Posted on 07/19/2002 4:57:55 PM PDT by Polycarp
"Saddest of all are the many people who don't understand or accept the truth that the Eucharist is not bread and wine, but truly the Body and Blood of Christ. Recent polls have shown that only about 33 percent of Catholics say they believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. No matter what explanation is given for that figure -- it's appalling!"
It would be appalling, if true. As I've posted on other threads, I've seen at least one survey that records the level of belief in the Real Presence at about 1/3 of self-identified Catholics. I've seen at least a couple of other studies which report levels of about double that. Looking at methodologies, I prefer the latter studies.
sitetest
To some degree, we've posted at cross purposes. My apologies. I didn't really respond to your post, but rather to my own memories.
Re-read post #111 after reading this one.
I should have began my post answering your question:
"I have never heard from the altar a sermon that contraception is mortal sin barring the communicant from Holy Eucharist. Have you?"
The answer is yes. Many, many times.
More in my youth and young adulthood, and more harshly.
But even in recent years. And not just about contraception. But abortion, pornography, homosexuality, other sexual sins, and other sins, as well. Including failure to attend Mass each Sunday.
When I was very little, these homilies were positively horrifying. Before I even knew what some of these sins were, I was frightened witless by what I heard. This is in the late 1960s, and the early 1970s.
The tone changed some in the later 1970s, and in the 1980s. But I still remember vividly in the early 1980s our pastor giving a homily at the children's Mass, and instructing the children whose parents weren't at Mass that Sunday to go home and tell their parents that they were going to Hell.
Regrettably, at that Mass, there was a man who had been persuaded to come to Mass for the first time in about 20 years. He didn't return.
I remember another priest at the same parish giving a homily about sexual modesty, in behavior, in terms of marital relations, in terms of even dress. I remember him asserting that rape is caused by scantily-clad women. Having a background in psychology, and having dealt with the issue on an academic basis, I was horrified. It left a bitter taste in my mouth. The memory of it is more bitter in later years, as the topic was brought home to me somewhat more personally.
As the '80s wore on, these homilies became less frequent, and less harsh. But at the churches I attended, they were given from time to time. At that time in my life, they were a challenge to me and my wife. But rather than homilies that condemned us to the outer darkness, they were homilies that appealed to our intellects, our hearts, and our desire to be good Catholics.
Also, during this time, and now we're moving to the late '80s, as I became more involved in parish life as a married man in my late 20s, I became more involved with the priests of my parish. I developed a moderately close relationship with one priest in particular who gently but firmly and consistently presented the teaching of the Church on the issue of contraception. We debated and argued and went around on it quite frequently. He never wavered in his fidelity to Church teaching, nor in his gentleness toward me. Which was quite an achievement for him, as I was far more obnoxious, obstinate, and arrogant then than I am now. If you can believe that. ;-)
As the '80s became the '90s, we moved again, and found ourselves in a parish with a positively charismatic priest who spoke quite often about sin, about specific sins, and about the need to amend our lives. We left the church in joy every Sunday! Even when he was telling us the hardest things! In retrospect, I imagine that that was about the final straw.
Our new pastor appears to avoid the topic of sexual sin. But the priests at the church down the street don't.
So, I will tell you, for the most part, yes, I have heard, and do hear homilies on this topic and related topics.
But where once the homilies were harsh, and paralyzing-fear-inducing, and quite frequent, today they are less frequent (and as I reflect on it, non-existent with our new pastor), and more gentle.
So, I didn't mean to say that these topics ought to be avoided.
I DO mean to say that I refuse to impute sin to a priest who rarely, if ever addresses them. That is a separate issue from whether I think a priest ought to address them. I can't in good conscience generally impute sins of omission to such priests.
I ALSO mean to say that the way these sins were addressed when I was very young seems counterproductive to me.
Finally, I'll note that I think this is a generational thing. The "yellers and screamers" of my youth are all dead now, or at death's door. The priests who address these topics in an effective way are in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. The priests who appear to shy away from them are mostly in their late 50s, 60s, and 70s.
This leads me to believe that the ones who don't preach on these topics don't do so out of reaction to the "yellers and screamers" who immediately preceeded them, and who literally did drive people from the Church, including most of my relatives.
Take this into account when next you decide what are the sins of priests.
sitetest
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The results of the Roper poll are often revealing, and sometimes disturbing. In general, the survey reveals:
° the majority of Catholics in America do not embrace a pro-life position;
° there is a close correlation between tolerance for abortion and advocacy for the ordination of women;
° a consistent rejection of Church teaching on contraception indicates the depth of dissent in the Church in America; and
° in spite of their dissent on other issues, a majority of Catholics believe in the Real Presence;
In particular, with reference to the topic of inclusive language, the poll shows:
° Catholics have become conditioned to accept constant changes in the Mass;
° Catholics generally continue to be wedded to traditional translations of the Bible;
° the alleged demand for inclusive language is a myth; and
° perhaps because of the passivity of Catholics in the face of constant liturgical change, new translations of liturgical texts would not make a difference in overall Mass attendance.
