Indeed, it is so manifest on context that the "body" they failed to recognized as being so was not the nature of the elements, which never is the issue, but failing to recognize the nature of the church as the body of Christ, despising the church of God by failing to treat others as being part that body, which is the theme of the next chapter.
From the top,
Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. (1 Corinthians 11:17)
According to you and the fallible interpretation of others (as I know not of any "infallible" interpretation of this chapter), this "worse" must mean they did not recognize the elements were actually the body and blood of the Lord, versus not recognizing what the church is by treating others as if they were not part of that body. But what saith the Scripture?
For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. (1 Corinthians 11:18-19)
Thus the issue is divisions within the body, which the RC must insist refers to division due to views on what the elements consist of. But what saith the Scripture?
When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 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. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)
Thus the reality is that the issue was that by going ahead and eating this meal ahead of others, and shaming others who were hungry, some of the Corinthians treated others contrary to being part of the body which Christ purchased with His own sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) despising the church of God, which was the body they manifestly failed to see as being such.
They thus were being inconsistent with what they were to show by this communal meal, that of Christ's selfless giving of Himself for them. Which was hypocrisy for a professing Christian, akin to Peter withdrawing himself from the Gentiles when the Judaizers showed up. (Gal. 2:11ff)
Next, Paul reiterates Luke's account of the original Lord's supper:
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
This is what RCs look at in order to assert that "not discerning the Lord's body" refers to the nature of the elements, but which is based upon his prior erroneous, unScriptural, endocannibalistic interpretation of Lord's body and blood. [Which ignores the clear use of metaphor in the OT, in which men are referred to being bread for Israel, and water is referred as their blood, etc. And instead has kosher Peter and co. silently eating human flesh and blood, so that Christ is being digested their stomach, and His own, while yet before them, and even though Peter protested even eating unclean animals!]
However, in this chapter, even if one holds the RC view, what is being taught is that "as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [kataggellō=preach, proclaim, declare] the Lord's death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26) Which they were not doing by treating some as if they were not part of the Lord's body, the church, and thus Paul said at the outset that when they come together therefore into one place it actually was not to eat the Lord's supper, as they some filled their face and others went hungry, rather than sharing what was supposed to be a simple communal meal, a "feast of charity" as Jude 1:12 terms it.
Therefore as they were acting contrary to that, Paul next adds,
Wherefore [since you were not showing the Lord's death by your actions] whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)
Thus in context what is plain and obvious is that the issue was never that of a dispute over the nature of the elements, and with the focus being on that, but that by selfishly eating independently and leaving others out then they were were acting contrary to what they were supposed to be showing, that of the Lord's sacrificial death for the body, effectively treating others as unbelievers instead, and thus were not recognizing the unity of that body,
Thus, after revealing that this violation was why "many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep," the apostle provides the remedy:
Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 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. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)
The "tarry one for another" and not coming to fill their face is exactly what they did not do, "For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 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. (1 Corinthians 11:21,22)"
Thus it remains that the "praise you not" censure, the "not discerning the Lord's body" was that of going ahead and eating this meal ahead of others, shaming others as if they were not part of this body which Christ purchased with His own shed blood, when this very meal was supposed to show the Lord's unselfish death for them, and thus they showed contempt for ("despise ye") the church of God. Which is the "body" in focus, and thus the next chapter continues that theme.
This is certainly contrary to focusing on eating the elements of bread and wine and rushing out the door, or even remembering Lord death in the Lord's supper but not as showing it by the caring and sharing manner in which it is done, and it seems rather evident this "feast of charity" was not that of just eating a piece of bread dispensed by the pastor, and which were never distinctively titled "priests, nor was it treated as an atonement for sin.
And as said, though the Catholics insist upon their imaginative view of the "Real Presence," 1Cor. 11:17-34 simply is not referring to not discerning the elements as being actually the Lord's body, as even the notes on the RC NAB Bible has said for decades:
[11:27] It follows that the only proper way to celebrate the Eucharist is one that corresponds to Jesus’ intention, which fits with the meaning of his command to reproduce his action in the proper spirit. If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself (cf. 1 Cor 8:12). .
* [11:28] Examine himself: the Greek word is similar to that for “approved” in 1 Cor 11:19, which means “having been tested and found true.” The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus’ death (1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (1 Cor 11:18–25) - http://www.usccb.org/bible/1cor/11:28#54011028-1
But other RCs have their own fallible interpretation, regardless of what Scripture manifestly teaches.
Moreover, that's what the early Christians believed. You are consoling yourself and papering over this monstrous heresy..ny review of the earliest Christian writers would demonstrate otherwise
Wrong, it manifestly was not was not what the early Christians believed, as rather than being the "source and summit of the Christian life," in which "redemption is accomplished," by its separate class of priests offering Christ as atonement as he did upon the Cross, and by which believers obtain spiritual life in themselves," around which all revolved, it is not only described in 1Cor. in the life of the church, and in which it manifestly teaches as i explained above.
Nor as said is their any priesthood apart from that of all believers, nor are NT pastors ever shown dispensing food as part of their primary ordained duty, much less human flesh and blood, as instead their ordained duty was that of prayer, preaching the word. (cf. Acts 6:4)
Which alone is what is said to spiritually nourish souls, (Acts 20:32; 1Tim. 4:6) with doing God's will and work being "meat" and how to live, (Mt. 44; Jn. 4:34) while the Lord's supper is only manifestly described once in the life of the church with any detail, in which the church is the body of Christ which shows, declares, His death by how they partake of the communal meal.
Nor is spiritual life ever obtained by literally consuming anything physical: and in fact the metaphorical view is the only one which is consistent with the rest of the writings of John, and the rest of Scripture, and the use of figurative eating and drinking. As has been shown before here, by the grace of God.
Only in paganism is spiritual life obtained by consuming human flesh, as shown , and like them RC essentially insist,
But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. (Jeremiah 44:17)
Well done! The twisting and corruption of scripture by the Catholic Church knows no bounds.
Context does help here.
That said, today’s evangelical symbolic communion would be difficult to abuse in the same manner. It sounds a lot from the text like the Corinthians got a pretty substantial hunk of bread in their ceremony.