Wrong.
In the three hundred years after Jesus’ crucifixion, Christian practices and beliefs regarding the Eucharist took definitive shape as central to Christian worship. At first, they spread through word of mouth, but within a generation Christians had begun writing about Jesus and about Christian practice, the Eucharist included. The theology of the Eucharist and its role as a sacrament developed during this period.
Basing himself on the First Apology and the Dialogue with Trypho of Justin Martyr writing around 150 AD, K.W. Noakes deduces the following liturgical structure was in use at that time:
Scripture Readings and Homily.
Intercessions and Kiss-of-Peace.
Bread and Cup are brought to the President.
Eucharistic Prayer (flexible) but following a fixed pattern with congregational “Amen”
Distribution of the elements by the deacons to those present and absent.
Collection.
This corresponds in general outline to the structure of the rite as used today and is the earliest known example. The theology is as follows: the bread and wine are transformed into the Flesh and Blood of Jesus; they are the pure sacrifice spoken of by Malachi (1:11) and the eucharistic prayer itself is both a thanksgiving for creation and redemption and an anamnesis (Greek: memorial) of the passion (and possibly the incarnation).
See Noakes, K.W. (1979), “The Eucharist: 2 From the Apostolic Fathers to Irenaeus”, in Jones, Cheslyn; & others, The Study of Liturgy, London: SPCK, p. 171f
https://books.google.com/books?id=SO_LBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT199&lpg=PT199&dq=k+w+noakes&source=bl&ots=Q_dss33JZ2&sig=9gGqp0Py94V8lNXJTzyfpFmGuyI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiviv7ZwILMAhWF4yYKHaYdCngQ6AEINTAE#v=onepage&q&f=false
There followed a celebration of the Eucharist. Justin's description of this tried to defend Christian's moral virtue against pagans confused about the nature of Christian practices:
There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being worthy to receive these things at his hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew tongue to [the Greek], genoito 'so be it'. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wind mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
Justin explained that only those who are baptized can share in this celebration and indicates the Eucharist follows the baptism of converts as well as being the focus of each Sunday celebration.
There is nothing in this quote from Apology that indicates the Eucharist was understood as in roman catholic practices today.
There is nothing in the quote indicating a "priest" was present to conduct this meeting.
What was really interesting though in reading through this online book was the description of how the early church met. It was in houses as indicated in the Bible. The "president", or head of the meeting, would rotate.
Taking shape 300 years AFTER the crucifixion simply means they were not practiced that way by the Apostles.
At first, they spread through word of mouth
Simply means you are back-filling this story with things that are assumed, but cannot be verified objectively.
but within a generation Christians had begun writing about Jesus and about Christian practice, the Eucharist included.
Simply means after the Apostles died, practices they never experienced were formalized and theology drawn tightly.The theology of the Eucharist and its role as a sacrament developed during this period.
This is the clear admission in your post that the theology of the eucharist and the sacramental system were not part of the Apostles teaching nor experience. Nor the sacramental system. Nor any source of grace from any work or practice... until it was "developed" much later in history.
The Apostles warned about this very thing.
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
It appears that some LATER church fathers decided to add a few more things.
Rather than passing this whole copy/paste detailed extrapolation off as your own, why not give credit to WP whence it came (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Eucharist#Early_Christianity)?
And which testimony, along with NT presbuteros being a distinct class of sacerdotal believers thus distinctively called ""priests," testifies to two of many accretions of error that were part of the progressive deformation of the NT church. The past refutation of your reliance upon uninspired men and the principle that formally learned men are most determinitive of Truth (which is contrary to how the church began) need not be repeated, while that only the figurative understanding of the Lord's Supper (LS) easily conflates with the totality of Scripture, and John in particular, is amply demonstrated, by the grace of God.
Here, leaving aside the debate on language used in the gospel accounts of the LS and John 6:29-66 (which does not mention the LS), let us look at the evidence of how this was understood in the life of the NT church, Acts and onward, which are interpretive of the gospels.
