In his heroic attempt to correct that debacle that is the Ordinary Form of the Mass, the Bishop of Gallup quoted Flannery O'Connor in his letter about ad orientem:
We
would do well to remember, then, that the Eucharist is not simply a
nice “sign” or “symbol” of communion with God, but rather truly is communion with God. (In
fact, it is so far from being a mere symbol in the modern sense of that
term, that Flannery O’Connor once famously said that “if it is just a
symbol, to hell with it!) For the Eucharist is
nothing less than the very Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus
Christ, and the “source and summit of the Christian life” (Lumen gentium, 11).
Crux has more sobering news about the debacle that is the Post-Vatican II Church as it concerns her liturgy in the Ordinary Form, press title for full article:
ROME - Results from a new Pew survey show that Jews are the most
knowledgeable among America’s religious communities about world
religions, while only half of American Catholics know what their own
Church teaches on core principles such as communion.
According to the survey, exactly 50 percent of Catholics in the
United States correctly answered a question about Church teaching on
transubstantiation - the belief that during Mass, the bread and wine
become the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.
“The other half of Catholics incorrectly say the Church teaches that
the bread and wine used in Communion are just symbols of the body and
blood of Christ,” and a small percentage are not sure, the study found....
....According to the findings, the average U.S. adult was able to answer
fewer than half the religious questions correctly, with just nine
percent able to answer three-quarters correctly and less than one
percent earning a perfect score...
28 comments:
I am not surprised and would go one step further to say that they are often misinformed.
rcg,
I assume you referring to the clergy?
Bee here:
Please excuse my cynicism, but I expect this news will be met with figurative, if not actual, popping of champagne corks and congratulatory toasting by many, many progressive "Catholics," including cardinals, bishops, priests, religious, and theologians, not to mention the heterodox laity who cheer them on. After all, they have been working for this end for a long, long time.
In fact, I expect they are wondering why it took this long, but will be encouraged by these results to redouble their efforts toward the next incremental goal of 25% at the next polling.
God bless.
Bee
This just shows that we can evangelize our pews and save the world.
Yes, I understand what is the church teaching AND I accept the church teaching, but can somebody explain why it doesnt LOOK & FEEL & TASTE like flesh & blood? That’s the part they don’t teach. They just expect you to buy it. And if it has none of the physical qualities, how can you say it “literally” becomes flesh & blood? Please explain for this 50-year Catholic. Thanks!!!
TJM, LOL yes they were the key. The operatives were usually women religious followed later by lay ‘ministers’ with degrees in theology and religious studies. They were the ones who led, and forced, physical and liturgical changes. By sweeping away the signs and songs the parishioners were left with the reformed liturgy as their baseline for belief. If they wanted to express their Faith outwardly they were guided by social doctrine. The seminaries were teaching that people were wrong about what defined the Faith and now we find put that the faithful were never given anything to replace it.
Anonymous who is 50,
You are a de facto Protestant, that’s why you are confused
"[C]an somebody explain why it doesnt LOOK & FEEL & TASTE like flesh & blood?"
Because Christ knew that people would more readily eat bread and wine than something that tastes like flesh and blood.
The Church certainly teaches on this question. That section of the Roman Catechism on the Holy Eucharist particularly addresses the "Peculiar Fitness of Bread and Wine."
In a sense, the Church "just expect[s] you to buy it," although many proofs are offered by Christ himself regarding the fitness of the Sacramental signs of bread and wine. In fact, there is no better proof than the words of Truth Himself, as St. Thomas says:
I devoutly adore you, o hidden God,
Truly hidden beneath these appearances.
My whole heart submits to You,
And in contemplating You, it surrenders itself completely.
Sight, touch, taste are all deceived in their judgment of you,
But hearing suffices firmly to believe.
I believe all that the Son of God has spoken;
There is nothing truer than this word of Truth.
It is wrong to say that the sacrament "literally" becomes flesh and blood. The Church teaches that the sacrament truly is the Body and Blood of Christ, but retains the appearances of bread and wine. An analogy is helpful: Suppose God transformed an apple into an orange. While retaining the outward appearances -- by sight, by taste, by texture -- of an apple, the thing now provides all the benefits of an orange instead. The senses are deceived by the appearance, but the senses do not suffice to contain the reality of the transformation.
