Vatican: Jews do not wait in vain for Messiah

Christianity Today ^ | 07/24/2002 | LaTonya Taylor

[narses]

According to a new Vatican document, recently released in English, Jews should continue to anticipate the coming of Messiah.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission released the English version of "The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible" in May. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger signed the work.

"The Jewish Messianic wait is not in vain," the statement says. "It can become for us Christians a strong stimulus to maintain alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. We, like them, live in expectation. The difference is in the fact that for us, he who will come will have the traits of that Jesus who has already come and is already active and present among us."

The document is the latest of several that some believe suggest the church is softening its stance toward Jews and their salvation. For example, several scholars said Dominus Iesus, a 2000 document that reaffirms that salvation comes through Christ and the church, does not apply to Jews the way it does to members of other non-Christian religions.

Two Covenants? Darrell Bock, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, noted that the new statement seems to imply belief in a two-covenant view of salvation. "This would undercut evangelism to Jews and does not make sense of the efforts of the earliest church to reach out to Jews as seen in the New Testament," Bock told Christianity Today. "On the key question of whether Judaism can save, the document is very unclear."

John Pawlikowski, director of the Catholic-Jewish Studies program at the University of Chicago, said the statement raises questions about the way the church understands Jews and salvation. "It demands some kind of further reflection on the significance of the universality of Christ's redemptive action," he said. "To what extent, then, does their salvation depend primarily on their own covenant rather than, say, on the universal work of Christ?"

The statement is "like the camel's nose of universalism in the tent of the Catholic Church," said David Brickner, executive director of Jews for Jesus. "Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews, or he's no one's Messiah.

"I think it's important for us as evangelicals to recognize that the Catholic Church has long given up the notion of a forthright evangelistic outreach to the Jewish people," Brickner said. "The evangelical church should see this as a cautionary tale. The uniqueness of Christ is what's at stake."

Relations with Jews Yechiel Eckstein, founder of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, said the statement could help Christians respond to Jews in a way that is respectful, but does not compromise Christian beliefs.

Eugene Fisher, associate director for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the document may help Jews and Christians pursue a more intense level of interfaith dialogue using their shared Scriptures.

"It provides a solid basis of understanding for a local congregation to speak to a local synagogue—not only on social issues that we can get together on, but precisely on 'Let's talk about how we understand, say, the Book of Genesis,' " he said.

Leon Klenicki, a past president of the Anti-Defamation League, said the statement is good for Catholic-Jewish relations. But, he said, the document only describes Jewish beliefs and does not grant them theological validity.

Brickner cautions that interfaith dialogue, though valuable, should not replace evangelism. "This document demonstrates that those who have in one sense given up evangelism and replaced it with dialogue ultimately end up compromising the essence of the gospel itself."

Despite questions, many religious leaders say the statement is a valuable step forward. Mary Boys, professor of practical theology at Union Theological Seminary, said the study's emphasis on reading the Scriptures in their original context is helpful in correcting "the disparagement of Judaism that has been like a virus in Christian theology."

Marvin Wilson, author of Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, agrees. "For nearly 2,000 years, the Christians took the Jewish Scriptures and proceeded to essentially disregard Jewish scholarship and Jewish interpretation."

Wilson, professor of biblical and theological studies at Gordon College in Wenham, Massachusetts, says evangelicals need to hear the Jewish Scriptures "as a word meant for Israel, not just the word that gets validated for us because we can spiritualize it or Christolocize it, validating it by some kind of New Testament connection."

[sinkspur]

If you or anyone else truly believes in the Fatima apparitions, then, in this case, you “hope and pray” for an impossibility.

I believe that Mary appeared to the three children, but what she said versus what may have come from the mind and imagination of Lucia is something we will never know.

In any case, private apparitions, even those sanctioned by the Church, may be believed or not by the Catholic faithful.

And, please, if you respond, refrain from your usual vitriol.

[sitetest]

Dear Sock,

There was an excellent post or link in a post to an article by Fr. Groeschel (if my memory serves correctly) about the content and interpretation of private revelations. I believe it has bearing on your post to me.