"But this thread was about examining root causes, like sexual immorality. And the author of the review and the book were attacked, instead of an examination of their basic premise.
"That is why I went off the deep end."
No, that's not true. What elicited criticism was your excerpting this piece from the entire review:
"If sexual autonomy is one’s goal, one will not want the traditional Mass as the central symbol of the Faith, for the very form it takes will always seem a reproach: one will want a pliable liturgy, something one can shape to one’s whims."
And frankly, the more I read this paragraph, the more offensive it is to me. Not because it is untrue that there are those who seek sexual autonomy, and not because it is untrue that that is a bad thing. Both things are true.
But it is a clear implied criticism of the Mass of Pope Paul VI. It strongly implies that the new Mass is inherently flawed. That is what I responded to most strongly.
sitetest
Fr. Wilson obviously thinks it is flawed, and I suspect Likoudis thinks it is as well.
Wilson's remark early on, reflecting on how writing a Forward to this book, was "well, I didn't want to be a monsignor anyway" is telling. He may have meant it in jest, but even the mindset seems a little bizarre to me.
Our bishop put the question of "promotion to monsignor" to a vote to our diocese's priests, and it was killed, almost unanimously.
So, we haven't had any monsignori designated for almost twenty years.
I think there are three schools of criticism with regard to the Mass of Pope Paul VI. First, there are those who object to the entirety of the Novus Ordo in Latin or in vernacular as significantly flawed or worse . Second, there are those who object to the ICEL English translation of the Novus Ordo but not the Mass itself. Third, there are those who object to the bizarre liturgical aberrations that are perpetrated in the name of the Spirit of Vatican II while using the Mass of Paul VI (more or less.)
I fall somewhere in between the second and third category. I have had it with liturgical bellydancers and militant lesbians who calls themselves religious. And some of the translations from ICEL are so bad as to mean things that are not present in the Latin standard.
My worst experience at Mass was with a priest who used Parmesan flavored Goldfish snack crackers for the Eucharist. I knew it was invalid matter, so I did not receive during the "administration of the Goldfish" because it was not the Eucharist but rather a communion in the priest's rebeliion or stupidity or both.
Goldfish, huh?
Stuff like that blows my mind. I just haven't ever seen it. At least in public Masses, it just doesn't seem to happen, here. I'm not sure whether or not a priest who did that in our archdiocese would still have faculties by the close of business.
I agree with what you said about the three schools of criticism, though the second and third school are not rightfully criticisms of the Mass of Pope Paul VI at all.
sitetest
I didn't make my point very well, sitetest. Sometimes people who fall into the second and third of my categories don't realize that their discomfort is not with the Novus Ordo per se. They don't have the background to distinguish between the Novus Ordo, the ICEL translation, and the liturgical abuses, and so they are left with the idea "the new mass is bad" or awful or even evil. It is a mistake, but it is a common one.
That is why I think EWTN has been helpful by showing how the Novus Ordo can be celebrated with beauty, reverence, and awe.
Good night, sitetest.
Siobhan
When I saw your reference, I first thought that Cardinal Hickey must be wrong. After all, he stated that only 33% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence and the poll done by Catholic World Report found that the number is actually 82%. How could the Cardinal be so misinformed, I thought.
Well, the answer is that regarding this issue, he's not misinformed at all. From internet sources alone, I found three separate polls done over the past 10 years that have delt with the question of whether or not Catholics truly believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The first study done by Gallop starting in December 1991 to January 1992, showed that only 30% of the Catholic respondants did believe in the Real Presence. The second study done in 1994 by CBS and the NYT also showed that about 33% of Cathollics believed in the Real Presence. The last poll done by the Catholic World Report is the one that you referenced and in that study 82% of the Catholics said they believed "strongly or mildly" (I am not sure what a "mild" belief means but there is a reference to follow that sheds some light) in the real presence. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be an online list of the actual questions that were asked on any of these three different polls.
Why such a discrepancy? As we know, how a question is framed can make a huge difference in the answers of those being polled. Indeed, why did not only Cardinal Hickey refer to the 33% figure but also Bishop Weigand, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, Fr. George Rutler and others.
Relevant quotes and their sources follow:
According to results of a Gallop survey taken in December 1991 and January 1992 on U.S. Catholic understanding of Holy Communion, only 30% believe 'they are really and truly receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine'. Some 29% think they 'are receiving bread and wine, which symbolise the spirit and teachings of Jesus and in so doing are expressing their attachment to his person and words'. Another 10% understand that they are 'receiving bread and wine, in which Jesus is really and truly present'. Twenty-three per-cent say they 'are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, which has become that because of their personal belief.
