Tuesday, September 8, 2020


One can see how this teaches without words, the Church's belief in the Real Presence leading to most Catholics at the time believing in Transubstantiation:

And one can understand why 70% of Catholics no longer believe in Transubstantiation after experiencing this:

I just listened to a marvelous more than an hour long talk/teaching by Bishop Baron on the Most Holy Eucharist.

It was brilliant and showed how belief in the Real Presence which eventually is described at "transubstantiation" developed certainly from Jesus Himself in John's Gospel especially and then carried on from there with the Apostles and the early Church Fathers.

He also describe some in-house heretical teachings in later centuries clearly confronted by the Church to insist upon transubstantiation.

Then in a brilliant way he described the Council of Trent, which Catholics must receive, and how it clarified what the Church's teaching is concerning the Most Holy Eucharist compared to the "reformers" versions of it, from Luther, to Calvin to others. Trent reaffirmed the Church true teaching compared to the Protestant Reformers and their adherents as "anathemas" or "be condemned".

In the 1950's more erroneous thoughts or theological positions were being taken which let Pope St. Paul VI to reaffirmed and very directly during Vatican II, Trent's authentic teaching as binding on the nature of the Real Presence in the Consecrated Bread and Wine, Christ's Body and Blood.

Bishop Baron prefaced his teaching by citing the Pew Survey of a couple years ago that said 70% of
Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence as taught by Trent, Vatican II and Pope St. Paul VI and subsequent popes. They believe it to be a symbol, a Protestant ideology which condemns Catholics for holding such a view, according to Trent of course.

In this talk, videoed before about 5,000 priests, religious and catechist, Bishop Baron hope that teaching about the Holy Eucharist and the Real Presence would be a priority as it hasn't be taught or received by 70% of Catholics surveyed.


For centuries, the great poor, uneducated and unwashed masses of the Church (meaning those who were not priests and religious) believed in the real presence because of the manner in which Mass was celebrated and how the laity received Holy Communion, in fear and trembling, with reverence and faith.

Being formed by Trent and its anathemas and the refined Roman Missal, post-Trent--the celebration of the Mass and the manner in which it was done handed on the true faith about not only the Sacrificial aspect of the Mass but the Real Presence.

The law of prayer is the law of belief!  And if prayer is according to the mind of the Church celebrated reverently and with are and by the Book, the law of belief follows.

But the converse is true that if the prayer is celebrated sloppily, with little reverence and particular ways of doing things become codified that eat away at true belief, then belief suffers and dies.

What has led to 70% of Catholics not believing orthodox Catholic teaching on the Eucharist and combined with that in some places only 12% of Catholics attending Mass.

These are the things that accomplished that great feet in only 50 years or so after Vatican II:

1. There was a loss of appreciation for the rubrics of the Mass, that led to sloppy celebrations of it, with many banalities and a horizontal view of the Mass and receiving Holy Communion. Music became associated with fads in music, thus religious words set to secular ditties

2. Priests and parishes became creative with the Liturgy and ceased to read the black and do the red. As varied as are the various parishes even in the same city, so too the Mass in the Ordinary Form. The Ordinary Form Mass, depending on the priest and the place was like "a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get." And what you get was the worst choice in that box!

3. Then these things became allowed which collectively have contributed to the loss or orthodox Catholic Faith and Catholics leaving the Church and becoming nones (moral issues they can't understand and won't believe and are not willing to try being a party of this heterodoxy).

a. Communion standing rather than kneeling--most Catholics when this innovation began view it as less reverent than kneeling and they had a lifetime of kneeling to know what they were talking about

b. Then Communion in the hand which like standing, those Catholics who spent a lifetime receiving on the tongue because of their belief in the Real Presence and spirituality of reverence, perceived receiving in the hand as less reverent.

c. Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion: for those who were the first to experience it, they spent a lifetime receiving Holy Communion from priests who were ordained to consecrate and touch the Sacred Host. Their ordination and the anointing of their hands is what gave them the authority to consecrate and distribute Holy Communion. Having lay people, who took an hour long class on "how to distribute and when to come up, etc) and often chosen not for their holiness of life and fidelity to the Church, but because they were willing to do it and thought it was a very priestly function, caused people to wonder about the Real Presence if its distribution was accomplished by laity in a more casual way and receiving on the run in the hand or tongue.

The loss of reverence or at least the perceived loss of reverence contributes to this loss of faith in the Real Presence as taught by the Church for 2000 years.

If we don't understand that the primary way in which orthodox Catholic Faith is inculcated, by the manner and style of our worship at Mass, no amount of catechesis will remedy the malaise.


ByzRus said...

"If we don't understand that the primary way in which orthodox Catholic Faith is inculcated, by the manner and style of our worship at Mass, no amount of catechesis will remedy the malaise."

I do not see how things will change in any way with the continued use of smiling or, overly dramatic Extraordinary Ministers.