It's past my bedtime, so I won't try to find it.

"We can speculate as to which souls are 'in most need', but, I don’t believe it necessarily refers to those who have abandoned Jesus Christ and His Church nor does it necessarily refer to those who WE mortals would consider the worst of sinners. The judgements of the Lord are inscrutable."

Nothing that I've written disagrees with this. I take "in most need" as those who most need Jesus' help to get to Heaven. I don't think I mentioned abandoning Jesus or His Church, nor did I mean to imply it.

In any event, from the human perspective, it isn't much of a hope to hope that no human souls are damned.

But the last human word on human life is death.

It isn't the last word, however.

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear narses,

Thanks. As always, it's a pleasure posting with you.

sitetest

[Sock]

In any case, private apparitions, even those sanctioned by the Church, may be believed or not by the Catholic faithful.

My post was in response to sitetest and his reference to the "Fatima prayer." He referenced Fatima and so I responded using the actual visions and words of Our Lady. If you were paying attention, you would have known that.

And, please, if you respond, refrain from your usual vitriol.

I have no respect for you and your kind. Earlier today, you denied that the Chruch taught that there was a hell untill I proved otherwise. You also denied that Our Lord refered to hell in the quote I provided, again contrary to the teaching of the Church. Less than a week ago, you tried to link Bishop Sheen [R.I.P.] and a known homosexual.

You are a dissenter and slanderer and frankly I don't care what you think.

[sitetest]

Dear Sock,

You said to sinkspur:

"You are a dissenter and slanderer and frankly I don't care what you think."

That may be, but perhaps you may care what some others may think.

sitetest

[sinkspur]

Earlier today, you denied that the Chruch taught that there was a hell untill I proved otherwise. You also denied that Our Lord refered to hell in the quote I provided, again contrary to the teaching of the Church.

These are lies, of course, but what else are we to expect from you?

Since you have such a problem with me, let's just not post to each other any longer. That's what I will do, at any rate. And, if you post to me, I will ignore you.

[Sock]

That may be, but perhaps you may care what some others may think.

I care about what many others think, however, when a wolf enters the sheepfold, it is our duty to cry "WOLF." Don't you agree?

[sinkspur]

"Many are called but few are chosen"

Where do those that are called but not chosen go to?

This passage has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Do you believe God actually chooses who will be saved, and who will not?

Perhaps the Calvinism threads would be more in keeping with your beliefs; you certainly don't appear to be Catholic.

[Mike Fieschko]

"Many are called but few are chosen"

[snip]

This passage has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Maybe I wrong about what the subject at hand is (I thought it was a discussion of whether there are, or whether the Bible can be read to indicate that there are, souls in Hell).

I also thought that it's a permitted interpretation of the parable of the marriage feast, that the parable refers to the feast in Heaven. The 'outer darkness' (verse 13) also allows that interpretation, no?

What is your interpretation of the parable?

[sitetest]

Dear Sock,

"I care about what many others think, however, when a wolf enters the sheepfold, it is our duty to cry 'WOLF.' Don't you agree?"

If, for the sake of argument, I were to agree that sinkspur were a wolf, from my perspective, you aren't crying "wolf", you're just shouting nasty stuff at the wolf.

Which, of course, reduces the effectiveness of your arguments against sinkspur.

sitetest

[Sock]

Good morning, sitetest!

If, for the sake of argument, I were to agree that sinkspur were a wolf, from my perspective, you aren't crying "wolf", you're just shouting nasty stuff at the wolf.

I find it fascinating that you have chosen to be an advocate for a liberal dissenter. As a lurker, I’ve been reading his posts long before I became active at FR and I stand by my assessment.

He has stated that he will no longer post to me. I am delighted and will not post to him either. However, if he once again criticizes, maligns, disparages, attacks, dissents from, objects to or in any way impugns the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, all bets are off.

Nevertheless, I was hoping you would address the post that I directly made to YOU (see the quotes in post #59) and not the one I made to someone else.