For surely, if the LS is what Catholicism makes it to be (and i speak more specifically of the Roman version which produces more materially on it), the LS being the,
"source and summit of the Christian life," around which all else revolves, as all the "other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it;" (CCC 1324
and the "cause of that communion in the divine life," (CCC 1325) and the work of our redemption is carried out;" (CCC 1364)
and that through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man, and "through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man;" (MYSTERIUM FIDEI, 39)
the LS being "the same sacrifice with that of the cross...a sacrifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious;” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent)
and that the active duty priest is "most of all to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice;" (Pastoral Reflections on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Cardinal John J. O'Conner.)
then with this centrality and importance and this primary pastoral functional charge, then surely this practice of NT priests and the people partaking of the Catholic Eucharist would be abundantly manifest in the life of the church, with its teaching and exhortations and commendations and criticisms and solutions for problems. But what does the record of Acts and the teaching of the rest of the NT tell us?
In the entire books of Acts we have no manifest description of the LS, much less of the Catholic Eucharist, only that of 4 mentions of the disciples breaking bread together,
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:42)
And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (Acts 2:46) , apostles or any other clergy church
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7)
When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. (Acts 20:11)
If all these refer to the LS then it only describes it as a communal meal, and not as a distinct ritualized centerpiece of church life. And nowhere are the apostles or other clergy - much less any being called "priests" - even mentioned as conducting this breaking of bread or otherwise even distinctly being involved in distributing food , much less described as ritually effecting a change in the elements, with the people receiving the body and blood of the Lord. Moreover, the apostles expressed that their ordained function was not distributing food to tables but to give themselves "continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." (Acts 6:4)
In addition, the means of obtaining spiritual life and growing in grace is never said to be by physically consuming the Lord Jesus, but spiritual life is obtained by hearing the gospel and believing it, and it is by preaching the word of grace that pastors foster growing in grace, with feeding the flock thereby being their primary active function, and which word builds them up. Nowhere does any apostle charge pastors with feeding the church via the LS.
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)
And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)
Instead, Catholics must read their Eucharistic liturgy into these texts, or at least, as with other traditions, argue that since the text does not exclude the Eucharistic liturgy then it is justified in postulating this was what was taking place.
Moving on we come to one of the most doctrinal books of the NT the book of Romans, with 11 chapters of doctrine and 5 of exhortation, which the apostle Paul provides for the "obedience of faith," and prays that God would grant them to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus. (Romans 15:5) Yet any mention of the LS is utterly absent in any of its 16 chapters, despite teaching such things as justification by grace, (Rm. 1-5) baptism, (Rm. 6) overcoming sin, (Rm. 7-8) the predestination and glorification of true believers, (Rm. 9-11) and their duty of sacrifice (their own bodies as living instruments of service), and complimentary cohesive nature of the body of Christ, the church, and the operations of gifts regarding that, exhortations to holiness, service and love in the faith, as well as obedience to authority, (Rm. 12; 13)and not to abuse personal liberty to the hurt of the church body, including in eating, (Rm. 14, 15) and greetings and benediction to the church. (Rm. 16). But while preaching is set forth a instrumental means of conveying grace, and spiritual gifts, there is nothing at all about the LS, of the importance of the Eucharist, even about it being a source of grace, nor of pastors having a special function or gift regarding that.
Moving on to the next book, herein we have the only manifest description of the LS in the life of the church, outside of the brief mention of it as the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12 which communal gathering some unholy vessels were defiling. Here, 1 Corinthians 10:16-21 is invoked by Catholics as teaching the Catholic Eucharist, particularly vs. 16,17: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." However,in context the Catholic interpretation this is simply not the case.
For instead, what is taught is that this manner of communion, that being a spiritual union, is what pagans also signify and realize in communally taking part in their own dedicatory feast, and thus believers are warned against being part of it: But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20-21)
Thus to either be partakers of the Lord's table or that of devils is to have fellowship with the entity to whom the feast is dedicated to, with the other participants, partakers of the same altar. And it is certain that pagans were not having fellowship with devils by literally physical consuming the flesh and blood of devils.
In the next chapter the LS is once again addressed, and once again Catholics suppose that this support their Eucharistic theology, especially vs. 28,29:
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 11:28-29)
However, once again this is not what is being contextually taught, as instead of referring to not discerning the nature of the elements that are consumed in the Lord's body, the sin of the Corinthians was that of not effectually discerning/recognizing the nature of the body of Christ, the church, because they were treating other members as if they were outcasts.
