THE QUESTION IS, WHEN WILL THE MAGISTERIUM, MEANING THE POPE AND BISHOPS IN UNION WITH HIM, WAKE UP AND ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM?
IS IT STANDING FOR HOLY COMMUNION AND RECEIVING IN THE HAND AND IN VARIED INCONSISTENT AND IRREVERENT WAYS?
THE SOLUTION? KNEELING AND RECEIVING ON THE TONGUE AND REDUCING EXTRAORDINARY MINISTERS OF HOLY COMMUNION TO SUBDEACONS RECONSTITUTED OR INSTALLED ACOLYTES AND PEOPLE OF KNOWN HOLINESS AND MORALITY?
New Study Finds 70% of U.S. Catholics Do Not Believe in Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist
Please pray for our Church!
The Pew Research Center released a new study explaining that most Catholics in the United States believe the Eucharist is symbolic of Jesus’ body and blood, rather than believing in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ under the forms of bread and wine.
The teaching of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, according to the Catechism, is the “source and summit of the Christian life.” (CCC, 1324)
The Pew Research study, conducted in Feb. 2019, found that only 31 percent of Catholics believe the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation — the moment during the consecration at Mass where the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Here’s one breakdown of the study:
According to the image above, out of 31 percent of the United States Catholics surveyed, only 28 percent of Catholics actually know the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation, while the remaining three percent either do not know the teaching at all, or believe the Church teaches that the bread and wine are merely symbols.
However, this 31 percent believes the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation.
The image then states that of the 69 percent who believe the bread and wine are symbols, 22 percent do know the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation, but reject the Church’s teaching of the Real Presence.
Additionally, 43 percent of these non-believing Catholics think the Church teaches that the bread and wine are symbols. The other five percent are either unsure of the teaching, or did not answer at all.
The Pew Research Center also conducted an in-depth study regarding both the belief in the Real Eucharistic Presence and the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation, based on age, gender, education, and Mass attendance.
Here’s the breakdown below:
What the Church teaches about the Eucharist:
“Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread…by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood.
“This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.” (CCC, 1376)
“This should be a wake-up call to all of us in the Church”
Bishop Robert Barron of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles said in a recent tweet that “it’s hard to describe how angry I feel” about the new Pew Research Center study. He said this “should be a wake-up call for all of us in the Church.”
He also posted a video along with the tweet, saying “it confirms a lot of my own intuitions over the last many years.”
“If it’s only a symbol, why bother? You and I can come up with a symbol of Abraham Lincoln, or for that matter, of Jesus, if we want to. Big deal!” Bishop Barron continues.
“This is a central teaching of Catholicism–that Jesus is really, truly, and substantially present under the forms of bread and wine. It’s a basic tenet of Catholicism.
25 comments:
THE QUESTION IS, WHEN WILL THE MAGISTERIUM, MEANING THE POPE AND BISHOPS IN UNION WITH HIM, WAKE UP AND ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM?
Have you considered that, perhaps, this is the result they were hoping for? Given many of the things they say and their actions and directives, surely you'd admit it is at least possible that they're the problem and that they're acting deliberately...
"New Study Finds 70% of U.S. Catholics Do Not Believe in Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist"
When we look at the statistics among folks who assist at Mass regularly, the majority of said folks believe in the Real Presence.
I question the notion that among Catholics, that there is widespread lack of knowledge in regard to Church teaching on the Real Presence.
I have spoken with Catholics, including those who assist at Mass regularly, who are aware of, but reject Church teaching on the Real Presence.
I believe that that is closer to the truth — that Catholics know, but reject Church teaching in regard to the Real Presence.
The story in question is akin to claims that Catholics are unaware as to Church teachings that pertain to abortion and artificial birth control.
Catholics know said teachings...but reject said teachings.
I find it unbelievable that Catholics who've received instructions in Faith have not encountered Church teaching in regard to the Real Presence.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I favor the reception of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling.
For centuries, the (Latin) Church administered Holy Communion on the tongue...kneeling.
