In that department, I am a professional. :)
[Paul's] congregations would not have considered a worship existence outside of the centrality of the Eucharist. I think you can say you think they were wrong, but I don't think you can deny that the Eucharist was at the center of their understanding of what it meant to be church.
I also think that when you abandon the sacrament as so many churches have, you cut the bond that Christ left us, and as St. Paul reminds us, until such time as he returns.
I think that Harley made an excellent case that whether the first Christians centered around the Eucharist is highly debatable. So far as I am aware, there is no scripture indicating that Paul centered his worship around the Eucharist as practiced today by Roman Catholics. If there was, then I would probably BE a Roman Catholic. :)
To me, it always comes down to the sovereignty of God and what kind of relationship He intended to have with us. With the Eucharist, and the meaning behind it, we have a group of men squarely in between us laymen and God. God doesn't dispense grace to us individually, men of the Church do. Salvation doesn't come from God directly, it comes through the men of the Church through the sacraments, etc. Anything important has to go through a buffer of fallible men.
In my mind this is a very distant relationship with God. It makes much more sense to me that if God loves us as much as the Bible appears to tell us that He does, that He would want a much more personal relationship with us. I do not believe that can happen through middlemen. In my honest opinion, the Eucharist, as I understand its practice, is much more centered on the Church, than on God. I am not at all saying that I think it is an anti-Christian practice, or going anywhere near there. I'm just saying that I think the priorities are in the wrong place.
Finally, I find myself unable to hold the position that Paul practiced the Eucharist, as it is today, but that he was wrong. Given his conversion experience, I don't see how he could have been so wrong on something so important. It has been my experience here that Roman Catholics find Paul to be their least favorite Apostle precisely because he is so clear in teaching Reformed theology. It seems extremely unlikely to me that Paul would preach a personal relationship with Christ, but then practice a sacrament that diminishes the intimacy.
Korah and his cohorts felt this way too, saying to Moses: "You have gone far enough, for all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is in their midst; so why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?" (Num 16:3)
Moses's reply is telling:
"Is it not enough for you ...? Are you seeking for the priesthood also?" (Num 16:9-10)
-A8
And yet you still go to church on Sundays and subject yourself to a preacher, and you watch while that pastor baptizes other people, and performs the Lord's Supper.
If you really want what you say you want, then on Sunday mornings, don't place yourself under some other man. Why subject yourself to another man's interpretation of Scripture? Instead, stay home and preach to yourself, interpret the Bible for yourself. Perform your own Lord's Supper. Baptize yourself. As long as you continue to place yourself under a pastor, it is hard to take your anti-hierarchical sentiments seriously. Go all the way and take your individualism to its logical conclusion.
-A8
Really? Hmmm. So if I was to show you that the early Christians thought that the Eucharist was Christ Himself, whom they worshipped, you'd become a Catholic?
In my honest opinion, the Eucharist, as I understand its practice, is much more centered on the Church, than on God. I am not at all saying that I think it is an anti-Christian practice, or going anywhere near there. I'm just saying that I think the priorities are in the wrong place.
FK, "church" means the community of God's people. It also is the Body of Christ. There is mysterious meaning behind these words of Paul. A relationship with Christ IS intimate and personal! To a Jew, the life is found in the blood. Christ offers His life to us sacramentally in the Eucharist. You can't get much more intimate than that. Is there a better way that Christ can abide within us than the sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Considering the writings of the first Christians, it seems pretty clear that they, too, considered Christ to be present in the Eucharist, and that they shared an intimate union with Him as a result. Your idea of the Eucharist being centered on the Church is a stereotype knee-jerk reaction to priests, I think.
It has been my experience here that Roman Catholics find Paul to be their least favorite Apostle precisely because he is so clear in teaching Reformed theology.
LOL! Clearly? I will have to disagree on that one. Even Scriptures themselves tell us that Paul's writings can be difficult to understand. I wouldn't place all my bets on a contorted understanding of Paul alone, knowing that this can lead to destruction - according to the Word of God.
It seems extremely unlikely to me that Paul would preach a personal relationship with Christ, but then practice a sacrament that diminishes the intimacy.
The sacrament diminishes intimacy? LOL! How would making God visible diminish intimacy? Are you closer to your wife when you are thinking about her, or when you are in her visible presence???
Scriptures tell us that the disciples of Christ recognized the Risen Lord in the breaking of the bread. We know they celebrated it daily. Thus, they were in a visible and intimiate relationship with Christ daily.
Where do you live? I'll ask the nearest parish to come fetch you!
Regards
I thought his post was cogent too.
To me, it always comes down to the sovereignty of God and what kind of relationship He intended to have with us. With the Eucharist, and the meaning behind it, we have a group of men squarely in between us laymen and God. God doesn't dispense grace to us individually, men of the Church do. Salvation doesn't come from God directly, it comes through the men of the Church through the sacraments, etc. Anything important has to go through a buffer of fallible men.
There's a lot there that I agree with. The thing that prompts a lot of debate though is necessary or mandated contiguity between ecclesiology and sotierology (sp?).