Well sort of - the blessings are said over the gathering - the table - it's the gathering that is the point. Not the blessing. That isn't entirely true - as the meaning of the blessings were revealed by Yeshua - But even so, the blessings were *upon* the feasts.
So there is at least some basic agreement that the text referring to Breaking of the bread, Lord’s supper, etc are in reference to a Eucharistic celebration.
Again, sort of - The breaking of bread, and passing of the cup were a part of the greater feast - the feast, the dinner table, is the subject, not the blessing...
Where we disagree I think it that the Liturgy of the Eucharist is, from the Catholic understanding [Orthodox would say as well] is the form of worship that came out of the Jewish Tradition into the Christian one and the one that developed organically from Christ thru the Apostles thru the early Apostolic Fathers of the Church.
I can understand your point of view, but that is what I am trying to correct - The blessings were a dedication *for* the feast - the feast is the point. Focusing upon the blessing removes the meaning of the feasts. And those feasts, which the blessings dedicated (to Yeshua as much as to YHWH) all point to Yeshua with capital letters.
Even the wedding feast - another corporate gathering where the blessings were offered - Even the whole of the wedding is an image of Yeshua and His bride. What Yeshua revealed is that the blessings are about HIM, and therefore, the feasts that they dedicate are about HIM.
Early writings in the Apostolic Father period point to a centralized and Liturgical style of Worship with respect to the Eucharist. Any objective reading of the Didache, Saint Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr will indicate that.
Sorry, but I put no stock in your church fathers. Those works, as a body, are so fraught with inclusions and forgeries as to make the origin and accuracy as a body of work suspicious to say the least. Forgive me for that, but you will have to assemble your proofs from elsewhere.
What you are suggesting is that getting so caught up in the “Rite” and doing it a certain way might cause those participating in that Rite to forget the underlying meaning of it.
While that would be a good point (and I agree), the fact of the matter is that the feasts which the rite dedicated are the point, and those meanings have already been lost - Far in antiquity. The purpose *for* the rite was to dedicate the feast - the feast is the subject. This was indeed carried forward into Christianity in the Agape feast, which has in itself a new meaning - But the Communion was the dedication of that feast... AGAIN the feast was the point. Without the feast, the blessing is for what?
One should leave the Eucharist closer to God and his fellow members of the Church and should take the Agape aspect of the Eucharist out into the world. I don’t disagree with that notion.
Rather, one should put the literal Agape feast back into the ceremony, because that is what it is about. THEN take the Agape aspect out into the world. Know FIRST that you are part of the family gathered around that Agape dinner table:
Without the pomp and circumstance of your folks, without the shot glasses and wonder bread of my folks. BOTH have stylized themselves away from the very point: Say the blessing, break the bread and pass it around. Say the blessing, fill the cup and pass it around (do not assume that I discard solemnity in that). Eat the potluck meal. listen to the scheduled teachers and impromptu speakers. Converse with your greater family. That is where it came from. That is what it is for. Congenial. Relaxed. The dinner table. An informal form of worship and togetherness AFTER the formal sanctuary setting... That is what the Agape meal WAS. That IS it's beginning, reflecting the Last Supper, and predicting the Wedding Feast on the Sea of Glass. THAT is the Communion of the saints.
the classic ending of the Roman Rite of the Mass is et Missa est, which means the Mass is sent, which when analyzed theologically, Catholics should and are called to take the Love of Christ which was experienced in the Eucharist out into the world and lives. Of course, many of us don’t always do that [me included] but thank God he is patient and his Grace, which I believe he constantly provides via same said sacraments will sustain me on the journey.
I don't disagree with that sentiment.
And I must add, your post was written not as a polemic, but as personal theological reflection on communion that doesn’t start out with, you darn Catholics are idiots and foolish, etc, etc, etc. Well written post.
Well, don't tell anyone, as I have a reputation to uphold ; )
Thanks for a well written reply.
[roamer_1:] I can understand your point of view, but that is what I am trying to correct [...]
For what it is worth, I think that was said poorly - I do not mean to school you, or impose. Sorry if that is how it is taken.
It bears repeating: OFTEN!