So it is with the Holy Eucharist.
Someone once said that part of the miracle of transubstantiation is that the Bread and Wine do not actually become, in the physical sense, flesh and blood, or worse yet, a tiny version of the Crucified and Risen Presence of Jesus in His Glorified Body. This would truly be seen as cannibalism and insulting to the senses of most Catholics.
Thus the Risen Body and Blood, i.e. the Divine Person of the Crucified and Risen Lord, is given to the Church in a palatable way through the "accidents" or externals of Bread and Wine that is the Risen Lord.
I think many people, Catholic & non-Catholic, old & young, get tripped up on the epistemological distinction between “do not actually become, in the physical sense, flesh & blood” and the hated word “symbolic.” It’s another one of those “It’s true because I said so” sort of things. The argument is, in effect, “This is not what you can see and touch, it is what I say it is.”
It is unfortunate that so many Catholics do not believe in the "real presence". That really was not a bone of contention until the Reformation, and while Protestants have varying views on communion, they seem to share in common the theme that it is symbolic or spiritual. Like the old line, "is it live, or is it Memorex?" Some may say the Episcopal Church believes in the real presence or transubstantiation, but the Church clearly rejects that in their 39 articles, back of the Book of Common Prayer. Interestingly, the dean of Atlanta's Episcopal Cathedral has written in his parish bulletin that when people are in inquirer's classes, seeking to becoming Episcopal, clerics at the cathedral are asked, "do you believe the same thing about communion as 'the other church" (the Catholic Cathedral which is diagonally across the street from the Episcopal one in Atlanta).
"Symbol" is a perfectly good word to use in speaking about the Sacraments.
It should not be a hated word, but it has a particular meaning when used by theologians.
We recite the "symbol" of faith when we say the Creed.
Jesus is symbolically or sacramentally present under the forms of bread and wine in the celebration of the Eucharist.
Anon at 10:29,
It all comes down to do you really believe that Jesus is God the Son. If you do, you can take Him at His word. If you don't, can you honestly call yourself a Christian?
God bless you.
It is far more than becoming human flesh. The Son has already become human and suffered the bloody sacrifice. There was a burning bush for Moses. Mary bore God into this world through acceptance of His will. He can become anything He wants. Wine and bread are the result of human action on God’s creation. We could have pointed at Christ at the supper and say that there is God. No other man there or since is God. We can point to the consecrated bread and wine and say there is the body and blood of God, but no other bread or wine. We are allowed to know these things so that we are able to give to God the only gift we actually have to give Him, our Faith. There would nothing to believe if it was simply observable. So if it was, indeed, changed into heart muscle and blood in Argentina it was not because our faith was strong, but because it was weak.
I heard once from a person who had been in an inquirer's class in an Episcopal church. When some matter of established doctrine was mentioned - it didn't matter which - and the person asked if he became an Episcopalian was he required to believe it.
The response was "Some do. None must."
And that's why the etymological root of the word "heresy" is "choice."
Presumably the survey asks respondents to self-describe their religious affiliation. Does the survey also ask them whether they are practicing members or nominal members of their faith tradition? If yes, are the percentages for the questions significantly different for practicing and nominal members, as one suspects they might be? Specifically regarding Catholics, are the percentages for the question about communion significantly different for practicing and nominal Catholics? I have just visited the Pew website but cannot find answers to these questions. Does anyone else here have these answers?
The good bishop qualified the word 'symbol' with 'in the modern sense of that term'. I suspect that Anonymous @ 11:31 was, as usual, not paying attention.
Is this the same person who, when the question of word definition comes up, usually insists that the most modern and frequently understood meaning is normative?
"Modern" theologians use the word "symbol" in the same sense the ancient theologians did.
It is - and was - a perfectly good word to use when speaking of the Sacraments.
The problem is that those who have little or no theological training are not likely to now how the word is used by theologians. The ignorant cannot be faulted for this.
