Replies

"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