Protestants and Holy Communion

[SyCarl]

Jesus said explicitly in the gospel according to St John chapter 6 if we do not eat His flesh or drink His blood we have no life in us. What about the Protestants?

I’ve heard the argument it depends on their level of ignorance and other factors but it seems Jesus’ words are very firm non-negotiable. It kind of gives the message either you receive my flesh and blood and live or you don’t and die…

Any thoughts?

In John 6:51 Jesus also says

I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.

Then in John 6:54

He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

These verses would seem to give the message that anyonewho eats Jesus’ flesh and drinks His blood will have eternal life. These are unconditional statements made by the Lord without any qualifiers.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is Christ’s body and blood. That is the nature of transubstantiation. If I attend a Catholic Mass and receive the Eucharist, even though I am not supposed to do so, the Church would say that I have eaten His body and drunk His blood. Does that mean that I, or anyone else who does this, has eternal life? If Jesus’ statements are not to be taken in their express, literal sense, why should His words in the other parts of this discourse be taken literally.

I think that JonNC’s view of the words in the Lord’s institution of the sacrament are a better argument for the Real Presence than John 6.

 

[PJM]

=Augustine3;9093177]Jesus said explicitly in the gospel according to St John chapter 6 if we do not eat His flesh or drink His blood we have no life in us. What about the Protestants?

I’ve heard the argument it depends on their level of ignorance and other factors but it seems Jesus’ words are very firm non-negotiable. It kind of gives the message either you receive my flesh and blood and live or you don’t and die…

Any thoughts?

While the “REAL PRESENCE” is TRULY the Glorified Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity [in other WORDS “the Entire Christ”] and as such offers the GREATEST possibility of meriting ones own salvation [because It IS; IT IS Jesus Himself] and there can be no greater, no better, no more effective sourse of the garces needed that one requires to Merit our salvation.

THIS is the meaning of message Christ shares in John six.. There is no GREATER GOOD possible; yet the Eucharist is in an “absolute sense” not one of the requirements for salvation in the SAME MANNER as are Christian Baptism and Dying w/o unconfessed; unremitted Mortal sins.[In the 'State of Grace."]

God Bless,
Pat

 

[jcrichton]

In John 6:51 Jesus also says

Then in John 6:54

These verses would seem to give the message that anyonewho eats Jesus’ flesh and drinks His blood will have eternal life. These are unconditional statements made by the Lord without any qualifiers.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is Christ’s body and blood. That is the nature of transubstantiation. If I attend a Catholic Mass and receive the Eucharist, even though I am not supposed to do so, the Church would say that I have eaten His body and drunk His blood. Does that mean that I, or anyone else who does this, has eternal life? If Jesus’ statements are not to be taken in their express, literal sense, why should His words in the other parts of this discourse be taken literally.

I think that JonNC’s view of the words in the Lord’s institution of the sacrament are a better argument for the Real Presence than John 6.

***…while your argument seems sound, I caution you that demons also Believe that there’s a God… they tremble… but they reject His Authority!

Conversely, we cannot come to God as we please (remember what happened to Aaron’s son when he brought the strange fire?.. the fellow attempting to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling to the ground when David had retrieved it, how he touched it directly and died?) If by literal you mean that the worst of human beings could just grab a Sacred Host and he/she will automatically obtain Salvation… you must be running with the “always saved” crowds… Jesus is speaking to and of the Believers… it is in this relationship that His Flesh and Blood will work on your and my Salvation. (Check St. John 15:1-10 and 3:14-21.)

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Huiou_Theou]

In John 6:51 Jesus also says

Then in John 6:54

These verses would seem to give the message that anyonewho eats Jesus’ flesh and drinks His blood will have eternal life. These are unconditional statements made by the Lord without any qualifiers.

The Jewish way of expression is to use absolutes, and to then place contradictions or pairs of nearly identical meanings next to each other so that one can only conclude in one way that unifies all sentences.
It isn’t appropriate to read these sentences alone. Jesus says them in response to people who grumble against him just as those in the desert had at the time of Moses. Those who ate without discerning the spirit, in the desert, died. (Not all of those in the desert died before entering…!)