BTW: I made the following post a week or so ago from Fr. Salvany's book Liberalism is a Sin.

St. John the Baptist calls the Pharisees a "race of vipers"; Jesus Christ, Our Divine Savior, hurls at them the epithets "hypocrites, whitened sepulchres, a perverse and adulterous generation." St. Paul criticizes the schismatic Cretians as "always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies." The same Apostle calls Elymas the magician a "seducer, full of guile and deceit, a child of the devil, and enemy of all justice."

The Fathers of the Church exercised the same vigorous castigation of heresy and heretics. The gentle St. Bernard did not honey his words when he attacked the enemies of the Faith. Addressing Arnold of Brescia, the great Liberal agitator of his times, he calls him in his letters, "seducer, vase of injuries, scorpion, cruel wolf."

The Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas, forgets the calm of his cold syllogisms when he hurls his violent attacks against William of St. Amour, and his disciples; "Enemies of God, ministers of the devil, members of antichrist, ignorami, perverts, reprobates!"

Did St. Francis de Sales, purr softly over the heretics of his age and country? With the enemies of the Faith he preserved neither moderation nor consideration. Asked by a Catholic, who desired to know if it were permissible to speak evil of a heretic who propagated false doctrines, he replied: "Yes, you can, on the condition that you adhere to the exact truth, to what you know of his bad conduct, presenting that which is doubtful as doubtful, according to the degree of doubt which you may have in this regard." In his _Introduction to the Devout Life_, he expresses himself again: 'If the declared enemies of God and of the Church, ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry 'wolf' when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock and in every way and place we may meet him."

[sitetest]

Dear Sock,

Good morning to you, too.

I don't think of myself as an "advocate" for sinkspur. I do view him as a friend. However, even if I disliked sinkspur, I still don't think I'd approve of some of the language directed his way.

I notice that in most of the quotes that you provide of saintly persons castigating heretics & such, for the most part, the harsh words are directed at groups of people, not usually at individuals.

But even still, look at your quote from St. Francis de Sales, "Yes, you can, on the condition that you adhere to the exact truth, to what you know of his bad conduct, presenting that which is doubtful as doubtful,..."

I also notice this from the Catholic Catechism:

"2478 To avoid rash judgement, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable inerpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. Adn if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved."

In my own view, you have failed this task on this thread, regarding sinkspur. I believe that he posted something which was ambiguous in meaning, and that you gave the worst interpretation, rather than a favorable one. When he made clear what he had said, it was clear that a favorable interpretation would have been the right one. Yet, in later posts, you accused him of first lying, and then backing off his lies, when what seems to have happened, at least in my view, is that he clarified a previously-ambiguous post.

You seem to have failed St. Francis' test, as well as that of the Catechism. That isn't crying "wolf", it's just calling the "wolf" names.

As to the rest from your post #59, I did answer you. Perhaps you missed it, or perhaps you didn't take seriously my invitation to search out the recommended material.

sitetest

[Sock]

I don't think of myself as an "advocate" for sinkspur. I do view him as a friend. However, even if I disliked sinkspur, I still don't think I'd approve of some of the language directed his way. I notice that in most of the quotes that you provide of saintly persons castigating heretics & such, for the most part, the harsh words are directed at groups of people, not usually at individuals.

Let’s see if I understand you? If “harsh words” are directed a “groups of people” you will not take issue. Only when they are directed at one offender in particular (especially a friend) does the remark meet with you disapproval? Evidently “friendship” means more to you than it does to me. I understand, sitetest.

You continued:

As to the rest from your post #59, I did answer you. Perhaps you missed it, or perhaps you didn't take seriously my invitation to search out the recommended material.

You must have forgotten what you wrote last night:

There was an excellent post or link in a post to an article by Fr. Groeschel (if my memory serves correctly) about the content and interpretation of private revelations. I believe it has bearing on your post to me. It's past my bedtime, so I won't try to find it.

Last night your excuse was that it was past your bedtime. This morning, I missed “your invitation” to search for your rebuttal to the post that I made to you.