These results, said Bishop Weigand, "are terribly alarming because only the first formulation is orthodox Catholic doctrine. The others are all variations of the 16th century Protestant teachings from Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others. We have every reason to ponder how this most central teaching of our Catholic faith got so watered down and distorted over the past 25 years". {72} This loss of faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist by U.S. Catholics was further borne out by a Spring 1994 New York Times/CBS poll which showed that 70% of Catholics in the 18-44 age group think that at Mass the bread and wine serve only as mere "symbolic reminders" of Jesus rather than being changed into his Body and Blood.
Source I
It’s hard to imagine that any Catholic could misunderstand the central doctrine of his faith. However, according to an alarming 1992 Gallup poll, the majority of Catholics are confused in their beliefs about Christ’s presence in the Eucharist:
 |
30% believe they are really and truly receiving the body, blood, |
|
29% believe they are receiving bread and wine that symbolize the |
|
10% believe they receive bread and wine in which Jesus is also |
|
24% believe they are receiving what has become Christ’s body |
Any well-informed Catholic will recognize that only the first option, chosen by the 30 percent, represents true Catholic teaching. The other options represent various Protestant beliefs. In other words, nearly 70 percent of all Catholics in this country hold erroneous beliefs about Christ's presence in the Eucharist.
The problem increases dramatically among younger Catholics. According to a more recent New York Times and CBS poll of Catholics who attend Mass regularly, the number of Catholics who accept the Real Presence decreases as age decreases:
|
Age 65 and over: 51% believe in the Real Presence. |
|
Age 45–64: 37% believe in Real Presence. |
|
Age 30–44: 28% believe in Real Presence. |
|
Age 18–29: 17% believe in Real Presence. |
ages/lastsupper.jpg"> 70% of this last age group (18–29) believe that the Eucharist is just a symbol. What does this say about how we are passing the faith on to our children? Only one teenager in six accepts the fundamental doctrine of the Real Presence! This loss of faith among young and old alike explains the tremendous lack of devotion, reverence, and appreciation so many Catholics show towards Holy Communion.
Source II
A recent poll by The New York Times and CBS News found that 70 percent of American Catholics aged 18 to 44 believe that the bread and wine in the Eucharist are only "symbolic reminders" of Christ rather than "changed into the body and blood of Christ." For this reason, philosopher Germain Grisez and Russell Shaw claimed, in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, that the eucharistic faith of American Catholics "has not simply grown dim but, seemingly, been extinguished." The appearance of this video tape by Fr. George Rutler is particularly timely, therefore. Fr. Rutler, a convert from Anglicanism, is intimately familiar with the centuries-old disputes over the Eucharist and such issues as the Real Presence.
This series is drawn from television shows broadcast on Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN). Fr. Rutler explains what is meant by the concept of worship and how the Mass is the preeminent act of worship. He also shows how current misunderstandings of the Mass grow out of wider cultural and philosophical rebellions. Despite a fundamental human need to find and worship God, human beings have, through the millenia, often chosen to worship themselves instead.
Source III
In 1993, The New York Times commissioned a poll and found that more U.S. Catholics believed the Mass to contain "symbolic reminders" of Christ's presence, rather than his real presence. The poll occasioned a lot of hand-wringing and "I told you sos" among Catholics.
In 1996, a national U.S. Catholic publication asked a similar question on another scientific survey. The result was the exact opposite -- the vast majority of Catholics do believe Christ is really present in the Eucharist.
What are we to make of this? Was one of the surveys flawed? Did a lot of religious education occur in the intervening three years to overcome this major gap in Catholics' knowledge about the Eucharist?
My suspicion is that a sizeable number of Catholics have no idea what they believe or what the church teaches on this basic tenet of the faith. A slight change in the phrasing of the question about the nature of the Eucharist may well evoke a different response if people are trying to guess "the right answer."
Source V
According to a 1994 New York Times/CBS poll cited by Germain Grisez and Russell Shaw in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, a good 45% -- nearly half of even the oldest age-group among American Catholics ( those aged 65 years or more ) now hold a more or less .protestant view of the Eucharist, thinking, that the consecrated Host is a mere "symbolic reminder" of Jesus.
Among those a little younger ( aged 45-64 ) this "protestantized" group increases to 58%; and among the youngest age-group ( 18-44 years ) -- that is, those Catholics who were still children or not yet born when the liturgical changes began -- holding this heretical view shoots up to 70%.
In other words, disbelief in the Real Presence among professing Catholics in the United States increases in direct proportion to the proportion of their own lifetime in which the Eucharist has been celebrated with the new post-conciliar Missal.
According to the same survey, we have the point where even the majority ( 51% ) of the most regularly practicing Catholics -- those who say they attend Mass every Sunday -- expressed the protestantized "symbolic-reminder" view of this most Holy Mystery.
Source VI
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.