The Real Presence

[grasscutter]

Hopefully this hasn’t been asked of protestants and fundamentalists to the point of being irritating. I have just been wondering why you don’t believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

I’m genuinely interested in feedback and do not wish to cause controversy.

 

[Radical]

Hopefully this hasn’t been asked of protestants and fundamentalists to the point of being irritating. I have just been wondering why you don’t believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

I’m genuinely interested in feedback and do not wish to cause controversy.

well, it has been asked with a good bit of frequency (and often with the tone of, how could you be such a spiritual idiot so as to not believe in the real bodily presence)…but for a fellow Canuck I’ll be happy to respond. My reasons are:

a) I don’t think it is a teaching that goes back to the apostles (and therefore, obviously not back to Christ)…if you are interested I’ll be happy to provide the Titles of some scholarly works that support my position;

b) the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine…no scholarly works needed in support of this position as any one with the senses of sight, touch, smell/or and taste can easily verify the matter and I find the philosophy used to support the inconsistency (between what is observed and what is claimed) to be more than seriously lacking; and

c) the efforts to support the claim of a real bodily presence from scripture (IMHO) are flawed and do not overcome the obvious fact that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he likely said (probably in Aramaic), “This - my body”

If this thread takes the normal course, a number of conservative Catholics will:

a) post a bunch of snippets from the ECFs in response to #1 above…typically with no accompanying analysis and as if the scholars that I can marshall in support of my view somehow forgot to read those snippets;

b) claim that I am calling Jesus a liar for not disbelieving my eyes and believing “is” means “is” or claim that I must be saying that God isn’t powerful enough to make bread into his body whilst still leaving the “accidents” of the bread in place; and/or

c) claim that various passages (the 3 institution passages, John 6 and 1 Cor 10 and 11) must be interpreted to verify a real bodily presence even though extremely learned scholars do not agree with that assertion.

That said, if you want to undertsand why I believe what I believe, I am happy to answer your questions

 

[Cavaradossi]

I too sometimes wonder why one would deny the real presence since it is a teaching of most forms of Christianity which have a strong claim to apostolic succession (Roman Catholicism, Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy).

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Protestants, even if they believed it, can’t confect the Eucharist. It takes a validly ordained priest in apostolic succession to consecrate the Eucharist and offer the Sacrifice.
And he must have permission from the local Bishop, called “faculties.”

There are some Protestants who mistakenly think their communion is the Real Presence. I’m sure this is a great comfort to them.

(Most) Protestants don’t believe it because they are centuries removed from the teaching of the Apostles and get their doctrines from reading words on a page, which they misinterpret. The Catholic Church was confecting the Eucharist and offering the Sacrifice for years before the first word of the New Testatment was written and centuries before it was selected and canonized.

Most Protestants in the pew haven’t read the history of Christianity or the history of the Bible. And, they believe anything Catholic must be wrong

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[Cat_Herder]

My reasons are:

a) I don’t think it is a teaching that goes back to the apostles …

Read 1 Corinthians 11. People do not get sick and die from eating bread while in grave sin. Otherwise everyone would be falling over at the waffle house. If you want a further explanation, here you go.

b) the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine …no scholarly works needed in support of this position as any one with the senses of sight, touch, smell/or and taste can easily verify the matter

Have you ever seen God or otherwise percieved Him with your senses? Does that mean God does not exist? Do you trust His Word or your senses?

and I find the philosophy used to support the inconsistency (between what is observed and what is claimed) to be more than seriously lacking; and

If I make an octagon out of steel, paint it red, and put white letters spelling “STOP” on it? What have I made? No, not a stop sign. I have made a red piece of metal with some letters on it. No one is obligated to stop before my stop sign.

This red piece of metal that says “STOP” becomes a stop sign when the Legislature passes and the Governor signs a bill that says people must stop before signs like mine. Only after their words have been said is my red piece of metal a stop sign.

The words changed the subtance of the red metal thingy into a stop sign because the government has the power to give legal effect to things. Does God have such power? Doesn’t He have the further power to give ANY effect to ANYTHING He wants?

c) the efforts to support the claim of a real bodily presence from scripture (IMHO) are flawed and do not overcome the obvious fact that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he likely said (probably in Aramaic), “This - my body”

If He was speaking figuratively, then what did He mean? “Eat my flesh and drink my blood” was a phrase with a specific symbolic meaning, and that meaning was to kill and destroy someone. Since that meaning was specifically Scripturally established, and God does not change (Mal 3:6) there’s no way He could have been referring to that.