The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is Christ’s body and blood. That is the nature of transubstantiation. If I attend a Catholic Mass and receive the Eucharist, even though I am not supposed to do so, the Church would say that I have eaten His body and drunk His blood.

Yes, But they would also ask if you discerned them. It is the sSpirit which gives life – but the SPIRIT gives life to the flesh and blood. Jesus also says, “Man does not live by bread ALONE, but by every WORD which falls from the mouth of God.”

Does that mean that I, or anyone else who does this, has eternal life? If Jesus’ statements are not to be taken in their express, literal sense, why should His words in the other parts of this discourse be taken literally.

It means you have eternal life – but could be guilty of murder. It may be taken literally – but there is a price to pay.

In the garden of Eden, God cast Adam out lest he take and have eternal life, and live forever. That isn’t cruelty on God’s part – it’s mercy.

The Early Church Fathers are unanimous in stating that to be damned upon receiving the sacrament, is worse than to have never received them at all. Again, to Judas – Jesus said – It were better for him that he had never been born. (it is the fact he received something real that made his sin that much the greater regardless of whether one believes him ultimately damned or not.).

I think that JonNC’s view of the words in the Lord’s institution of the sacrament are a better argument for the Real Presence than John 6.

I don’t; you have received something of great value – but perhaps, unlike Adam, you received it not as God intended.

I know that when I eat a slice of bread, that my body naturally transforms it into my body. It is the spirit of my body which does this. Just so, the bread that is received at the Lords table will ALSO be transformed naturally into one’s body through one’s OWN spirit. (After 10-15 minutes is the supposed real presence time-lag and the onset of such a NATURAL trans-substantiation.).

However, your body CAN NOT be transformed into Christ’s body without HIS spirit doing it. That is the key difference. EVEN Without chewing, Jesus turned bread into his body; Likewise, upon receiving this bread – the Spirit active in it can (but does not have to) transform you into his body.

All you can take away from Christ by force is bread and wine; Consider: There were many in the desert who collected Mana on the wrong day, and they received rotten worms. However – Those who collected a double portion on a proper day, and kept it over to the sabbath – THOSE people collected bread which did not rot.

If you separate the meaning of John 6 from the context of the Manna in the desert – you have divorced Jesus’ words from their example; and this, I believe, you do at great peril.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Jesus said explicitly in the gospel according to St John chapter 6 if we do not eat His flesh or drink His blood we have no life in us. What about the Protestants?

I’ve heard the argument it depends on their level of ignorance and other factors but it seems Jesus’ words are very firm non-negotiable. It kind of gives the message either you receive my flesh and blood and live or you don’t and die…

Any thoughts?

An infant who has received only baptism, and then dies – goes directly to heaven.
A protestant who has received only baptism, and then dies – goes directly to heaven.

The Eucharist is required for growth from an initial birth. By analogy, one can starve without the Eucharist – but it isn’t an absolute requirement.

The Holy Spirit comes upon the waters of baptism; the Holy Spirit comes upon the bread as the dewfall. There is perhaps some mystery to probe here, but the Chruch’s teaching does not condemn protestants outright until a later condition (unspecified here) is met.

Jesus’ words were to grumbling Israelites; For he could not say to the Greeks that “Your father’s ate Manna in the Desert” (They didn’t!). It is, then, at very least doubters to whom he proved the issue, whom are condemned by not eating it.
But, to extend it to all persons requires a deeper inspection of the Church’s theology, and the scripture’s context.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine3
Jesus said explicitly in the gospel according to St John chapter 6 if we do not eat His flesh or drink His blood we have no life in us. What about the Protestants?

I’ve heard the argument it depends on their level of ignorance and other factors but it seems Jesus’ words are very firm non-negotiable. It kind of gives the message either you receive my flesh and blood and live or you don’t and die…

Any thoughts?

An infant who has received only baptism, and then dies – goes directly to heaven.
A protestant who has received only baptism, and then dies – goes directly to heaven.

The Eucharist is required for growth from an initial birth. By analogy, one can starve without the Eucharist – but it isn’t an absolute requirement.