During that time, millions of Catholics rejected Church teaching in regard to the Real Presence. By the millions, said folks turned to Protestantism, or abandoned religion altogether.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Yes, that was also a main division point of the Reformation. While Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church have always held to the real presence (though not necessarily just the word "transubstantiation"), none of the Protestant reformers did, with views varying from symbolic or just a memorial meal to consubstantiation. Though an Episcopal worship service often looks like a Catholic one---altar in the middle, same type of vestments---their Book of Common Prayer in the 39 articles clearly rejects transubstantiation, saying it is "repugnant" to the word of God. The dean of Atlanta's Episcopal Cathedral in his church bulletin last spring noted that he gets lots of questions from inquirers (those seeking to join his Church) about whether they believe the same thing as "that other church" (the Catholic Cathedral in Atlanta is diagonally across the street from the Episcopal one).
Obviously one section of the Bible that fundamentalists don't take literally (along with other portions)---as someone wrote (rough paraphrase), Baptists (and other fundamentalist) take the Bible literally, except for those passages which run contrary to their presuppositions!
I've said it before: intinction is the way to go. Communion must be received on the tongue. Those who insist they must receive the Precious Blood would do so. This would solve a lot of problems that Communion in the Hand and an excessive number of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion causes.
I agree with anon @ 1:49.
From: "Eucharistic Real Presence: Luther’s Magnificent Defense" (Biblical Evidence for Catholicism with Dave Armstrong)
Calvin believed the presence was "mystical." Zwingli believed it was "symbolic." Luther believed in and argued for the Real Presence.
"I have often enough asserted that I do not argue whether the wine remains wine or not. It is enough for me that Christ’s blood is present; let it be with the wine as God wills. Sooner than have mere wine with the fanatics, I would agree with the pope that there is only blood. (Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, 1528, Luther’s Works [henceforth, “LW”], Vol. 37, 317)"
"[T]he glory of our God is precisely that for our sakes he comes down to the very depths, into human flesh, into the bread, into our mouth, our heart, our bosom . . . (This is My Body, 1527, LW, Vol. 37, 72"
"To reiterate: he (Luther) thought that Jesus’ Body and Blood were present “alongside” the bread and wine (consubstantiation) after consecration. So Jesus was really there, but the bread and wine were there, too (whereas in Catholic theology, they cease to remain bread and wine after consecration)."
I have to say that if the Church had chosen to define the Real Presence of Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist under the term of Consubstantiation, this dogma would be much easier to explain to the laity, children in particular. But alas, the Holy Spirit wanted the actual truth taught, that of Transubstantiation.
Sadly, though, for Martin Luther, he did not believe a priest was necessary to offer the Sacrifice, meaning, he did not believe that Holy Orders was a sacrament.
So for him, no matter how eloquently he explains the "real presence" in Lutheran practice there is no sacrifice nor real presence as he opines.
Anonymous at 1:24 stated: "While Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church have always held to the real presence (though not necessarily just the word "transubstantiation"), none of the Protestant reformers did, with views varying from symbolic or just a memorial meal to consubstantiation."
In fact, Luther did believe in and argue for the Real Presence against other Reformers as noted.
It's funny, I was once talking to some Catholic teenager, she thought it was a symbol. I said 'No we believe that it is really truly the actual presence of Jesus body, soul and divinity...totally, For Real" She nodded and said,"So it's a symbol." "No!" I exclaimed "Didn't you hear me, there's no symbol about it." She said, "Are you sure about that, that seems like to much" I said Why do you think we spend half of Mass doing that stuff? Ever heard of "Transubstantiation?" She said "No" But I never heard the word til I was in College, State College no less.
I find it interesting that, according to this poll, the more educated a person is, the more likely he is to believe in the real presence.
Some years ago - the man has been dead for 19 years - when asked about a similar "statistic," Cardinal O'Connor, in a sense, brushed off the question. His thought was that there were no such polls 50 or 100 or 250 years ago, so assuming that the number of "true" believers today are substantially different from the number in the past doesn't have any real basis.
Unfortunately I have not been able to find any report on this - I'll look around a bit more.
Queen Elizabeth I famously hedged her bets:
'Christ was the Word and spake it;
He took the bread and brake it;
And what His words did make it,
I do believe and take it.'
The norm is still on the tongue while in the hand was via an indult that was first given in France. This past Sunday at the cathedral 1130 mass someone dropped the body of Christ on the floor. It sickens me to watch people go up for communion; I simply pray and ask the Lord to please come soon and clean up this mess.
