"Please don't presume that your parish is representative of every parish in the United States. :-)"
It is you who are presuming, my friend. I'm not primarily relying on my personal experiences. I'm relying on research that I've seen over the years.
"If you are truly interested, I'm sure you can find the info on the Web."
You addressed this to patent, I believe, but it is you who may wish to go look up the data. Catholics who attend Mass every week are far more likely to believe in the Real Presence than Catholics who are occasional church-goers, or who don't go at all. And yet, it is the Catholics who attend each week who are most exposed to the Mass of Pope Paul VI. Go figure.
Furthermore, studies that indicate a low level of belief in the Real Presence are simplistic, and thus misleading. Often, the methodology of these studies is constructed to reduce the percentage of respondents who appear to believe in the Real Presence. It isn't hard to construct a survey in this way. I personally learned a few of those tricks in my grad school days.
Especially with a subject like the doctrine of the Real Presence, an easy way to depress the apparent number of believers is to ask the question in a theologically technical way. It is true that many, perhaps most Catholics, cannot give a theologically-complete answer as to what is the Real Presence. Heck, there are aspects of the doctrine of the Real Presence over which even orthodox theologians argue.
But if you ask, "Do you believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, in other words, is Jesus truly present, Body and Blood, in the elements of the Eucharist?" some of the studies I've seen indicate belief for all Catholics in the US of about 65%.
Since only about 40% (or maybe fewer) of Catholics actually attend Mass every single week (and almost all at the new Mass), knowing that the rate of belief in the Real Presence is higher for this subpopulation, it is likely that belief in the Real Presence among at least nominally practicing Catholics is very, very high.
And even among non-practicing Catholics, the rate is likely close to a majority.
Now, if you ask people about the details of the doctrine of transubstantiation, you will see a dramatic fall-off. Throw in the metaphysical terms "accidents" and "substance", and you'll drive your positive response rates right through the floor. These are philosophical terms which once had more currency than they do today. Most folks, today, are not educated in Aristotelian metaphysics.
I took undergraduate courses at the Catholic University of America from pontifically-licensed Catholic theologians, and once upon a time, I actually knew all that stuff reasonably well. But you know, I don't use Aristotelian metaphysics that much anymore, and my undergrad days are 20+ years behind, and I forgot a lot of it, and a lot that I remember, I'm kinda fuzzy on it.
So, if someone asked me a technical question about the doctrine of transubstantiation, I might unwittingly answer it incorrectly. Senior moment, I guess. And in such a survey, I'd be marked down as, "Doesn't believe in Real Presence."
But that doesn't make it so.
You presume far too much to think that most devout, practicing Catholics don't believe in the Real Presence. And since your presumption is, in fact, a fallacy, your conclusion, that the new Mass decreases in belief in the Real Presence, is left in tatters.
Charity first.
sitetest
Whatever...Why are you being so rude?
my initial question wasn't to you anyway.Are you suggesting that I cannot reply to you unless you first post to me? Does that standard cut both ways or does it apply to me alone? You have joined into discussions I was having with others, and replied to my posts to them. I hardly think I am out of line to reply to your post.
I am not a lawyer and I don't even play one. I'm sorry I can't express myself well enough to meet your standards.Being a lawyer has nothing to do with it, nor does expressing yourself.
You are sufficiently familiar with math and statistics to know that my criticism is a valid one. If you want to show a real decline in belief in the Real Presence, and then blame that decline on the Novus Ordo or whatever you would like to blame it on, then you need to show an actual decline. You cannot do that by posting one data point.
This point is such a simple one I'm a bit shocked you fight admitting it, it pretty much kills your credibility.
If you are truly interested, I'm sure you can find the info on the Web.I tried. I could not find any pre 1960 stats on belief in the Real Presence. If you can, post them. If not, you should have the good grace to admit you can’t prove an actual decline. based on this.
patent +AMDG