The Holy Spirit comes upon the waters of baptism; the Holy Spirit comes upon the bread as the dewfall. There is perhaps some mystery to probe here, but the Chruch’s teaching does not condemn protestants outright until a later condition (unspecified here) is met.

Jesus’ words were to grumbling Israelites; For he could not say to the Greeks that “Your father’s ate Manna in the Desert” (They didn’t!). It is, then, at very least doubters to whom he proved the issue, whom are condemned by not eating it.
But, to extend it to all persons requires a deeper inspection of the Church’s theology, and the scripture’s context.

You left out one thing, sin. Yes, what you say is true that, " A protestant who has received only baptism, and then dies – goes directly to heaven." But what of those protestants who receive Baptism [valid, of course] and live? They have, like all of us, to deal with sin. And they do sin. I do not know one protestant who claims he does not sin. The problem for them is that, unlike Catholics, they have no way of remitting sin. Unlike the CatholicChurch they claim no authority to do so. So while their Baptism [if valid] does remit any sin [actual or original] up to that point it avails them no forgiveness for sins committed afterwards.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustine3
Jesus said explicitly in the gospel according to St John chapter 6 if we do not eat His flesh or drink His blood we have no life in us. What about the Protestants?

I’ve heard the argument it depends on their level of ignorance and other factors but it seems Jesus’ words are very firm non-negotiable. It kind of gives the message either you receive my flesh and blood and live or you don’t and die…

Any thoughts?

You left out one thing, sin. Yes, what you say is true that, " A protestant who has received only baptism, and then dies – goes directly to heaven." But what of those protestants who receive Baptism [valid, of course] and live? They have, like all of us, to deal with sin. And they do sin. I do not know one protestant who claims he does not sin. The problem for them is that, unlike Catholics, they have no way of remitting sin. Unlike the CatholicChurch they claim no authority to do so. So while their Baptism [if valid] does remit any sin [actual or original] up to that point it avails them no forgiveness for sins committed afterwards.

Yes, And I did say “unspecified here”.
Dying is life, says Paul; And I do not know which to choose…

But If I left out one thing, so did you. Mortal vs. Venial sin.
And then theres… but, STOP.

The point of the comment was simply valid (Sacramental) baptism.

Peace.

 

[inkaneer]

Yes, And I did say “unspecified here”.
Dying is life, says Paul; And I do not know which to choose…

But If I left out one thing, so did you. Mortal vs. Venial sin.
And then theres… but, STOP.

The point of the comment was simply valid (Sacramental) baptism.

Peace.

Venial sin is what purgatory is all about. But how does a protestant have mortal sin remitted?

 

[JonNC]

Venial sin is what purgatory is all about. But how does a protestant have mortal sin remitted?

I don’t know what others do, but Lutherans confess and receive absolution. We also receive the Lord’ Supper for the remission of sins. (And yes, I know the argument Catholics will make about the validity of our sacraments. We beg to differ)

Jon

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Venial sin is what purgatory is all about. But how does a protestant have mortal sin remitted?

What does that have to do with the OP?
If one doesn’t COMMIT mortal sin, one doesn’t need it forgiven is a legitimate way. Statistics are irrelevant (The road to hell is wide for Catholics, too!)

I’m not going to split a bunch of undefined theoretical hairs – A priest is the one who holds sins bound, and who looses them. The priest at my church says – “If one makes a perfect act of contrition after being in mortal sin, and then they break the church’s rules by receiving communion before confession – the second sin is merely venial.”

Pause DOH! … Eucharist is ordained to the forgiveness of venial sins.

Now, there is an entirely different subject about what the cost of such a communion is to the priest and to the church who allows such a judgment to stand; AND I would also point you to St. Faustina and the divine mercy as a locus of issues under the same umbrella – the harmonization of “mercy” and “justice” vis. a vis. if this is what your interest is.

However – I am not a judge, and merely telling me someone is baptized validly is sufficient evidence for me to answer the OP in the negative. The OP is a black/white do or die question…

But baptism is the obvious exception. QED.

 

[PJM]

=Huiou Theou;9132844]What does that have to do with the OP?
If one doesn’t COMMIT mortal sin, one doesn’t need it forgiven is a legitimate way. Statistics are irrelevant (The road to hell is wide for Catholics, too!)

