I disagree, Harley. It is a blessing that the Protestant churches do not "hold the same value as the Eucharist."
The Lord's Supper is not as important in worship as the sermon, the preaching of the Word of God.
The church of Rome centers its worship around its attempt to transmorgify the bread and wine into the blood and body of Christ. Sadly, it becomes almost iconic, and thus, to a Protestant, anathema.
The Protestant churches rightly, and to varying degrees, see the Lord's Supper as a ceremonial remembrance, as well as another sign and seal of our adoption by God through the atonement of His Son. But the Lord's Supper conveys no special anointing on the participant. It is simply one more, albeit exquisite, instance of God bestowing His grace upon His sheep.
But the the preaching of the Gospel is the correct center and heart of worship.
My disagreement isn't with the meaning of the Lord's Supper which is rightly defined by the Protestants but with the frequency it is delivered. We are commanded in scripture to do it every time we meet yet we fail to do so - at least in my church. I know there are a few Protestant chruches that have the Lord's Supper every week but they are few and far between.
It is significant that the bread and wine should be passed among the congregation without the congregation having to go to the front of the church and kneel to be made worthy to "receive" the Lord's Supper.
Christ served the Apostles at the Last Supper because He was explaining to them what He was about to do for them.
So, too, are we to remember as we partake of the Lord's Supper what He did for us (by being served by Him) and NOT for what we can do for Him (by walking to the front of the church and "receiving" Him).
Again, the distinction is important and points to the real differences between the two faiths -- what Christ did for us, as opposed to what we do for Christ.