Thanks for the entertainment, sitetest.

btw: I am not interested in wasting any more bandwith on your "friend." So if his case is all you wish to discuss with me, thanks, but no thanks.

[sitetest]

Dear Sock,

"Let’s see if I understand you? If 'harsh words' are directed a 'groups of people' you will not take issue. Only when they are directed at one offender in particular (especially a friend) does the remark meet with you disapproval?"

What is said abstractly of an amorphous group can become hurtful when aimed at a particular individual. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

"Evidently 'friendship' means more to you than it does to me. I understand, sitetest."

Evidently, you read more into my words than was put there by the author.

As to my answer to your original post #59, so I suppose that you are suggesting that it is my obligation to dig up the article for you. Well, I didn't have time last night, nor did I this morning (I responded to you in the brief time I had available to heading out to Mass.).

"Thanks for the entertainment, sitetest."

Thanks for the condescension, Sock. ;-)

If you're interested, I'm sure that you can find the article yourself. It treats directly your errors in how you regard apparitions.

I noticed though that in your last post, you passed right over your apparently uncharitable remarks where you misinterpreted another poster, then, after that poster had made more clear what he had said, you called him a liar who had backed off his prior lies.

Oh wait, you DID address that:

"btw: I am not interested in wasting any more bandwith on your 'friend.' So if his case is all you wish to discuss with me, thanks, but no thanks."

Of course you're no longer interested in discussing an instance where you were likely guilty of rash judgement and a lack of charity. I understand, Sock.

;-)

sitetest

[Sock]

I get it!

That little ";-)" at the end of your post means you're playing. Ok, my turn.;-)

We are taught that "charity" is primarily the love of God and, secondarily, the love of neighbor for the sake of God. Ought not the love of neighbor be subordinated to the love which is due to the Lord? To "offend" our neighbor for the love of God is, in fact, a true act of charity. Charity is practiced in relation to our neighbor when, in his OWN INTEREST, he is crossed and chastised. Charity is practiced in relation to God when, for His glory and in His service, it becomes necessary to silence human considerations to attain the highest of all ends.

You wrote:
Of course you're no longer interested in discussing an instance where you were likely guilty of rash judgement and a lack of charity. I understand, Sock.

I am guilty of many faults, but calling a liberal dissenting half-wit a “half-wit” is not one of them. In fact, it IS an act of charity. To refer to a liberal dissenting half-wit as anything less than a liberal dissenting half wit, would be bearing false witness, sitetest. The fact that I don’t hold a half wit’s hand, snuggle up, and whisper sweet nothings in his ear is not my bag, sitetest.

Liberal charity, on the other hand, is tender in appearance, but at bottom it is an essential contempt for the true good of men, or the supreme interests of truth and [ultimately] of God. It is human self-love, usurping the throne of the Lord and demanding that worship which belongs to God alone.

You along with your “friend” (perhaps there’s a bond I’m not aware of) expressed the belief that there were few souls in hell. You then quoted the Fatima prayer as a piece of evidence to substantiate your claim. I responded by posting the quotes from Lucia after her vision of hell and the actual quote from Our Lady indicating that MANY souls are damned. I understand that this conflicts with the post V II hand holding, we are the world, ecumenical, I’m ok – you’re ok, philosophy of a few Kumbaya Katholics. I understand that also, sitetest. No problem.

Perhaps the article in which you can rebut the words of Lucia and Our Lady of Fatima is located near the other articles that you refered to which show that (I’m paraphrasing) 80% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence. I’m sure if I find the one article the other will be there also. Once I find the article showing that 80% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence, as you claim, I will email Cardinal Hickey since he, like many of us who read Gallop and the CBS/NYT polls are misinformed.

Have you ever done stand-up comedy? You have talent, sitetest.;-)

[sitetest]

Dear Sock,

You wish to believe that your insults and harsh words are the acts of charity of a saint. I don't care to dispute that with you. Anyone who can read these posts knows that you are likely immune to any reason concerning this.

Just to clear up a few items. ;-)

"You along with your 'friend' (perhaps there’s a bond I’m not aware of) expressed the belief that there were few souls in hell."

