AG, I haven't followed this conversation but I happened to noticed this comment. The first recorded efforts of people getting together of the early church was for the purposes of prayer (Peter was in jail, they assemble to pray for him.). There is no evidence that they celebrated the Eucharist at this time.
I don't wish to minimize the Eucharist since there is clear historical and scriptural evidence that it soon became a part of the worship. But the meaning of the Eucharist was confusing, so much so that Paul had to issue clarification for the Corithians. By the early first century most of these disagreements calmed down and the Eucharist was a focus of getting together.
I know a number of our Catholic friends would disagree with me but there is also historical evidence (albeit not much) that there was a disagreement in the Church as to the meaning of the Eucharist; whether the Eucharist was symbolic or imparted grace. (Please don't anyone ask me to cite sources. Don't I have an honest face? But for one citation see; Radbertus & Ratramnus: A Ninth Century Debate over the Lord's Supper
What strikes me most about the Eucharist and the Mass, rest on other history and the establishment of the formal practice of the Eucharist in the Church by the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. Before the 1215 Council, the Holy Wars had been going on for over two hundred years. The Church, who was asking good Catholics to fight for them, was starting to lose members who did not wish to fight and die in some far off land (much like Vietnam). The Fourth Lateran Council declared the only way to receive God's grace was through the Eucharist and the only way to receive the Eucharist was by having it administered by a priest through the Church and by attending Church. In my mind this was a very clever way to keep membership among a number of Middle Ages peasants.
The policy for the Eucharist was never about sound doctrine nor can it be traced to sound doctrine. It is clear that the early church held the Eucharist in high esteem, but for the Lateran Council to make it necessary to attend Church so that it could be administer to by a priest was not in keeping with scripture. Instead it smacks of a political decision made by Church leaders to keep membership.
I don't wish to minimize the Eucharist since there is clear historical and scriptural evidence that it soon became a part of the worship. But the meaning of the Eucharist was confusing, so much so that Paul had to issue clarification for the Corithians. By the early first century most of these disagreements calmed down and the Eucharist was a focus of getting together.
All I'm really after is establishing the fact that we not minimize it.
I know a number of our Catholic friends would disagree with me but there is also historical evidence (albeit not much) that there was a disagreement in the Church as to the meaning of the Eucharist; whether the Eucharist was symbolic or imparted grace. (Please don't anyone ask me to cite sources. Don't I have an honest face? But for one citation see; Radbertus & Ratramnus: A Ninth Century Debate over the Lord's Supper)
I don't think the church held a monolitic view of the meaning of the Eucharist either, Harley. Hermann Sasse addresses this very well in one of his writings.
I do think politics came into play here to, hence the Eucharist as weapon.
All this said, I pray and hope for a rediscovery of the Eucharist as an important part of worship.
I've been attending a Reformed Presbyterian church for the last few weeks and witnessed for the first time how Protestants celebrate the Eucharist, and I was moved to tears. There was a reverence there that surpassed what I'd known in my Catholic church where the Eucharist is held dear but approached in an almost rote fashion.
Anyway, good to hear from you Harley, and blessings.
ML