I’m not going to split a bunch of undefined theoretical hairs – A priest is the one who holds sins bound, and who looses them. The priest at my church says – "If one makes a perfect act of contrition after being in mortal sin, and then they break the church’s rules by receiving communion before confession – the second sin is merely venial."
Pause DOH! … Eucharist is ordained to the forgiveness of venial sins.

Now, there is an entirely different subject about what the cost of such a communion is to the priest and to the church who allows such a judgment to stand; AND I would also point you to St. Faustina and the divine mercy as a locus of issues under the same umbrella – the harmonization of “mercy” and “justice” vis. a vis. if this is what your interest is.

However – I am not a judge, and merely telling me someone is baptized validly is sufficient evidence for me to answer the OP in the negative. The OP is a black/white do or die question…

But baptism is the obvious exception. QED.

***I humbly but strongly disagree with what your priest said. IF there was ANY possibility of Confession before assuming one has made " a PERFECT" act of Contrition; it would be another MORTAL SIN!

The ONLY condition wehre this MIGHT be vaild involved immenent danager of DEATH Physically.

I would certainly be looking for further advise on this issue. What your priest is saying is th the acrament of Confression is AT BEST optional and actually not required. WRONG!

---

OUR Catholic Catechism: 1456 Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: “All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly.”

** 1457 According to the Church’s command**, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year." Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession. Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time

These are extremely clear and express the Mind and heart of the CC.

God Bless, I PRAY NO ONE TAKES THE ADVISE OF THIS PRIEST!

 

[Luvtosew]

As a RC I do not believe John 6 has anything to do with the Last Supper, I do love that
chapter as Jesus spells out clearly what we must do to have eternal life.

Believe is the majic word.

I believe in the Real Presence but substantial , not physical.

 

[PeterGStanley]

When a whole bunch of his close follower left him (Many Disciples Desert Jesus) because of what he said he didn’t say sorry I was just kidding I was only being symbolic - no - he said “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

If he was speaking symbolically this would not of happened.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

***I humbly but strongly disagree with what your priest said. IF there was ANY possibility of Confession before assuming one has made " a PERFECT" act of Contrition; it would be another MORTAL SIN!

The ONLY condition wehre this MIGHT be vaild involved immenent danager of DEATH Physically.

I would certainly be looking for further advise on this issue. What your priest is saying is th the acrament of Confression is AT BEST optional and actually not required. WRONG!

---

It does appear that Fr. Jim argued that way; but he said nothing of Confession being “Optional”; rather he said if one DID this act, the act of perfect contrition would suffice (That, in a public homily, is equivalent to pronouncing his own judgment regarding communicants in his church.).

I am not aware of an official teaching which speaks directly to this issue:
Confession to a priest for venial sins is not required. CCC 1393, 4: “If, as often as his blood is poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins.… As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity … and this living charity wipes away venial sins.”

So, you see…
His argument really rests on the words “PERFECT contrition.”. (CCC1452, Council of Trent DS. 1677 – I’m looking it up now, too…)

BTW: He is forcibly being retired, in I believe, July; whether or not he recovers from medical procedures; eg: he’s assumed not to recover and is forcibly being retired.

** 1457 According to the Church’s command**,

Yes, and you have just verified that it is church LAW which prevents the reception of communion as Fr. Jim mentioned, but you haven’t shown an express teaching regarding the gravity of doing this after having made an act of perfect contrition.

These are extremely clear and express the Mind and heart of the CC.

God Bless, I PRAY NO ONE TAKES THE ADVISE OF THIS PRIEST!

I do understand your consternation; but I don’t pray either way regarding his advice FOR I don’t know how I can judge priestly authority to bind and loose sin.

Should there be a church teaching which clarifies the issue beyond Fr’s personal authority; That would be appropriate in order to enlighten all of our consciences – but without some kind of explanation of why the issue is grave; there can’t be the three conditions required for mortal sin.

Either perfect contrition exists, or it doesn’t; and I have no authority to judge.