Well, I can't speak for my friend. You'll need to ask him directly. However, you would be hard put to show where I have expressed a belief that there are few souls in Hell. Especially since that isn't my belief. But I'm sure that your falsification of my views is inadvertent, and not a lack of charity.

"...is located near the other articles that you refered to which show that (I’m paraphrasing) 80% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence."

It's you who quoted a poll stating that 80+% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence. I've seen other polls with other numbers, but have never cited a poll stating that 80+% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence. I'm sure that your falsification of my statements is inadvertent, and not a lack of charity.

You went further with the poll numbers and showed that many, or most who believe in the Real Presence have a heterodox notion of what it means.

You demonstrated lack of knowledge about polling, among other topics, with your discussion of the results of that poll. But in any event, it is you who cited it, not me.

"Have you ever done stand-up comedy? You have talent, sitetest.;-)"

Thanks. I always try to leave 'em laughing.

;-)

sitetest

[Sock]

I'm sure that your falsification of my statements is inadvertent, and not a lack of charity.

I've reviewed your statement and your number was 66%. Of course, you failed to substantiate that number, but I've come to expect these kind of unsubstantiated "facts" from you and your "friend."

You wrote:

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.
Post #161
(btw: You and your little "friend" seem to be like two peas in a pod in this linked thread also. Maybe that bond between the two of you is stronger than I first suspected. ;-)

You continue:

You demonstrated lack of knowledge about polling, among other topics, with your discussion of the results of that poll. But in any event, it is you who cited it, not me.

Anyone who can read these posts knows that you are likely immune to any reason concerning this.

Talk is cheap, sitetest, especially when it comes from liberals. Post your facts or stuff a sock in it.;-)

You clearly will not be interested in facts, but I will repost this material for those who can read these posts knows that you are likely immune to any reason concerning this.

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,  soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of  bread and wine.

	29% believe they are receiving bread and wine that symbolize the  body and blood of Jesus.
	10% believe they receive bread and wine in which Jesus is also  present.
	24% believe they are receiving what has become Christ’s body  and blood because of their personal belief.

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

*** Consequently, the 1992 Gallup Poll showed that about 70% of so-called Catholics today in the United States dissent from papal teaching in various areas, especially in the area of human sexuality.45 And Cardinal Bernardin, himself, commented on this same poll by saying that: "according to a Gallup poll only 30% of our faithful believe what the Church teaches on the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist."46 According to Newman's theology, the 70% who dissent from the Pope and the 70% who have no faith in the Eucharist could very well be the same people. Could God be punishing those who receive Holy Communion while dissenting from the Pope with a loss of their "supernatural faith" in Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist?
Source IV

***

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.

A pleasant good evening, sitetest. ;-) ;-) ;-)

[Sock]

I believe that souls could be in Hell.

"Could be? Then souls could not be in hell, as well. Which is it? You either do or do not believe in the apparitaions at Fatima. If you do then you must believe in the words of Our Lady when she says:

Pray much and make sacrifices for sinners, for many souls go to hell because there is no one to make sacrifices for them.(Our Lady of Fatima—August 19, 1917). [emphasis added]

Then again, you may have decided to pick and choose what part/s of the Fatima appartions you believe and what parts are figments of the imaginaion of the seers. I believe that is what your “friend” has decided to do. ;-)

[sitetest]

Dear Sock,

LOL.

So you did falsify what I said about this, huh? You still don't know what study it is to which I was alluding, but obviously I never said that 82% believed in the Real Presence.

But, you don't want to face that?

No mention from you about your falsification about what I said about souls in Hell.

No mention from you how you misinterpreted sinkspur, and then falsely claimed that he lied.

Don't want to have to deal with that stuff, huh?

I UNDERSTAND, really I do! But all you had to do was beg off and go away...

Instead, you are so anxious to run away from your falsifications that you give us SUMMER REPEATS!! HAHAHAHA!

I didn't think much of this post the first go-round, my opinion of it hasn't improved.

;-)

sitetest