[BIBLEDRB]Psalm 26:2[/BIBLEDRB]
(Psalm 27 in your Bible)
[BIBLEDRB]Isa 9:18-20[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Isa 49:26[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Micah 3:3[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Revelation 17:6[/BIBLEDRB]

If this thread takes the normal course, a number of conservative Catholics will:

a) post a bunch of snippets from the ECFs in response to #1 above…typically with no accompanying analysis and as if the scholars that I can marshall in support of my view somehow forgot to read those snippets;

I don’t specialize in the ECFs. As a convert from Protestantism I had to reason myself into the Church using the Bible and so that is generally what I stick to. Back when we had Macs and PCs in a computer lab we had to make sure all our floppy disks (remember those?) were PC formatted because the PCs refused to read Mac disks in much the same way as Protestants refuse to read the ECFs or otherwise mangle them in a Calvin-esque fashion. So I will stick to PC-formatted disks, i.e. the Bible.

b) claim that I am calling Jesus a liar…; and/or

No, but if you are asserting that the Catholic Church became “corrupt” at some point by “introducing” dogmata like the Real Presence, then you ***are ***asserting that God is incompetent and unable to accomplish His Will since, despite this…

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

… no one would have been saved from the time of the alleged “corruption” until the “Reformation” or much much later. (Or, if people were saved, then the Reformation was pointless. Which it was.)

c) claim that various passages (the 3 institution passages, John 6 and 1 Cor 10 and 11) must be interpreted to verify a real bodily presence even though extremely learned scholars do not agree with that assertion.

I have a better idea.

[BIBLEDRB]Malachi 1:11[/BIBLEDRB]

What is the “clean oblation/sacrifice”? If your answer is not Calvary, tell me what Old Testament sacrifice was clean and whether or not God was being praised among the Gentiles at any time during the OT. If your answer is Calvary, then tell me how Calvary can be offered in every place and at every time.

 

[Defender1]

a) I don’t think it is a teaching that goes back to the apostles (and therefore, obviously not back to Christ)…if you are interested I’ll be happy to provide the Titles of some scholarly works that support my position;

b) the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine…no scholarly works needed in support of this position as any one with the senses of sight, touch, smell/or and taste can easily verify the matter and I find the philosophy used to support the inconsistency (between what is observed and what is claimed) to be more than seriously lacking; and

c) the efforts to support the claim of a real bodily presence from scripture (IMHO) are flawed and do not overcome the obvious fact that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he likely said (probably in Aramaic), “This - my body”

If I may give you some explanations to the real presence:
a. You dont believe that it is a teaching that goes back to the apostles
Now I can understand how one would think that . And I could always cite the Didache 5:9 (a church father teaching written before the end of the first century ) Speaks the importance for one begin baptized before receiving the Eucharist and it quotes "do not give to the dogs what is sacred " . This is speaking of the importance of the Eucharist . Now the Didache is teaching of the first church leaders appointed by Christ . Another church father was Bishop Ignatius of Antioch . He was a student of John the apostles . There are several books about his writings . He is also recorded writing the church name as Catholic church before 110 AD . he is also recorded writing the Eucharist in the belief that Catholics hold today … So for you to say that it was not taught by the Apostle is quite untrue . The Didache not only speaks the importance of it , but Ignatius speaks of it as well . john must have taught him the correct doctrines considering he himself was a direct student of Christ .
b.Now you stated that one of us will probably mention John 6 along with the others . If you dont understand the verses as being the real presence you wont through that way of course byut perhaps what i have to say about the book will : you see as you know the NT is written in Greek and in John 6 the word to eat is Phagon . Well in John 6 when Jesus mentions eating his flesh and drinking his blood The word to eat changes from phagon to Trogon (TO munch and naw ) Now what was the purpose in your opinion as to why the wording is changed ? It would only make sense that the purpose of the word changing from Phagon to Trogon , was to put greater emphasis on actual eating .

