The eucharistic elements (over and above their symbolic value) have an objective reality apart from the recipient’s religiosity

[dcarollo]

In this article on the QUick Answers, by Fr. Vincent Serpa

catholic.com/quickquestions/if-protestant-communion-is-invalid-what-relationship-to-christ-is-engendered-by-parti

He says this:

“For those who receive the Eucharist in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the experience is more than merely subjective. The eucharistic elements (over and above their symbolic value) have an objective reality apart from the recipient’s religiosity.”

So: My question – how does one answer the Protestant charge (as my friend just argued with me), that the Eucharist and “real presence” is basically a superstitious activity – if it does NOT matter what spiritual state the communicant is in ?

However: That’s not even true, though – because even in the Catholic church, communicants have to be in a state of Grace (or confessing sins – as Protestants would also agree).

Just curious how folks here would answer the charge of “superstition”.
She’s convinced this is WHY there seems to be so many luke-warm Catholics who just don’t “get it” — because they are simply relying on this notion of an “objective” real presence, as if that we’re enough.

 

[mark_a]

In this article on the QUick Answers, by Fr. Vincent Serpa

catholic.com/quickquestions/if-protestant-communion-is-invalid-what-relationship-to-christ-is-engendered-by-parti

He says this:

“For those who receive the Eucharist in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the experience is more than merely subjective. The eucharistic elements (over and above their symbolic value) have an objective reality apart from the recipient’s religiosity.”

So: My question – how does one answer the Protestant charge (as my friend just argued with me), that the Eucharist and “real presence” is basically a superstitious activity – if it does NOT matter what spiritual state the communicant is in ?

However: That’s not even true, though – because even in the Catholic church, communicants have to be in a state of Grace (or confessing sins – as Protestants would also agree).

Just curious how folks here would answer the charge of “superstition”.
She’s convinced this is WHY there seems to be so many luke-warm Catholics who just don’t “get it” — because they are simply relying on this notion of an “objective” real presence, as if that we’re enough.

Yeah, but wouldn’t it be the greatest thing if it were all true?

I recommend Brant Petrie’s cd “The Jewish Roots of the Eucharist”. It’s an awesome presentation!

 

[curlycool89]

So: My question – how does one answer the Protestant charge (as my friend just argued with me), that the Eucharist and “real presence” is basically a superstitious activity – if it does NOT matter what spiritual state the communicant is in ?

Because they misunderstand what a sacrament is.

The Eucharist is objectively the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and it doesn’t matter whether or not you believe it is. If a church-mouse eats a consecrated host, the mouse is eating the True Presence, it doesn’t matter that the mouse can’t believe or even comprehend.

It’s not some superstitious idea that “it’s the body of Christ if you believe”. No, no, no, It’s actually the Body of Christ. Full Stop, no qualifications.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Just curious how folks here would answer the charge of “superstition”.

This is how you answer.

 

[bmullins]

Ask him simply, if it is merely superstition then why does Paul warn us that it can bring us damnation? If it is only a ‘cracker’ then it has no power over us, and is nothing more than a ceremony that has no effect on our soul.

[bibledrb] 1 Corinthians 11:27 [/bibledrb]

Paul clearly tells us right in the sacred scriptures that it is more than superstition.

 

[LilyM]

To say that the Eucharist is always and objectively the Real Presence is not the same thing at all as saying that your religiosity or state of soul upon reception doesn’t matter.

Electricity is objectively real for everyone. That doesn’t mean that your understanding of it doesn’t matter. It matters very much.

A baby who doesn’t understand will stick a fork or their finger in a power socket and be electrocuted and harmed.

An adult who understands electricity will avoid doing so, but instead will stick an electrical appliance into the same socket and put that electricity to good use powering a light or a computer or whatever.

Point is - why does Paul emphasize the very real spiritual and even physical dangers of receiving the Eucharist unworthily if the Real Presence isn’t every bit as real as electricity? If I paint something that merely looks like a power point on my wall I’m not going to care if a child sticks a fork into it, am I? And no harm can come to the child if it does so, can it?