The defining characteristic of the σχίσματα in 1 Cor 11 is most likely socioeconomic. What is not so clear, however, is what exactly transpires during the Lord's Supper that leads to the humiliation of the poor members present. There are five hypotheses that reconstruct the details of how the wealthy humiliate their social inferiors; these can be called the sequential-sponsored, sequential-potluck, inhospitable, private-meal, and eranos hypotheses. In order to determine which of these five hypotheses is the most historically accurate, six interrelated questions must be answered. These questions are: (1) Does an ordinary meal (Sättigungsmahl) separate the Brotritus (bread rite) and the Kelchritus (cup rite) from each other? (2) Are the "have-nots" expected to bring their own food and drink to the Lord's Supper? (3) To whom does ἕκαστος refer in 11:21? (4) What does the verb προλαμβάνει in 11:21 mean, and what does Paul mean by his admonition συνερχόμενοι εἰς τὸ φαγεῖν ἀλλήλους ἐκδέχεσθε? (5) What gives τὸ ἴδιον δεῖπνον consumed by ἕκαστος its character as ἴδιον, and how does τὸ ἴδιον δεῖπνον differ from κυριακὸν δεῖπνον? (6) Do the wealthy and the poor eat from a different menu? The responses to these questions collectively represent a reconstruction of how it happens that in the Corinthian church the wealthy consume more food and wine than the poor, thereby humiliating the latter. The most convincing hypothesis turns out to be the sequential-sponsored hypothesis.