You see? perhaps you should rethink your point of view of the Eucharist. Just out of curiosity what Protestant denomination do you belong to?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I know the OP asked this question of Protestants and the thread is at risk of being overwhelmed by Catholics, but as a former Methodist let me just point out that not all Protestants would say they deny the Real Presence.

Very few would believe in Transubstantiation in the Catholic sense, but there are many who would hold to some sort of presence of Christ, whether a spiritual presence, a spiritual and physical presence “in” the elements that still remain (consubstantiation), or just a very mysterious, indefinable real personal presence.

 

[Conor7]

I’m not sure if I believe transubstantiation, in fact, I’m not sure I even think about it much. Am moved to the point of a sobbing blubbering mess each time I take communion? Yes. Is that God working? Certainly. I don’t need the doctrine, I need the experience. And that is good enough for me.

 

[Radical]

I’m not sure if I believe transubstantiation, in fact, I’m not sure I even think about it much. Am moved to the point of a sobbing blubbering mess each time I take communion? Yes. Is that God working? Certainly. I don’t need the doctrine, I need the experience. And that is good enough for me.

IMHO this is an admirable approach to the Eucharist…thanks for sharing

 

[Cat_Herder]

Hopefully this hasn’t been asked of protestants and fundamentalists to the point of being irritating. I have just been wondering why you don’t believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

1. SACRAMENTS
For starters, most of them either believe that (1) the apostolic church did not have rituals; or (2) if it did, those rituals were only symbolic. Of course, they all believe that a particular ritual called marriage has a real effect on people. Flip a few more Bible pages and it becomes clear that salvation is not by faith alone and that baptism, like marriage, has a real effect on people, namely the imparting of grace, removal of sin, and incorporation into the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13).

Once it is established that there are sacraments–rituals with effect–then we can turn to another sacrament: the Eucharist, also known as Holy Communion, the Lord’s Supper and the Blessed Sacrament.

2. PRESENCE
Let’s start with a basic question: Why are there church buildings and why are they called “houses of the Lord”? Why is a church building, which is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture, a holy place? Although the apostolic church had many believers there was no need to have a church building, instead, according to Acts 2, 5:42, etc. Christians met only at their homes (and the Temple, but that clearly wasn’t available to anyone outside Jerusalem, and to anyone at all after 70 AD.) If the apostolic church outside Jerusalem had church buildings then why did Paul’s congregations meet only in their homes? (See e.g. Rom 16:5, 1 Cor 16:19).

My point is… What happens in a church that is so holy that it justified having a special building for it once there was no danger of incursion by the authorities? Clearly it has to be something more than just Christians meeting to read the Bible or share a common meal as that can just as well be done (and biblically, was done) at home.

A clue lies in the designation of a church building as “the house of the Lord.” The Lord is present everywhere as God. The Lord is also present in Christians who are in grace and whenever two or more are gathered in His name; such a gathering could occur anywhere. So, again, why the special building? Clearly the Lord must be MORE present in that building than in any of the other cases to justify having it. Otherwise the building should be sold to feed the poor per the command to hold everything in common and sell unnecessaries to help those in need (again, Acts 2).

3. SACRIFICE
Let’s look at the prophets and how they said God would be worshiped by the Gentiles (non-Jews, i.e., most of us) when God finally came to us:

[BIBLEDRB]Malachi 1:11[/BIBLEDRB]

From here we see that worship of God:

1. Involves a pure sacrifice or oblation
2. Occurs everywhere and at every time

Now (1) can only mean one thing: Calvary. No other sacrifice was pure. If the Jewish sacrifices had been pure then they would have atoned for the sins of the Jews (and Calvary would have been unnecessary), and they didn’t.

[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 10:4[/BIBLEDRB]

But now… how can Calvary, which occurred once for all in 33 AD on one hill outside Jerusalem, be made present at every time and in every place?

With that question in mind, click this link and read the explanation of how the Old and New Testament priesthoods relate to one another, and it should be crystal clear that when Paul says:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 10:16[/BIBLEDRB]

… he is speaking of the Eucharist as a literal sharing in the Body and Blood of Christ. This is confirmed later on in the same letter…

4. CONSEQUENCES

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 11:22-30[/BIBLEDRB]

…So how can someone who eats symbolic bread be guilty of murdering God? How can he be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord unless… you know… the Lord is actually THERE?

