get-together thing. The Catholic sources I’ve read state that the agape was sometimes held before the Eucharistic Celebration. If so, how am I now to understand “eating and drinking unworthily?” The protestants say that because of the divisions, we are doing damage against the body of Christ by not having solidarity with members of his body, and that being so divided while receiving communion was against the spirit of the Lord’s Supper. Because of this, they disregard the early Christian belief in the Real Presence entirely, simply stating that there should not be divisions while commemorating the Lord’s Supper.

So what exactly did the Corinthians do wrong? What’s the Catholic interpretation of this? I find that our concept of receiving the Eucharist unworthily (because of mortal sin) strays from the context of the entire passage (being in communion with members of Christ’s body). Correct me please!

The way I’ve understood it(Someone correct me if I’m wrong) is that the Corinthians did not believe in the Real Presence and probably they weren’t in a state of grace. Thus, St. Paul talks about eating/drinking in an “unworthy” manner. He said many of the church members were getting sick because they profaned against the body and blood. I think that’s correct but someone please step in if I’m incorrect. That’s how I understood it.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary,
Tony

 

[Hiskid1973]

For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.
21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

I just wanted to comment on an interesting thread…I was in a thread awhile back where someone insisted that the issue was " real presence"… I’ve read this countless times and
read commentary never saw that it was a thought/belief issue…I’ve read they were feasting/partying with the bread/wine used for communion and having wrong/uncaring attitudes to the rest of the brethren( like those well off or more popular compared to the seemly),…They communed then with having ought against their brethren…If we have an ought between our brother we should make peace before we commune…Anyway he goes on about how all are members of the body and all our important…He even reiterates about eating at home if they are hungry. Anyway I look forward to the comments…Grace and peace to you…

 

[JonathonofOhio]

runningdude’s reply is pretty much spot on. There is an article on NewAdvent.org for this epistle: newadvent.org/cathen/04364a.htm

It will help you put it into historical context, and it has a good overview of the entire epistle, which covers a wide range of doctrines, including the proper way of celebrating the Eucharist (which hardly any of the Protestant denominations do).

 

[TimothyH]

To the Protestants who think that we are doing a disservice to unity when we don’t permit them to partake in the Eucharist, I reply that they must not partake or they will be guilty of the Body and Blood of Jesus.

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. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)

If by “discerning the body” Paul means the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, we are actually doing them a favor insofar as we prevent them from eating and drinking judgement on themselves. Or should we just say, “Sure, come on in, eat and drink judgement on yourself, here you go…” and hand them the cup? Of course they are free to go do whatever they want in terms of communion and that really isn’t our problem, is it?

Catholics understand the Eucharist as the most perfect sign and manifestation of unity that the world has ever seen.

-Tim-