This reproof of the Corinthians is that while they were physically coming together to eat the LS, they really not coming together to eat the LS (When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper) , not because of some failure to perceive the nature of what they were eating, but because while they were supposed to be showing/declaring the Lord's death for the church (For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come), they were selfishly eating independently, even to the full ( one is hungry, and another is drunken ), while ignoring other blood-bought saints (cf. Acts 20:28) who thus went hungry, and which thus was to "shame them that have not."
Therefore they were effectually not recognizing the body for whom Christ died as actually being the body of Christ (which the Lord essentially said was Him in confronting Paul for persecuting it), and thus they were not remembering=showing the Lord's death (which command Paul uniquely provides as being the purpose), as if those whom those whom they ignored were outcasts, versus being redeemed by the body and blood of the Lord. This rank hypocrisy thus left them being guilty of that body and blood of the Lord, acting utterly contrary to its purpose and what it did, and the love behind it. Therefore some were even chastened unto death.
The problem being that of selfishly eating independently, even to the full while ignoring other blood-bought saints, thus the given solution was not that of recognizing a supernatural nature of the elements consumed, which souls could do while eating independently (though contrary to the meaning of "communion"), but the solution was to effectually recognize each other as members of the corporate body, to "tarry one for another," and to eat at home so that they do not come to the LS and do as before due to lust for food. (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.)
Consistent with this focus on the corporate nature of the body of Christ, the next chapter gives further exhortation and correction regarding this.
Next we come to Galatians, with its rebukes for following Judaizers, and theology on salvation, and mention of baptism, and exhortations to walk in the Spirit, and warnings about falling from grace and making Christ of no effect, but nothing about the LS, but with supporting those who preach the word being instructed.
Then we come to Ephesians, and which speaks of how souls received te Spirit by faith, and are accepted in the Beloved, and sit with Him in the heavens, and teaching about the one new man, the church. And in the light of such grace, it provides various exhortation to grow in grace. However, once again the LS is utterly absent, and the means of obtaining spiritual life and growing in grace is never said to be by physically consuming the Lord Jesus, nor is there any reminded to take part in this, but life and growth is by hearing and believing the word of grace.
Likewise in Colossians, though this is the most metaphysical type book, and which mentions baptism and much exhorts growth in grace, but with the only internal ingestion in so doing being that of the word of Christ dwelling richly in them. (3:16) Moving on to the next books, we have 1+2 Thessalonians, a active and much commendable church, but for whom Paul provides much eschatological light for, and desires that "To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints." (1 Thessalonians 3:13) But once again there is no mention of the LS or reminder of the importance of the Eucharist. Then we have 1+2 Timothy and Titus, instructing and exhorting these pastors in carrying out the word of the ministry, including giving attention to reading and doctrine and to preach the word, which is what is said to "nourish" believers. (1Tim. 4:6) Yet once again there is no mention of the LS, including any charge, exhortation or reminder to them regarding carrying out that which in Catholicism is the centerpiece of her worship and sacramental system, and the primary activity of NT pastors.
And who are never called "priests," despite the use of the exclusive words for it (“hiereus” or “archiereus," priest or high priest) being used over 280 times in the NT, and the words used for NT pastors, presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer), being used approx 65 times for them, and whom Titus 1:5-7 (cf. Acts 20:17,28) shows as referring to those in the same office.
Nor are they described as having a unique sacerdotal Eucharistic function, but which Catholicism came to read into their office. See here for substantiation on this issue, by God's grace.
Passing over the short letter to Philemon which also says nothing about the LS, we come the book of Hebrews, which like Romans, is another major doctrinal book. This anonymous book (certainly not by Paul) is an exhortation to believers to continue in the faith, and warnings about falling away. (cps. 3,6,10) in the light of systematic eloquent exposition of the New Covenant vs. the Old, with the key word of this epistle being "better." But while expounding on the better hope, covenant, promises, sacrifices substance, dwelling, resurrection, and things, once again nothing is said about the LS, nor any manifest theology on it, the only thing close to that being the warning not to forsake assembling together by falling into sin.