"The problem is that those who have little or no theological training are not likely to now how the word is used by theologians. The ignorant cannot be faulted for this."
All of this is true, but doesn't it serve to demonstrate that using words subject to (correct) technical meanings might not be a great idea when that word more likely to lead most people to apply the (incorrect) colloquial meaning. That is assuredly not the fault of the ignorant, but is the fault of the person whose word choice is unwise for his or her particular audience -- I'm speaking generally here, not about anyone's word choice on this blog since the internet is a free-for-all wherein no matter how careful one's word choice, one will always be misinterpreted by those whose mission is to misinterpret.
When I was in RCIA in Arizona, I was taught that theologically the correct term was sign, and that the Eucharist should never be referred to as a symbol. A whole hour was spent discussing the difference.
"All of this is true, but doesn't it serve to demonstrate that using words subject to (correct) technical meanings might not be a great idea when that word more likely to lead most people to apply the (incorrect) colloquial meaning."
True enough.
I learned in my first year of teaching RCIA that just because I knew what Vatican Two was and made many references to made many Vatican Two, the crowd in front of me had, essentially, no idea what I was talking about.
When someone raised a hand and asked, "What was Vatican Two," I learned my lesson!
"In theology, however, symbol is something even deeper than this. The Greek word symbaleo means to “throw together” (sym = together, baleo = to throw). In the sacraments a visible reality is thrown together with an invisible reality. This is different from a symbol in a story in that both the visible and the invisible are real and maintain their realities. The bread and wine continue to be bread and wine visibly, though they become Christ body and blood as the Eucharist."
"The sacraments are signs or symbols, which Jesus gave to the Church. These symbols play an important moment in everyone's lives."
"It may be helpful to realize that every religion in the world makes use of sacraments. A broad definition of the sacrament is: “a sign or symbol of something which is sacred and mysterious.”
"The word “symbol” comes from the Greek word “symbolon” which literally meant “to bring or throw together.” The “symbol” of the Eucharist brings the very Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ together with His creatures, intimately binding them together each time the mass is celebrated. So, yes, it is a symbol, but the word “symbol” does not mean what you think it means. The same thing is true of the waters of baptism. They “symbolize” our cleansing from sin, but they also accomplish what they signify. The grace of baptism is made present."
"In the West, we’ve forgotten the difference between a symbol and a sign and think that all symbolism is merely sign-oriented. This is not the case. A sign is always only what it is. It does not point beyond itself. It is merely a placeholder. A symbol is more than it is. A symbol points beyond itself."
And ":“Symbolum rei sacrae, et invisibilis gratiae forma visibilis, sanctificandi vim habens”—A symbol of something sacred, a visible form of invisible grace, having the power of sanctifying ( Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, cap. 3).
Symbol is a perfectly good word to use when speaking of the Sacraments
Carol H,
When I read comments from Anonymous K, I regret we can no longer burn heretics!
I realize TJM’s comment was most likely intended in jest. But as the expression goes, many a true word was spoken thus. Burning heretics (and “witches”) was undoubtedly a wonderful cathartic release for the ignorant and intolerant who projected their own fears and insecurities onto their selected victims. I understand that ISIS still holds the practice in high esteem.
Catholics true to the Faith take *Jesus* words in John 6, Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 13 and 22 and 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 at their face value.
Jesus words..which are in the Bible. The revealed Word of God. Part of the Deposit of Faith of the Catholic Church.
What occurs at Transubstantiation is a miracle. The bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Rally and truly. To me, that is a public miracle, not a private revelation. One part of the miracle is that the taste texture and appearance of bread and wine remain. God can do miraculous things. After all, He created existence, matter, and substance out of nothing.
In the comment above it was supposed to be "Really and Truly." after the fourth sentence.
In 2001 a Eucharistic miracle occurred at the parish church of Saint Mary in Chirattakonam, India
The Eucharist remains there to this day and is often adored by the faithful. As it should be since the faithful who visit are adoring Christ, whose substantial presence is there as much as it is in each consecrated Host at every Mass.
Anonymous 2,
And I understand that the Squad will not repudiate IRIS. THanks for reminding me.
Post a Comment