It ignores the danger of descending into magic, with its sinister undercurrent of cannibalism; which is exactly what the early Christians were accused of doing. It ridicules the view that the Eucharist is pure symbolism, and was never meant to be anything else. That it was meant to symbolize Christ’s spirit dwelling in us we all agree; the prayer of humble access makes this absolutely plain. But it does not condescend to explain why a spiritual truth needs more than a symbolic ceremony. And when you think about it, it uncomfortably parallels the thought that if all the reputed fragments of the true cross were gathered together, they would amount to a veritable timber yard. Is it similar to the sale of Indulgences in the 16th century, when if you paid for the rebuilding of St. Peters, not only would you go to heaven, but the local hills would turn to solid silver! What is the truth?
Well part of the truth is that the public are unimpressed. I suspect the average lawyer would say it was the most ridiculous rubbish he has ever heard; I suspect the average man-in-the-street would just gape for a moment, and then carry on with his own business. Christ’s miracles, if they happened, left his public profoundly impressed, if the Gospels are accurate. Why work a transcending miracle that leaves you open to ridicule? What is at stake?
What is at stake is the authority of the clergy. They cannot perform lesser miracles, like healing the sick. Nobody believes they can forgive sin, when they cannot heal paralysis or mental troubles of any sort: which Christ himself said was as easy as forgiving sin. Their public standing has collapsed with the collapse of authority generally. So how do they differ from the Club Secretary? Their last citadel is that they alone have the legal right to consecrate the sacrament; so matins is dispensed with, the Eucharist is made the paramount service, and they hold the key. Without them it is a truncated service. Is this a legitimate use of power? Or is it an egotistical use of power?
Take egotistical power first. There was not much place for egotism round the historical Jesus. The parochial jostlings of the disciples were quickly put to shame. Annas and Caiaphas did not commit murder to preserve their jobs, but to preserve the nation, as they thought. Pontius Pilate was not egotistical; he was weak in the face of mob violence, and the risk of casualties among his soldiers. The only person who was seriously egotistical was Judas. Tradition says he wanted to force Jesus to adopt the zealot’s concept of the Messiah. On any view he must have been utterly frustrated with Jesus’ concept; and determined to pursue his own path. No-one wants to see the clergy in this role. Luther felt driven to it; maybe he was right, but look at the result. The last thing we want now is more schism. So I will assume the answer to this question in their favour.