Yet even when describing the fundamentals of the faith then there is nothing said about Eucharistic theology, but,
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6:1-2)
As incongruous as the previous omissions about Eucharistic theology are if the NT church held to the place and belief of Catholic Eucharistic theology, it is most inconceivable here, as if any book should expound, however briefly, about Eucharistic theology it would seem to be here, with its emphasis upon the superior grace of the New Covenant, and priestly ministry. Yet the Catholic Eucharist is one of many things missing in the NT church. Due to time and energy needs i am going to skip James and the espitles of Peter and John, none of which describe the LS, much less Catholic Eucharistic theology, and go to Jude 1:12, this book being the only other letter to the churches which which mentions the LS, and does so here simply as a "feast of charity," which communal feast unholy souls were "crashing," which type opf persons Jude is warning about, and which is consistent with the nature of the participants being the focus, not the elements that are consumed by them.
Finally we come to Revelation, which also does not mention the LS, and its absence in the Lord's critiques and counsel tot he representative churches in cps. 2+3, either as a commendation for keeping it, or censure for not, or exhortation as means of grace, is also incongruous, leaving extrapolative Catholics to one again resorting to reading into it what they desire if they will use it to support their distinctive Eucharistic theology.
Thus neither the Catholic Eucharist is manifest in the NR church nor her distinctive sacerdotal priesthood which offer it, but as the basis for RC teaching does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but upon the premise of the ensured veracity of their church, and which flows from tradition as she understands it, then it is not surprising that Catholics defend what is actually indefensible based upon what the only substantive wholly inspired body of Truth says. Which is to their own hurt.
In the three hundred years after Jesus’ crucifixion, Christian practices and beliefs regarding the Eucharist took definitive shape as central to Christian worship.
Rather than passing this whole copy/paste detailed extrapolation off as your own, why not give credit to WP whence it came (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Eucharist#Early_Christianity)?
And which testimony, along with NT presbuteros being a distinct class of sacerdotal believers thus distinctively called ""priests," testifies to two of many accretions of error that were part of the progressive deformation of the NT church. The past refutation of your reliance upon uninspired men and the principle that formally learned men are most determinitive of Truth (which is contrary to how the church began) need not be repeated, while that only the figurative understanding of the Lord's Supper (LS) easily conflates with the totality of Scripture, and John in particular, is amply demonstrated, by the grace of God.
Here, leaving aside the debate on language used in the gospel accounts of the LS and John 6:29-66 (which does not mention the LS), let us look at the evidence of how this was understood in the life of the NT church, Acts and onward, which are interpretive of the gospels.
For surely, if the LS is what Catholicism makes it to be (and i speak more specifically of the Roman version which produces more materially on it), the LS being the,
"source and summit of the Christian life," around which all else revolves, as all the "other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it;" (CCC 1324
and the "cause of that communion in the divine life," (CCC 1325) and the work of our redemption is carried out;" (CCC 1364)
and that through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man, and "through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man;" (MYSTERIUM FIDEI, 39)
the LS being "the same sacrifice with that of the cross...a sacrifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious;” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent)
and that the active duty priest is "most of all to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice;" (Pastoral Reflections on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Cardinal John J. O'Conner.)
then with this centrality and importance and this primary pastoral functional charge, then surely this practice of NT priests and the people partaking of the Catholic Eucharist would be abundantly manifest in the life of the church, with its teaching and exhortations and commendations and criticisms and solutions for problems. But what does the record of Acts and the teaching of the rest of the NT tell us?
In the entire books of Acts we have no manifest description of the LS, much less of the Catholic Eucharist, only that of 4 mentions of the disciples breaking bread together,
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:42)
And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (Acts 2:46) , apostles or any other clergy church
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7)
When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. (Acts 20:11)
If all these refer to the LS then it only describes it as a communal meal, and not as a distinct ritualized centerpiece of church life. And nowhere are the apostles or other clergy - much less any being called "priests" - even mentioned as conducting this breaking of bread or otherwise even distinctly being involved in distributing food , much less described as ritually effecting a change in the elements, with the people receiving the body and blood of the Lord. Moreover, the apostles expressed that their ordained function was not distributing food to tables but to give themselves "continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." (Acts 6:4)
In addition, the means of obtaining spiritual life and growing in grace is never said to be by physically consuming the Lord Jesus, but spiritual life is obtained by hearing the gospel and believing it, and it is by preaching the word of grace that pastors foster growing in grace, with feeding the flock thereby being their primary active function, and which word builds them up. Nowhere does any apostle charge pastors with feeding the church via the LS.