I do not see how things will change in any way with the hierarchy's continued failure to lead by example rather than talking about it, talking about it, talking about it.

The Church is not a democracy and "grass-roots" only gets you so far and then, only in a very localized way. Lack of leadership, personal agendas within the hierarchy (of any sorts) created and sustained the current state of affairs which, only seem to be deteriorating more.

qwikness said...

I used to think it was a symbol, until I started reading Catholic books, on my own, through no encouragement or recommendation from anyone else. There is a lot of information out there. It's intimidating. Wouldn't it be nice if Catholic Churches had a Sunday School or Catechism for different ages, Teens, College, Young Adults , Couples Seniors. Our Education stops after Confirmation. Some kind of guidance could help straighten people out.
People's time can be limited so it might be hard so in lieu of the aforementioned thoughts a reading list might be helpful but nothing too overwhelming. It could be segmented like a college course. First "semester": Three or four books. include Intro to Bible, Catechism, Spirituality, Church History. Later have some Saints writings and maybe some apologetics. Have a one page synopsis or teaching for each book. The internet has a lot of information, overwhelming and maybe not so trustworthy. This might be good stuff to have in the Parish Bookstore. And a common core to discuss with other parishioners.

ByzRus said...

To me, the Roman hierarchy has, in part, failed in their mission given the circumstances in which we find ourselves living . Social justice has prevailed at the expense of tradition, liturgy and the traditional beliefs of the Church. It is a shame that they do not regularly speak and act with the unwavering clarity as seen in the attached - Patriarch Kyrill of Moscow. It's a shame that to hear orthodox words such as these, it, increasingly, seems necessary to turn toward the Orthodox.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you Father Allan. Perhaps the Pandemic will provide the much needed relief from using Eucharistic Ministers at least......

Peter Pence said...

I thought retreats are meant to include withdrawal from social media and the like!

The Egyptian said...

I was a distributor way back, quit, just didn't feel right. All started when the new pastor informed us that either everyone was signed up for a "ministry" or he would assign them to do the interpretive dance "Ministry".
Which brings me to your post, I can almost hear the cry, BUT WE MUST PARTICIPATE!"everyone needs a job, we are all priests now
The total misunderstanding of "active participation" has destroyed the awe of the Mass and everything going on in it, You have hit the nail on the head. All active participation meant was stop all the personal devotions and pay attention, follow the mass and respond, that's it, period. Another "Spirit" of Vat 2 disaster.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

PP, that’s a pre Vatican II motion and pre social media idea if I ever heard 2!

Anonymous said...

Romulus Augustus here, yes I can see how teenagers handing out "cookies" make everyone truly believe in the Presence of Our Lord, as the saying goes "A picture is worth a thousand words".

ByzRus said...


I experience something similar, was told I was going to sign up to be an EM, and I outright refused.

Those photos are ridiculous. That which formerly and exclusively was the responsibility of the priest adult is now being performed by adolescents and the Church wonders why only 70% believes in the true presence? I suppose a minor could be properly prepared and disposed for this responsibility but, let's be honest, it's more of a smiling photo-op than a ministry for someone 14-18 years of age. If it weren't, priests would be getting ordained in high school. Just my rigid opinion.....what do I know?

Православный физик said...

When the Liturgy itself undermines the belief, no amount of catechesis will fix it.

Anonymous said...

When my kids were in "Catholic" high school and then later on in college, they would talk about the kids giving out Holy Communion. Many did not go to mass regularly, just when they were assigned to giving out Holy Communion. Also, some were engaged in less than wholesome activities. They wondered, "how could they be giving out Holy Communion?"

Anonymous said...

The Adults are no better. The ministers room where they gather before mass is often a place of gossip..........nothing to actually prepare ones mind and heart for the ministry they are about to engage in. Then the shuffling around on the altar to get their "place" because most of them want to only distribute the host and not The Precious Blood. In our Parish there is one particular minister who was always late for mass......and would end up running down the side isle to take her place with the other ministers after they had already processed in. I could go on and on about how lay people are not fit to be distributing Communion. And it unfortunately shows.

Anonymous said...

"Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion: for those who were the first to experience it, they spent a lifetime receiving Holy Communion from priests who were ordained to consecrate and touch the Sacred Host. Their ordination and the anointing of their hands is what gave them the authority to consecrate and distribute Holy Communion."

Nope. Priests were not "ordained to...touch the Sacred Host."

Nope. Anointing of their hands did not give them authority to...distribute holy communion.

You simply make this garbage up.

John Nolan said...

In the Good Friday intercessions (new rite) we have the following prayer 'for all orders and degrees of the faithful':

Oremus et pro Episcopo nostro N., pro omnibus episcopis, presbyteriis, diaconis Ecclesiae et universa plebe fidelium.