By the way when I returned to the US in 2016 I started seeing people doing the head bob version of a bow instead of genuflecting. Do any priest teach the GIRM anymore in this Novus Ordo church.
Father please give up on this reform of the reform talk. The whole thing is an abomination and affront to our Lord. I say the Angels Prayer every morning and I know it was written for these times. Our Lady of Fatima and Akita La Sallette save us from the coming firestorm.
I’ve asked this question before: What is the difference between “blood and wine are symbolic” and the church’s teaching as explained recently by Father McDonald, “The blood and wine become the blood and flesh of Christ, but do not take on the physical properties of blood and flesh”? In what sense are they “literally” flesh and blood? How would a communicant know they are eating flesh & blood? Isn’t “takes on the physical properties of flesh and blood,” to most Catholics, what would make it “literally”? I believe the distinction is largely semantic.
The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus sacramentally or mystically, not literally.
The communicant knows this by the gift of Grace which makes it possible for him/ her to believe in the Real Presence and in the power of the Presence to change his/her life.
Anonymous, I've heard several explanations that might touch upon your question. One is Jesus may have looked and felt like a human but he was and is God. So the bread and wine may look and feel like that but is really Jesus. Another is you can have an object, let's say a TV. It works as a TV. One day it breaks. No longer works as a TV. you use it as a door stop. Now the doorstop looks like a TV but it functions as a doorstop.
Perhaps it was the Baltimore Catechism that stated that at the consecration it is a miracle that the bread and wine do not in fact turn into visible flesh and blood (although Catholic belief is that we are receiving the crucified and Risen Lord, not a portion of His Flesh and Blood detached from the Living God. To receive Christ as a miniature person would be quite off putting to say the least. Thus the "accidents" remain but the Substance changes to make receiving our Lord palatable. In addition to that the Sacrifice of the altar is the same Sacrifice as Calvary, but unbloody--again to make attending Mass a joy, not a horror.
Now, there is symbolism in the actual "accidents" that remain. Jesus is Bread for our eternal life, who strengthens and nourishes us unto life ever lasting. He is Wine that brings join to the heart and elevates that joy into a drunken splendor. As Food and Drink He unites us in Himself and with one another as a meal shared would do. So to speak of symbolism is not a bad thing but it is secondary because it is the Lord who we receive in a Sacramental way, veiled.
John Nolan,
Have you read Hillaire Belloc's assessment of "Good Queen Bess?" Interesting. For one, she could not abide married priests and would never receive their
"wives."
Anon @6:22, FRMJK and FRAJM explained this very well. And I love the quote of QE1 from John Nolan. Made my day—understanding the Mysteries is about Faith, not only left-brain reasoning. Faith and reason must act in harmony. That is where we believers live.
The Orthodox take a dim view of our Western/Latin tendency to overthink and overexplain mysteries.
Maybe Father K or someone else can clear up the confusion for me: When the Host bled in Bolsena-Orvieto Italy hundreds of years ago, did it only "mystically" and "sacramentally" bleed, or did it literally bleed?
That was a physical miracle and thus supernatural and made the sacramental actual blood or flesh. It ceased to be sacramental.
"So, Lord, at length when sacraments shall cease,
may we be one with all thy church above,
one with thy saints in one unbroken peace,
one with thy saints in one unbounded love:
more blessèd still, in peace and love to be
one with the Trinity in Unity."
qwikness your reply needs to be qualified.
"Anonymous, I've heard several explanations that might touch upon your question. One is Jesus may have looked and felt like a human but he was and is God. So the bread and wine may look and feel like that but is really Jesus."
The last part of your second sentence is correct. The first part of that sentence verges on the heretical. It can't be emphasized enough to today's laity that Jesus is truly both fully human in every respect and fully Divine; that is, truly and fully God.
As far as your second example, the TV is still a TV, just a broken one.
As far as the terms "sacramental presence" and "mystical presence" which have come into use in our time, these tend to a more Protestant view of the Eucharist.
The words of Jesus could not be more plain(and literal): "This is my Body..."; "This is my Blood..."
Post a Comment