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)
And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)
Instead, Catholics must read their Eucharistic liturgy into these texts, or at least, as with other traditions, argue that since the text does not exclude the Eucharistic liturgy then it is justified in postulating this was what was taking place.
Moving on we come to one of the most doctrinal books of the NT the book of Romans, with 11 chapters of doctrine and 5 of exhortation, which the apostle Paul provides for the "obedience of faith," and prays that God would grant them to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus. (Romans 15:5) Yet any mention of the LS is utterly absent in any of its 16 chapters, despite teaching such things as justification by grace, (Rm. 1-5) baptism, (Rm. 6) overcoming sin, (Rm. 7-8) the predestination and glorification of true believers, (Rm. 9-11) and their duty of sacrifice (their own bodies as living instruments of service), and complimentary cohesive nature of the body of Christ, the church, and the operations of gifts regarding that, exhortations to holiness, service and love in the faith, as well as obedience to authority, (Rm. 12; 13)and not to abuse personal liberty to the hurt of the church body, including in eating, (Rm. 14, 15) and greetings and benediction to the church. (Rm. 16). But while preaching is set forth a instrumental means of conveying grace, and spiritual gifts, there is nothing at all about the LS, of the importance of the Eucharist, even about it being a source of grace, nor of pastors having a special function or gift regarding that.
Moving on to the next book, herein we have the only manifest description of the LS in the life of the church, outside of the brief mention of it as the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12 which communal gathering some unholy vessels were defiling. Here, 1 Corinthians 10:16-21 is invoked by Catholics as teaching the Catholic Eucharist, particularly vs. 16,17: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." However,in context the Catholic interpretation this is simply not the case.
For instead, what is taught is that this manner of communion, that being a spiritual union, is what pagans also signify and realize in communally taking part in their own dedicatory feast, and thus believers are warned against being part of it: But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20-21)
Thus to either be partakers of the Lord's table or that of devils is to have fellowship with the entity to whom the feast is dedicated to, with the other participants, partakers of the same altar. And it is certain that pagans were not having fellowship with devils by literally physical consuming the flesh and blood of devils.
In the next chapter the LS is once again addressed, and once again Catholics suppose that this support their Eucharistic theology, especially vs. 28,29:
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 11:28-29)
However, once again this is not what is being contextually taught, as instead of referring to not discerning the nature of the elements that are consumed in the Lord's body, the sin of the Corinthians was that of not effectually discerning/recognizing the nature of the body of Christ, the church, because they were treating other members as if they were outcasts.
This reproof of the Corinthians is that while they were physically coming together to eat the LS, they really not coming together to eat the LS (When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper) , not because of some failure to perceive the nature of what they were eating, but because while they were supposed to be showing/declaring the Lord's death for the church (For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come), they were selfishly eating independently, even to the full ( one is hungry, and another is drunken ), while ignoring other blood-bought saints (cf. Acts 20:28) who thus went hungry, and which thus was to "shame them that have not."
Therefore they were effectually not recognizing the body for whom Christ died as actually being the body of Christ (which the Lord essentially said was Him in confronting Paul for persecuting it), and thus they were not remembering=showing the Lord's death (which command Paul uniquely provides as being the purpose), as if those whom those whom they ignored were outcasts, versus being redeemed by the body and blood of the Lord. This rank hypocrisy thus left them being guilty of that body and blood of the Lord, acting utterly contrary to its purpose and what it did, and the love behind it. Therefore some were even chastened unto death.
The problem being that of selfishly eating independently, even to the full while ignoring other blood-bought saints, thus the given solution was not that of recognizing a supernatural nature of the elements consumed, which souls could do while eating independently (though contrary to the meaning of "communion"), but the solution was to effectually recognize each other as members of the corporate body, to "tarry one for another," and to eat at home so that they do not come to the LS and do as before due to lust for food. (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.)
Consistent with this focus on the corporate nature of the body of Christ, the next chapter gives further exhortation and correction regarding this.
