True. Despite never being practiced by Apostles, Peter warned about false teaching as early as the First Century:
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed.
"There is not even one instance in the life of the NT church of an apostle or pastor being distinctively called a priest, or engaging in a unique sacerdotal function, let alone even officiating at the Lord's supper and offering up the elements as a sacrifice for sins, nor are they ever charged with doing so in the life of the NT church. For instead the primary charge and active function of pastors is that of preaching the word. (Acts 6:4; 2Tim. 4:2; Col. 1:28) And which, unlike the Lord's supper, we are told in Acts and onward (which is interpretive of the gospels), is said to be spiritual "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) and to nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up. (Acts 20:32)Nor is there is any theological discourse on what Catholicism erroneously believes the gospels teach, that of transubstantiation, which certainly Paul (for one) would have majored on as a salvific doctrine. Instead Paul only reiterates the simply words of Christ, "take eat.." which Catholicism construes into a form of endocannibalism, but Paul explains this meal by which they remember/"show/proclaim" the Lord's death for the church by their charitable inclusive sharing of food in this communal meal, treating each other as blood-bought members of the body of Christ, which some were hypocritically not doing by eating independently, even to the full, while ignoring others. (1Co. 11:17-34)
Moreover, rather than being the "source and summit of the Christian faith," "in which our redemption is accomplished," as the central sacrament around which all else in church life revolved, the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in just one epistle to the church (besides the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12), that of 1 Corinthians. And in which it is the church as the body of Christ that is the focus, not the nature of the elements, and thus they are censored for not actually coming together to eat the Lord's supper, as they failed to effectually recognize other believers as members of the blood-bought body of Christ, by eating independently in what was to be a communal feast and ignoring others, even to the full and to the shame of them that have not. As explained here by the grace of God.
Nowhere is the Lord's supper set forth as a supreme source of spiritual nourishment versus simply communal fellowship with Christ and each others, like as pagans do with their dedicatory feast have fellowship with devils, but which was not by consuming their flesh and blood. (1Co. 10:15-21)
If the mere mention of breaking of bread in Acts is speaking about the Lord's supper then it is simply "breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart," (Acts 2:46) with no priests or even focus on pastoral ritual. Of course, this is only one aspect of Catholicism that is not seen in the life of the NT church in Scripture.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3444900/posts?page=55#55 - post by daniel1212
Jesus taught that where two or more are gathered in His name, there is He in the midst of them. This happens simultaneously all across the globe every day. This is a very good indication that HIS SPIRIT is the Presence of Him in our midst, thus not the physical body, blood that the catholic Mass teaches adherents that they eat at Mass. The real PHYSICAL Body Jesus now occupies does not have blood distributing The Life in HIM.
The Life of the creature is in the blood. The blood is not The Life, it is the carrier of The Life. That is the method God designed for life in the creature. But a day is coming when believers will be transformed, to be as Jesus, not using blood to spread The LIFE throughout their physical bodies.
Sure they did, in fact they were all involved in the first one and Christ was their Priest.
“There was no controversy about the Eucharist when the Nicene Creed was written in the fourth century!
True. Despite never being practiced by Apostles
If the Apostles never practiced by the Celebration of the Eucharist, where did the churches come up with the idea?
There were over 200 representatives at the Council. They represented churches from throughout the Christian world. The Eastern bishops formed the great majority of representatives. These included, among others; Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius of Jerusalem, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea, Paul of Neocaesarea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, Aristakes of Armenia, Leontius of Caesarea, Jacob of Nisibis, Hypatius of Gangra, Protogenes of Sardica, Melitius of Sebastopolis, Achilleus of Larissa, and Spyridion of Trimythous. The Latin-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives: Marcus of Calabria from Italia, Cecilian of Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Córdoba from Hispania, Nicasius of Die from Gaul, and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube.
There is no record that there was any disagreement among these churches on the Eucharist. Is it plausible that all of these churches would separately come up with the same false teaching? Or is it more likely that this teaching was passed on from Jesus through the Apostles by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?