Replies

More ignorance.,

you know they had bread and wine 2000+ years ago or did you miss that part of the liturgy since you read latin Your point seems to be that the apostles preached the word of Jesus to the people but did’t do what Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me.,” So no Eucharist.

They left out that part So alter the church a said, ah now we’re cooking we got a real mass in Latin now; those apostles were only partially on the ball. You see how ignorant you continue to be just to justify a wrong point you made 40 minute sago.

You want the latin mass so badly, you can’t admit historical truth and one of the most important event sin the history of Christianity.. I said i wouldn’t mind a latin mass unless I was on a a mission somewhere. What more do you want to make yourself whole.

You’re spinning indicates something troublesome inside of you.

I will pray for your enlightenment and to open your heart and mind to God’s truth..

irst Apology(155 A.D), chapter 66

And this food is called among us the Eucharist of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.

The disciples began to celebrate the Eucharist very soon after Pentecost. Immediately after he tells us about the coming of the Holy Spirit and Peter’s preaching to the people, Luke writes,

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. (Acts 2:42)

Does the breaking of bread mean the Eucharist?

This undoubtedly refers to more than ordinary meals. The presence of the resurrected Jesus is noted at the ‘breaking of the bread’ in Luke 24:35. Luke emphasizes the connection between meals and Jesus’ presence (Luke 24:41-42; Acts 1:4, 10:41). The ritual is noted again in 2:46; 20:7, 11. (Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina Series vol. 5, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, Collegeville Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1992, p. 58)

Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 and Matthew, Mark and Luke in their gospels tell us about the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. These accounts were written 25 to 60 years after the event, during which time what actually happened would have been partly lost and each community remembered the event in the way it had been passed on to them. It would be natural for the authors to write into their story of the Last Supper the way the Eucharist was celebrated by the communities at the time of writing. We would like to know the details of the early Eucharists but, alas, the writers have not provided them.

One of the major difficulties faced by scholars with regard to the origin of the Eucharist is the question of how far the accounts of the Last Supper may be treated as reliable descriptions of an actual historical event and how far they have been affected by the later liturgical practices of the first generation of Christians. (Paul F. Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship, Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 61)

The earliest Eucharists were home Masses (Acts 2:46 says ‘they broke bread at home’) with small numbers and one could safely presume they would have been very simple. Elaborate ceremonies would develop only later.

Yet these early Eucharists were establishing the traditions or should we say ‘Traditions’ with an upper case ‘T’. When we want to be truly ‘traditional’, we are looking not at the Church of the 1950s or the Middle Ages but at the very early Church of the first few centuries.

As the good news spread beyond the borders of Israel, there were Gentile converts and these too remembered Jesus’ death and resurrection in the Breaking of Bread. Luke tells us of Paul at Troas: ‘On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread … ‘(Acts 20:7–12)

This is the only account we have in the New Testament of a specific celebration of the Eucharist, and again it gives no details.

Note that they met ‘on the first day of the week’, that is, Sunday, the day of the resurrection, so these early Christians changed the day of meeting from Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, to Sunday.

Eucharist with a Meal
Each community would have developed its own way of celebrating the Eucharist and for this reason we cannot generalize about how the ritual was performed. At least in some places such as Corinth, the Eucharist, here referred to as ‘the Lord’s Supper’, was celebrated together with a community meal. We know this because Paul rebukes the community there for not sharing their food as they should.

When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper. For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. (1 Corinthians 11:20–21)

Paul is quite severe towards the Corinthians and he asks them to recall how Jesus gave himself so unselfishly when he instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper. He repeats for them the words that Jesus used: ‘This is my body that is for you…’ Paul then tells them that when they do not share generously they are eating and drinking ‘in an unworthy manner’ (v. 27) and not ‘discerning the body’ (v. 29), that is, the assembly of followers.