Next we come to Galatians, with its rebukes for following Judaizers, and theology on salvation, and mention of baptism, and exhortations to walk in the Spirit, and warnings about falling from grace and making Christ of no effect, but nothing about the LS, but with supporting those who preach the word being instructed.
Then we come to Ephesians, and which speaks of how souls received te Spirit by faith, and are accepted in the Beloved, and sit with Him in the heavens, and teaching about the one new man, the church. And in the light of such grace, it provides various exhortation to grow in grace. However, once again the LS is utterly absent, and the means of obtaining spiritual life and growing in grace is never said to be by physically consuming the Lord Jesus, nor is there any reminded to take part in this, but life and growth is by hearing and believing the word of grace.
Likewise in Colossians, though this is the most metaphysical type book, and which mentions baptism and much exhorts growth in grace, but with the only internal ingestion in so doing being that of the word of Christ dwelling richly in them. (3:16) Moving on to the next books, we have 1+2 Thessalonians, a active and much commendable church, but for whom Paul provides much eschatological light for, and desires that "To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints." (1 Thessalonians 3:13) But once again there is no mention of the LS or reminder of the importance of the Eucharist. Then we have 1+2 Timothy and Titus, instructing and exhorting these pastors in carrying out the word of the ministry, including giving attention to reading and doctrine and to preach the word, which is what is said to "nourish" believers. (1Tim. 4:6) Yet once again there is no mention of the LS, including any charge, exhortation or reminder to them regarding carrying out that which in Catholicism is the centerpiece of her worship and sacramental system, and the primary activity of NT pastors.
And who are never called "priests," despite the use of the exclusive words for it (“hiereus” or “archiereus," priest or high priest) being used over 280 times in the NT, and the words used for NT pastors, presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer), being used approx 65 times for them, and whom Titus 1:5-7 (cf. Acts 20:17,28) shows as referring to those in the same office.
Nor are they described as having a unique sacerdotal Eucharistic function, but which Catholicism came to read into their office. See here for substantiation on this issue, by God's grace.
Passing over the short letter to Philemon which also says nothing about the LS, we come the book of Hebrews, which like Romans, is another major doctrinal book. This anonymous book (certainly not by Paul) is an exhortation to believers to continue in the faith, and warnings about falling away. (cps. 3,6,10) in the light of systematic eloquent exposition of the New Covenant vs. the Old, with the key word of this epistle being "better." But while expounding on the better hope, covenant, promises, sacrifices substance, dwelling, resurrection, and things, once again nothing is said about the LS, nor any manifest theology on it, the only thing close to that being the warning not to forsake assembling together by falling into sin.
Yet even when describing the fundamentals of the faith then there is nothing said about Eucharistic theology, but,
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6:1-2)
As incongruous as the previous omissions about Eucharistic theology are if the NT church held to the place and belief of Catholic Eucharistic theology, it is most inconceivable here, as if any book should expound, however briefly, about Eucharistic theology it would seem to be here, with its emphasis upon the superior grace of the New Covenant, and priestly ministry. Yet the Catholic Eucharist is one of many things missing in the NT church. Due to time and energy needs i am going to skip James and the espitles of Peter and John, none of which describe the LS, much less Catholic Eucharistic theology, and go to Jude 1:12, this book being the only other letter to the churches which which mentions the LS, and does so here simply as a "feast of charity," which communal feast unholy souls were "crashing," which type opf persons Jude is warning about, and which is consistent with the nature of the participants being the focus, not the elements that are consumed by them.
Finally we come to Revelation, which also does not mention the LS, and its absence in the Lord's critiques and counsel tot he representative churches in cps. 2+3, either as a commendation for keeping it, or censure for not, or exhortation as means of grace, is also incongruous, leaving extrapolative Catholics to one again resorting to reading into it what they desire if they will use it to support their distinctive Eucharistic theology.
Thus neither the Catholic Eucharist is manifest in the NR church nor her distinctive sacerdotal priesthood which offer it, but as the basis for RC teaching does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but upon the premise of the ensured veracity of their church, and which flows from tradition as she understands it, then it is not surprising that Catholics defend what is actually indefensible based upon what the only substantive wholly inspired body of Truth says. Which is to their own hurt.