NOTES for Co1 11:19

The apostle's words about the necessity of disagreements in the church community so that those who are “approved” or “tested” might be revealed (the Synodal translation offers the word “skillful”) have been interpreted in different ways. Some understood them as a blessing of philosophical and theological debate, through which the best polemicists would emerge and could later benefit the Church as preachers, teachers, or apologists. Others saw in Paul's words an indication of the need for democracy within the Church, so that the best decisions for the Church as a whole and for a particular church community in particular might be developed and adopted through an intensive exchange of views, a kind of brainstorming that would allow everyone who had something to say to speak.

Both are probably indeed important, insofar as the Church is called to bring the Kingdom into the world and bear witness to it. But first and foremost, according to Paul's own definition, the Church is the body of Christ. If we speak of trials in the context of the Church's experience, they must above all be understood with the spiritual path of particular people who belong to the Church in mind: their particular experience, both positive and negative. If the Church were merely a religious organization, the theological or social-ecclesial aspect of the apostle's words would undoubtedly come to the fore.

But the Church is first and foremost a community of people living in the Kingdom. Here what comes to the fore is precisely the uniqueness of a particular spiritual path, of a particular life in this Kingdom, with all the experience accumulated through life. Only on the basis of the experience of life in the Kingdom, the experience of overcoming the trials inevitably associated with such a life in our world, which is being transformed but is not yet completely transformed, can someone be called “approved” or “tested.”

The experience of life in the Kingdom is always unique. There is and can be no place here for standardization, stylization, or imitation, which are often found in religious life. Apparently not all of the apostle's addressees could understand this, for religiosity often orients a person precisely toward what cannot be called beneficial for spiritual life. For Paul, however, what matters is not religiosity but spiritual life, life in the Kingdom, of which he never tires of reminding his readers.

Continuing his discussion of the Church, Paul never tires of reminding the Christians in Corinth of the true meaning of the breaking of bread. In the early Christian Church it continued into a fraternal meal, as was customary in the Jewish religious fellowships from which the Church borrowed its form. Apparently, for many who took part, the breaking of bread was merely an ordinary fraternal meal, a gathering of fellow believers who came together to spend time among “their own.” With such an attitude, it is not surprising that those assembled often saw no need to wait for people who were late for some reason, assuming that the latecomers could simply join the meal when they arrived. Of course, such latecomers missed the actual breaking and blessing of the bread, but this apparently caused little concern among those taking part in the meal: they probably regarded the traditional blessing of bread and wine as no more than a formality or a tribute to tradition, while considering the friendly meal itself to be the purpose of the gathering.

It is not surprising that some then allowed themselves more than they should, while others might receive nothing or very little (vv. 20–22). Paul reminds the Christians in Corinth that the breaking of bread is not merely a fraternal meal, or even merely a religious ritual. For Christians, the breaking of bread is a form of entirely real communion with the Risen One, who Himself blesses the bread and wine in the assembly of the faithful, as He did at the Last Supper (vv. 23–26). For the apostle, the breaking of bread is the center and meaning of the whole assembly; in it and through it the gathering becomes a community of the Kingdom headed by the Savior Himself, and those who do not understand this would do better not to take part in the breaking of bread (vv. 26–32). This is why the apostle requires those assembled not to hurry to begin, but to wait for latecomers: those who are absent from the blessing are in fact deprived of the communion with the Risen One for which the faithful gather. The point is not to make sure everyone has time to eat, since one can, after all, eat at home (vv. 33–34). For Christians, the breaking of bread is the form of communion with the Savior Himself that He commanded, and a way to participate in the life of the Kingdom; nothing should distract those assembled from this chief purpose.

The apostle Paul warns us against a very serious danger: confusing concepts. He says that the Corinthians gather "in such a way that it does not mean eating the Lord's Supper." But how should it be eaten? What is wrong in the Corinthian community, and what does this have to do with us? It is completely obvious that in our day, even with every desire, it is impossible to come to church in order to eat. The Eucharist in its modern form cannot serve as breakfast or lunch. So are we all right?

Apparently not. The problem is that a person comes to church not for the sake of meeting God. What is put in the place of this meeting is no longer so important. In our day this is usually human interaction. We feel our loneliness acutely, and in church we have the opportunity to interact with people, counting on understanding, since people in church really are usually more benevolent than on the street or in the subway. And we come in order to socialize, to talk, to spend time... The Church becomes a hangout for us. And this does not mean eating the Lord's Supper.

For Paul, as for all Christians, the breaking of bread and the gatherings connected with it were the center of church life. The Church, properly speaking, exists as a gathering in which the breaking of bread is performed in Christ's name. This has been so in every age, from the very beginning of church history. But "in the name" does not mean only "in memory," at least not in the sense in which we use that expression today. In the Bible we often meet expressions such as "God remembered" or "God forgot," although it is perfectly clear that, in our human sense, God forgets no one and nothing, and does not remember in that sense either; He simply knows all His creation as a whole and each of the people He created specifically.

But God is not an impersonal Absolute. He is a Person, and like every Person He can turn His face toward someone or turn away. This is what the language of the Bible calls "remembering" or "forgetting." And during the Christian breaking of bread, we Christians remember Christ, and He remembers us. Then the bread and wine again become His body and His blood, in the same sense in which this happened at the Last Supper. But for this to happen, He Himself must be at the center of the gathering.

And the issue is not only that He should come, but also that communion with Him should become the center and meaning of the whole gathering. In the Corinthian church, judging by the apostle's words, there were problems with this. The breaking of bread there sometimes turned simply into a noisy feast, and it often turned out that some ate and drank to excess while others remained hungry. The feast as such came to the fore, pushing communion with the Risen One into second place. The sacred act turned into profanation, not because there were food and wine on the table, but because behind them one could no longer see the One for whom and around whom they had gathered.

It is precisely against this, and not against the meal as such, that the apostle protests when he says that those who perform the breaking of bread in this way are not thinking at all about the body of Christ, not only in the sense of the bread they break, but also in the sense of the spiritual reality that is called the Church with a capital letter. This is no longer Christianity, but the same old paganism under the guise of Christianity, which cannot and must not exist in the Church.