Moreover if one can get sick and die by eating bread while in a state of grave sin, then there would be lots of sick people falling over at the waffle house. (I had to say that again. ) Clearly there is more to the Lord’s Supper than just bread.

Finally, see verse 29. Again, how can you discern the Body of the Lord unless the Body of the Lord is ACTUALLY THERE? I sometimes hear Protestants say that the “Body of the Lord” means the congregation, in other words, that the verse supposedly states one has to be a Christian in order to partake. But look at who the letter is addressed to:
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 1:2[/BIBLEDRB]
… the Corinthians are already Christians. Since all Scripture is instructive (2 Tim 3:16) then the warning must refer to some other aspect of the Lord’s Body, otherwise there would be no instruction and 1 Cor. 11 would not be Scripture.

5. BIOLOGY
Now, it is true that Christ is one body with many members. To use modern biology, we are all members, cells, in Christ’s Body. Now what happens to a cell when it no longer partakes of the blood of the host? It goes to the reserves and consumes the fat. And when that’s gone?

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:53-56[/BIBLEDRB]

So we see there’s nothing cannibalistic about the Real Presence. You’re not a cannibal on account of your muscle cell eating your fat or drinking your blood. So it is with you and Christ, for you are part of His Body. And if you don’t partake of what He gives you, you will not have life–that is, Him–within you.

Taste and see the goodness of the Lord!

More answers here and also here.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

That said, if you want to undertsand why I believe what I believe, I am happy to answer your questions

Which denomination are you, please?

I’ll put my learned scholars up against your learned scholars and what will that prove? Your scholars will parse Scripture verses and mine will rely on the Scriptures and history. You would not be persuaded, “even if someone should rise from the dead” Luke 16:31. One cannot be convinced against one’s will.

The Truth is in the teaching of the Apostles. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world in A.D. 33, She had been confecting the Eucharist and offering the Sacrifice for at least 20 years before the first word of the NT was written (Thessalonians, the early 50s). By the time John’s Gospel was written c. 90-100, the Church was 60-something. The Church didn’t read Chapter 6 and then decide what to believe. To the contrary, the Eucharist described in John’s Gospel mirrors what he and the other Apostles had been taught by Christ and what they, in turn, taught the Church. The Gospels are the memoirs of the Apostles or their disciples.

**“Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was unquestioningly realist, i.e, the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood.” ** Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly, Adam and Charles Black, London, 1958 p. 426, Kelly is a Protestant scholar.

Jim Dandy

 

[Radical]

If I may give you some explanations to the real presence:
a. You dont believe that it is a teaching that goes back to the apostles
Now I can understand how one would think that . And I could always cite the Didache 5:9 (a church father teaching written before the end of the first century ) Speaks the importance for one begin baptized before receiving the Eucharist and it quotes "do not give to the dogs what is sacred " . This is speaking of the importance of the Eucharist .

right, and I wouldn’t suggest that the Eucharist is unimportant or that it should be causually approached

Another church father was Bishop Ignatius of Antioch . He was a student of John the apostles .

possibly a student…any how, what you should do here is to take into account the likelihood that Ignatius had a Platonic philosophy as the basis for his view of reality. That would mean that he would discount what is sensed (not just the bread and the wine that is continually observed at a Eucharist, but everything that is observed) and would hold that true reality existed in the realm of ideas. With that in mind, what would Ignatius mean by saying that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus? Specifically, “how” was it the flesh of Jesus by way of Ignatius’ thinking? If you want to rely on Ignatius you must be able to explain the “how” of his claim and not just assume that his “how” is the same as your “how” …particularly, if you don’t share the underlying philosophy.

… he is also recorded writing the Eucharist in the belief that Catholics hold today … So for you to say that it was not taught by the Apostle is quite untrue .

you have a long way to go before you will have established this claim of an apostolic origin

Now you stated that one of us will probably mention John 6 along with the others . If you dont understand the verses as being the real presence you wont through that way of course byut perhaps what i have to say about the book will : you see as you know the NT is written in Greek and in John 6 the word to eat is Phagon . Well in John 6 when Jesus mentions eating his flesh and drinking his blood The word to eat changes from phagon to Trogon (TO munch and naw ) Now what was the purpose in your opinion as to why the wording is changed ? It would only make sense that the purpose of the word changing from Phagon to Trogon , was to put greater emphasis on actual eating .

been there and done that with the trogon bit …see post #9 and following

You see? perhaps you should rethink your point of view of the Eucharist. Just out of curiosity what Protestant denomination do you belong to?