'Old' ICEL rendered this as follows:

Let us pray for N., our bishop, for all bishops, priests, and deacons; for all who have a special ministry in the Church and for all God's people.

Note the insertion which implies that readers, servers, musicians, EMHC, old Uncle Tom Cobley and all, are exercising a 'special' ministry which sets them apart from 'hoi polloi'.

This is clearly not the mind of the Church. 'New' ICEL has corrected this.

Let us pray also for our bishop N., for all bishops, priests, and deacons of the Church and for the whole of the faithful people.

No doubt certain clerics (no names, no pack drill) will restore the offending insertion, since they know the mind of the Church and the new 'ecclesiology' (one of their favourite words) of Vatican II better than the Church herself does.

Anonymous said...

"Ecclesiology" SHOULD be a favorite word of any cleric.

The only kind of person who thinks otherwise is the one who knows the importance of ecclesiology in the life of the Church, including parishes, but wishes it were otherwise.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

For too many ecclesiology trumps soteriology as well as the Real Presence of Christ known as Transubstantiation
, Who, btw, makes soteriology possible.

Anonymous said...

No sacred "-ology" trumps any other - this is a common misunderstanding you and a few others express now and again.

They work together and in harmony. Soteriology must mesh with ecclesiology which must mesh with systematic theology which must mesh with eschatology which must mesh with liturgical theology, and so on.

It's called the Analogy of Faith. Simply put it is "The Catholic doctrine that every individual statement of belief must be understood in the light of the Church's whole objective body of faith." What we teach about ecclesiology must be in concert with aspects of soteriology and systematic theology and on down the line.

In other words, the whole Catholic ball of wax expresses a unity of belief - not necessarily a uniformity, but a unity. That is why we can have different liturgical rites that are all Catholic, different creeds that are all Catholic, etc.

Stop it Nopey said...

Another self-appointed expert, education-signalling to us. A little education is a dangerous thing!

John Nolan said...

'Ecclesiology' was a nineteenth-century coinage relating to church architecture and adornment. It was revived at the time of Vatican II by modernists who wanted to justify change but were reluctant to admit that the change they wanted implied a theological shift which might be regarded as heretical.

It's a classic case of weasel-word usage which fools no-one except those who wish to be fooled.

Anonymous said...

This conversation is getting boring. I like it when we are actually debating something. This is just a forum for show-offs.

Tom Marcus said...

If unity of belief allows for different liturgical rites, then we should at least have a reasonable expectation of unity of praxis.

Commnion in the hand was NEVER a tradition in the Latin Rite. It is still permitted only by indult--indults usually refer to something "outside the norm". Yet the entrenched Novus Ordo Bureaucracy treats it as a norm. And don't even get me started on the devious way that the US Bishop under Cardinal Bernadin (of dubious memory) managed to get that indult. It stinks from the top to the bottom and its "fruits" have been duly noted: Loss of belief.

What a shame.

Peter Pence said...

“ The Church is not a democracy and "grass-roots" only gets you so far and then, only in a very localized way. Lack of leadership, personal agendas within the hierarchy (of any sorts) created and sustained the current state of affairs which, only seem to be deteriorating more.“

Neither is the charge an Autocrasy!

Joseph Johnson said...

What Tom Marcus said . .

Also, as Cardinal Arinze once said (it's on Youtube), there is nothing in the documents of Vatican II which mandated the removal of (or failure to install) Communion rails in churches. We can (and should) kneel for Communion (if we are able) and a Communion rail helps accommodate this (especially for those of us who are beginning to find the need for something to push against as we rise from kneeling!). Why is this so lost on our bishops?

ByzRus said...

Православный физик,

Слава Иисусу Христу!

Да! Правда!

Agree with Tom Marcus as well!

Agree with "Anonymous" @ 11:07 too!

Anonymous said...

Since the disciples were called by the Lord to follow him, ecclesiology has been a reality for Christians. It is not some nineteenth coinage that was revived. It is and has been an element of Church self-understanding from the beginning.

Anonymous said...

The bottom two photos show kids giving out “treats” during the Happy Meal

John Nolan said...

Ecclesiology is no more a reality for Christians than sociology was for the Church Fathers. It is a way of looking at the reality of the Church through the lens of 20th century social science. Its models can be evidential, foundational, transtraditional and postmodern, according to a leading exponent, and the postmodern approach produces a number of different 'ecclesiologies'.

Anyone studying for the priesthood would be well advised to shun pseudo-science and do something useful, like learning Latin (which helps to declutter the mind and concentrates it on essentials).

Anonymous said...

Let's go to the market and ask for this month's groceries . . IN LATIN!

Yes, that would be, ahem, useful.

John Nolan said...

Sorry, Mike, but I assumed your seminary formation did not need to cover how to shop. But nothing surprises me these days. While you're at it, you might regale us with the ecclesiology of shopping. We're all agog (or at least half agog).