 

[inkaneer]

I don’t know what others do, but Lutherans confess and receive absolution. We also receive the Lord’ Supper for the remission of sins. (And yes, I know the argument Catholics will make about the validity of our sacraments. We beg to differ)

Jon

How can you say you are absolved from sin if you deny church authority? Diffrering with our position regarding the validity of your rituals means nothing. Jesus established one church with authority to forgive sins. Martin Luther also established a church [actually a denomination] with no authority…

 

[jcrichton]

As a RC I do not believe John 6 has anything to do with the Last Supper, I do love that
chapter as Jesus spells out clearly what we must do to have eternal life.

Believe is the majic word.

I believe in the Real Presence but substantial , not physical.

…so St. Paul got it wrong?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

It does appear that Fr. Jim argued that way; but he said nothing of Confession being “Optional”; rather he said if one DID this act, the act of perfect contrition would suffice (That, in a public homily, is equivalent to pronouncing his own judgment regarding communicants in his church.).

I am not aware of an official teaching which speaks directly to this issue:
Confession to a priest for venial sins is not required. CCC 1393, 4: “If, as often as his blood is poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins.… As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity … and this living charity wipes away venial sins.”

So, you see…
His argument really rests on the words “PERFECT contrition.”. (CCC1452, Council of Trent DS. 1677 – I’m looking it up now, too…)

BTW: He is forcibly being retired, in I believe, July; whether or not he recovers from medical procedures; eg: he’s assumed not to recover and is forcibly being retired.

Yes, and you have just verified that it is church LAW which prevents the reception of communion as Fr. Jim mentioned, but you haven’t shown an express teaching regarding the gravity of doing this after having made an act of perfect contrition.

I do understand your consternation; but I don’t pray either way regarding his advice FOR I don’t know how I can judge priestly authority to bind and loose sin.

Should there be a church teaching which clarifies the issue beyond Fr’s personal authority; That would be appropriate in order to enlighten all of our consciences – but without some kind of explanation of why the issue is grave; there can’t be the three conditions required for mortal sin.

Either perfect contrition exists, or it doesn’t; and I have no authority to judge.

…the problem is that many times Priest and Religious are taking their own personal views and spousing them with Church Teachings… unless it is brought to the attention of the Bishop, ArchBishop, etc. there’s little that the Church can do… yet, even when errors are grafted onto genuine Doctrine the Church does not expediently cut off the person/s committing such errors (Luther and all that came before and after including the Nuns that continue to side with anti-Catholics); it is up to us, the insignificant and lowly members, to light a fire under our Priests, Religious, Bishops… the Pope to bring to light the issues… as Christ’s Disciples we are called to be sentinels (the first line of defense) so that the people of God may be warned of any danger.

Too many times all we do is wait for the smoke to clear… :banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Luvtosew]

…so St. Paul got it wrong?

Maran atha!

Angel

No I believe St. Paul got it right.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

As a RC I do not believe John 6 has anything to do with the Last Supper, I do love that
chapter as Jesus spells out clearly what we must do to have eternal life.

Believe is the majic word.

I believe in the Real Presence but substantial , not physical.

43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Catholics believe that Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said. He was indeed speaking of the Last Supper where he would initiate the Eucharist that we still practice to this day.

I am not sure what exactly you are practicing, but I don’t think it’s Catholicism.

 

[ahs]

43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Catholics believe that Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said. He was indeed speaking of the Last Supper where he would initiate the Eucharist that we still practice to this day.

I am not sure what exactly you are practicing, but I don’t think it’s Catholicism.

Amen! It is the literal meaning of Christ’s Words here that the Apostle admonishes us to not only observe, but to prepare ourselves for prior to participating in the Meal:

23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.
24And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.
25In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
26For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
27Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
28But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.
29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
30Therefore are there many inform and weak among you, and many sleep.
31But if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. (1 Cor 11:23-31)

If Christ were not being literal, one could hardly be guilty of His Body and Blood…eating judgment upon oneself. It makes no sense to be guilty of the Body and Blood for unjustly partaking in a symbolic meal.

But for the reason here, I’d say that Catholics who actaully believe in the Real Presence and partake unworthily will be worse off than Protestants who don’t believe in it.