The first people to take communion were Jewish and they did not take it in cathedrals - they took it daily, with each other, in their homes . . . According to Acts 2 the Jews . . . breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart.
I just don't see your notion that "breaking of bread" is a meal. Read in context, Acts 2:41-47 is about the spirtual life of new Christians. This is especially true of "breaking of bread" in Acts 2:42. As "baby" Christians, they need to be nourished. Indeed, the Greek for "eat their meat" (Acts 2:46) can just as easily be translated as "partake of nourishment" which certainly describes a key spiritual aspect of Holy Communion!
Of course the Jews did not take this literally, because such a statement, in the literal sense, would have been a total aversion to Judiasm.
Except of course, this is literally what Jesus said. And further, in John 6, when Jesus used very explicit words, the Jews understood him literally. Interestingly, Jesus ALWAYS explained things to the disciples. Jesus starts off using the Greek
phago ("to eat") (Jn 6:49, 50, 52, 53), which might have a symbolic meaning. But after the Jews dispute among themselves, Jesus changes verbs. He uses the Greek
trogo (Jn 6:54, 56, 57, 58) which has the more vivid meaning "to chew, to gnaw". Jesus did not say "Oops, you took me literally." He explained it by moving away from any potentially symbolic meaning and vividy towards the literal. In other words, "Hey, I meant it!"
At the time of the Last Supper, there were over three dozen Aramaic words to say "this means," "represents," or "signifies," but Jesus used none of them. He said, "This is my body."
Imagine how much insight we could gain if we could speak with St. John himself and ask him what he understood our Lord to mean. Well, this is exactly what the Fathers of the Church were able to do. St. Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of St. John, and St. Ignatius is not silent on the subject. He writes:
"They [the non-orthodox] do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins in which the Father in His goodness raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans; 6:2–7:1; 110 AD)
This is further underscored by the "Lord's supper" ritual mentioned in I Cor. It is not about Passover or a Jewish rite of unleavened bread. It's about the "Lord's supper". It occurs whenever the church gathers. It is an accurate summation of the Catholic liturgy of the Eucharist "after the order of Melchisedek".
1 Cor 10:16 - "The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"
1 Cor 10:17 - "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."
Further, in 1 Cor 11:20-22 Paul explicitly mocks those who treat the Lord's supper as a common meal in fellowship. And in 1 Cor 11:27 Paul makes clear that eating the bread unworthly is akin to killing Christ.
No. The "breaking of bread" is no common meal. The Catholic understanding can be traced back through 2,000 years of explicit teachings right to its source in sacred Scripture.
Y'shua is the lamb that takes away the sins of the world! (John 1:29), which by the way is one of the most amazing quotes in the Bible because the Jews had nothing to do with the world.
I agree completely that it is an amazing quote. My meager grasp of its transcendent grace devastates me beyond words. Which is why I would simply refer you back to Ex 12:46 to see why it is a completely Catholic verse fully supporting Holy Communion.