I come from an anabaptist background

 

[Cheshangle]

Protestants, even if they believed it, can’t confect the Eucharist. It takes a validly ordained priest in apostolic succession to consecrate the Eucharist and offer the Sacrifice.
And he must have permission from the local Bishop, called “faculties.”

There are some Protestants who mistakenly think their communion is the Real Presence. I’m sure this is a great comfort to them.

(Most) Protestants don’t believe it because they are centuries removed from the teaching of the Apostles and get their doctrines from reading words on a page, which they misinterpret. The Catholic Church was confecting the Eucharist and offering the Sacrifice for years before the first word of the New Testatment was written and centuries before it was selected and canonized.

Most Protestants in the pew haven’t read the history of Christianity or the history of the Bible. And, they believe anything Catholic must be wrong

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

I believe in the Real Presence, and yes, it is a great comfort to me.

Anglican who lapsed into agnosticism for 35 years and is delighted to be back.

 

[Cheshangle]

Hopefully this hasn’t been asked of protestants and fundamentalists to the point of being irritating. I have just been wondering why you don’t believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

I’m genuinely interested in feedback and do not wish to cause controversy.

No, it’s a very valid question and should not cause controversy.

My understanding of transubstantiation, from a book written by an Anglican priest but agreed by a RC one, is that although the bread and wine still taste and look like bread and wine, the substance changes to the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. I can quote further if you wish, but it’s not something I have a problem with.

But I’m equally content with Luther’s theory of consubstantiation, the view that the substance of both bread and the body of Our Lord are present together. The analogy is that when placed in a fire, iron glows because iron and heat are both present.

There’s another point of view, from a stanza by John Donne, and agreed by Elizabeth I, that whatever God makes it, “I give thanks and take it”.

As I’ve mentioned before, the Anglican stance is that, “the bread which we break is a partaking of rhe Body of Christ; and likwise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ”.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Cheshangle wrote:

I believe in the Real Presence, and yes, it is a great comfort to me.

As I’ve mentioned before, the Anglican stance is that, “the bread which we break is a partaking of rhe Body of Christ; and likwise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ”.

That’s true only of a part of Anglicanism (High Church). There are also Anglicans who believe as evangelicals believe, that the bread and wine are mere symbols (Low Church), and those liberal Anglicans whose beliefs are comparable to Unitarianism, that is, barely Christian (Broad Church). But they all fit under the Anglican umbrella. Huh? :whacky:

Jim Dandy

 

[Cheshangle]

Cheshangle wrote:

That’s true only of a part of Anglicanism (High Church). There are also Anglicans who believe as evangelicals believe, that the bread and wine are mere symbols (Low Church), and those liberal Anglicans whose beliefs are comparable to Unitarianism, that is, barely Christian (Broad Church). But they all fit under the Anglican umbrella. Huh? :whacky:

Jim Dandy

Actually “Broad Church” is a description of Anglicanism per se. As long as we accept the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (which I’ve quoted before but can quote yet again if you want), it’s OK. Broad Church does not equate to Unitarianism.

Being Broad Church is both a strength and weakness of Anglicanism.

A friend of mine is Unitarian, and they did a survey (anonymous responses) of the fifty or so people at her church. Three described themselves as agnostic. And, wait for it, four as…Trinitarians! The mind bogles.

 

[Cheshangle]

I’m not sure if I believe transubstantiation, in fact, I’m not sure I even think about it much. Am moved to the point of a sobbing blubbering mess each time I take communion? Yes. Is that God working? Certainly. I don’t need the doctrine, I need the experience. And that is good enough for me.

In the atheist-infested forum I was in before, a fellow Anglican was challenged by some militant ant-theist on “evidence”. He replied, “when I take the sacramant, I don’t look for evidence. I merely see the Divine”.

