Catholic Presbyterian

So I'm still cruising through Jim Jordan's book The Sociology of the Church and I seem to have hit another Ecclesiological pothole on Jordan's road to Catholicity. In commenting on the theological implications of "Do this as my memorial" Jordan says "The doing takes precedence over any theory of what is being done. If this simple fact were understood, it would be possible for churches to recognize one another and cooperate in true biblical Catholicity."(Jordan is not here trying to pit theory and praxis against one another, he's just placing the accent mark where the Spirit did in the text...we would be wise to do the same!)
Once again Jordan assumes much and defines little! He is saying one of two things here: either 1) The action of the Eucharist among a group is what makes the group a catholic church... or 2) he is assuming some other presupposed, yet not defined up to this point in the book, definition of what a church is and saying the of all existing churches in that sense are made catholic by the Eucharistic celebration. If you see a third way to take this please comment.
I take serious issue with number 1 above. Here's why: in the first place the command and entrustment of the Eucharistic rite was give to the Apostles in the upper room. As Catholic Reformed
Presbyterians(or any episcopal form of ecclesiology as well) we believe that the succession of the Church was organic from Christ, to the apostles, and then entrusted by them to faithful men, apostolically ordained and constituted elders in organic succession, just as Paul tells us the faith would be passed in 2 Tim. 2:2(and as laid out in our standards and BCO.) Thus we cannot assume that any group that comes together, I'm thinking of so-called "independent churches"(defined here as those with no succession from and submission to the duly constituted church as defined scripture and outlined above), under the name "Church" is necessarily a Church, scripturally and historically speaking, because they bring crackers, grape juice, bad hymns and a King James Bible together once a week. It was the action of the Eucharist in the visible apostolic Church that united all Christians together in the Heavenly presence of God to be certain(read Calvin on Worship in the throne room and the Eucharist, its excellent), but to say the same applies for a group that knows the apostolic visible body and refuses to submit to the πρεσβύτερος (presbyters/bishops), is to argue that a schismatic or divisive groups celebration of the Eucharist is not impeded by their inherently divisive constitution, which violates the 1 Cor. 11 principle of the supper ceasing to be the supper in its fullness for the divisive/schismatic party.
As for option 2 I cant really argue anything because I don't have his definition. If his definition was: A Church is all baptized individuals gathered together in the organic apostoliclly succeeded Body, than we would see eye to eye...But I have a sneaking suspicion this is not his definition...

Some of my final thoughts: I agree that the doing of the supper is where we should place the accent mark, just as Jesus did in his very choice of words. However it is to the apostolic fathers, the 12 minus Judas, and their faithful children that received "the faith once delivered for all unto the saints" (Jude 1:3) that this command was given. Just as the Great commission was given to the Apostles, and while we share in it in the priesthood bestowed upon us in our one baptism, it is always under the Authority of the organic, historical Church's succession of the πρεσβύτερος(presbytery) and/or ἐπίσκοπος(episcopate). This is where the keys have been placed, and sect in the world can duplicate those keys or can pick the Ecclesiological lock, no matter how hard they try.