I wish I’d said that.

 

[Conor7]

He replied, “when I take the sacramant, I don’t look for evidence. I merely see the Divine”…

That is quite beautiful. I think many would do themselves good to stop looking for a change in the bread and wine, and start looking for a change in themselves.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Actually “Broad Church” is a description of Anglicanism per se. As long as we accept the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (which I’ve quoted before but can quote yet again if you want), it’s OK. Broad Church does not equate to Unitarianism.

Being Broad Church is both a strength and weakness of Anglicanism.

A friend of mine is Unitarian, and they did a survey (anonymous responses) of the fifty or so people at her church. Three described themselves as agnostic. And, wait for it, four as…Trinitarians! The mind bogles.

By making the comparison to Unitarianism, I meant that the “Broad Church” comprizes the more liberal, less ecclesiastical element in the Anglican ecclesial community. It embraces latitudinarianism – first established by S.T. Coleridge, who died in1858.

I would say the Unitarians who participated in the survey you reported are latitudinarian.
Anything goes.

Could you post that Quadrilateral again, please?

How do you decide between the three conflicting but equally valid positions in the Anglican ecclesial community?

Thanks, Jim Dandy

 

[Radical]

Read 1 Corinthians 11. People do not get sick and die from eating bread while in grave sin. Otherwise everyone would be falling over at the waffle house.

Three things in response to your reference to 1 Cor 11.

1. The passage reads (in the Douay Rheims):
   For 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.
   And 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.
   In 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.
   For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
   Therefore 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.
   Please note the use of “Therefore” in the last line. That use would mean that Paul saw the reason for the guilt as being the fact that the Lord’s Supper was a proclamation/shew of the Lord’s death (and not b/c some real bodily presence was involved). That’s strike one.
2. My oldest and dearest friend is a good Catholic fellow who complains that twice a year (at Christmas and Easter) he has a hard time finding a seat at his church because the twice-a-year-Catholics (2YCs) show up and fill up the place. It seems to me that if the real bodily presence of the Lord (RBP) caused people who participated unworthily to get sick (as you seem to claim), and if the Catholic Eucharist actually involves a RBP (as you claim), then the emergency rooms should see a serious spike in attendees at Christmas and Easter (exactly b/c of those 2YCs…yes, some would get their acts together, but a good percentage would be unworthily participating). It would be very easy to empirically test this hypothesis and I can only wonder (with all the studies that have been done trying to improve our health care system) why such a pronounced spike hasn’t been spotted. I kinda suspect that it is b/c such a spike doesn’t exist (b/c a RBP also doesn’t exist). As a result, people are falling over at the Catholic Church to the same extent as they do at the waffle house. That would be strike two.
3. In Hebrews 10: 26-29 it reads:
   If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, … How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Here we see that one can “trample” Jesus underfoot and treat his blood as an unholy thing w/o having any actual physical interaction with Christ’s body or with his blood….and so, obviously a real bodily presence is not required to sin against Christ’s body or his blood.

a) in 1 Cor 11 Paul said, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” in the context of the Lord’s Supper

b) In Hebrews 10, to “deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth,” is equated with trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him. In that passage there is no indication that there is one and only one way to “deliberately keep on sinning “ (namely by eating the bread or drinking the cup in an unworthy manner) In fact, there is no indication that the Lord’s Supper is in any way under consideration.

c) Since the Eucharist is the one and only thing claimed to involve a RBP, and since Hebrews 10 does not indicate that the Lord’s Supper is in any way involved, there must be a way to trample the Son of God under foot and to treat Jesus’s blood as an unholy thing w/o having anything to do with a RBP.

d) Further, the consequences described in the two passages for the wrongful actions are different. In 1 Cor 11 eating/drinking in an unworthy manner results in sickness and possibly death. In Hebrews 10, deliberate sinning after knowledge results in damnation. The penalty in Hebrews 10 is more significant and so “trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him” would appear to be more significant than " profaning the body and blood of the Lord".

e) An assumption that a RBP must be involved (at 1 Cor 11) b/c the offense is described in such a serious manner fails b/c Hebrews 10 describes a more serious offense against the body (what else would one trample) and against the blood of Christ w/o a RBP being involved
Strike three. You’re out.