Belief in the Real Presence from 87% to 34%. Hypotheses on why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This matter - of the % believing in the True Presence - has been pounded down into the ground for some time.

A good part of the issue is “who is being asked”. andother part of the issue is “what actual questions are being asked”.

Catechesis took a serious turn for the worse in the early 1970’s. The issue with the surveys (and there have been more than one) is centered on the two questions above. Someone may today be a faithful, Mass attending Catholic but not be able to answer the questions asked - because, for example, they either were not taught, or don’t remember the term “transubstantiation”. Oh! Fail mark! - but they truly believe Christ is present in the Eucharist.

So they believe in the True Presence; but the poll doesn’t ask the question that way; and they fail the poll.

Yes, there may be Catholics who don’t believe in the True Presence; but I would lay dollars to donuts most of them are not attending Mass regularly. Given that somewhere about 75% to 80% of Catholics don’t attend Mass regularly, I would not be shocked to find any number of them don’t believe in the True Presence. But they get counted in the poll, and we are left with a skewed impression.
 
I am not opposed to receiving in the hand and have often done so myself… that being said, I do truly believe, as a matter of simple psychology, that the sudden and abrupt switch, in many places, from receiving on the tongue kneeling to receiving on the hand standing would have taken away much of the awe and mystery.
There is nothing wrong with receiving standing… that is the venerable tradition of the East… but the sudden shift had to have a psychological impact.
I never understood why it was so important that we switch the posture from kneeling to standing. My cathedral, here in Vancouver, is a rarity in that kneeling is still the norm. At all 7 Sunday Masses and 4 daily Masses, the faithful always have the choice to process up the centre and receive standing or process along either sides and kneel at the altar rail. I feel its usually half and half in terms of the choice people make.
 
The thing is, the switch occurred about 50 years ago, when I was a child. There are whole generations of people who have never received on the tongue and probably only seen people doing so in the movies.
So any psychological shift mostly affected people who were old enough to have witnessed the change, many of whom have since passed away.
 
Remove the indult and see if belief in the real presence rises. At the very least there will be fewer abuses.
 
But that’s the thing. Younger people are realising that there actually is something more reverent and respectful about receiving on the tongue while kneeling, and that perhaps the reality of the Eucharist demands the utmost reverence. My Parents raised me to receive on the tongue. Though now I feel compelled to kneel as well. Fortunately the manner in which the communion is distributed in my Parish facilitates this without it being awkward. I think it’s a shame that some priests/EMHCs seem almost afraid when they realise that you want to receive on the tongue.
 
PJM said:
REMOVAL OF COMMUNION RAILS WHICH LED TO

Communion in the HAND WHICH LED TO

“EXTRAORDINARY” [MEANS WHEN THERE IS A REAL NEED OTHER THAN CONVENIENCE OR PREFERENCE]
Click to expand...
Pshaw! IMNSHO, that’s just a smoke screen. To wit…
If “anyone” CAN distribute God in Holy Communion; CAN IT REALLY BE GOD?
Click to expand...
If “anyone” can receive God in Holy Communion; CAN IT REALLY BE GOD?

Think about it for a minute… 😉
 
Younger people to a large extent are also drawn to practices that are different from what they grew up with. It’s something “new” to them, they can imbue it with their own special meaning. I’m not saying it’s bad to do it or see it as special reverence, just that you might think differently if you had been young in 1963.
 
Last edited:
Young people are also capable of thinking for themselves. It does strike me as odd that the mass was done one way for about 1500 years, and then in the 60’s such a sudden change occured. A lot of changes to the mass were not mandated. And to church buildings themselves.

I remember being told a story of when a Church in Dublin was “wreckovated” in the 70’s. The prior sent a bunch of the brothers on"holiday". (The ones who would have objected to his plan).

With them gone they voted to remove the pulpit, the high altar, move the tabernacle off to the side, and replace the stone altar with a large wooden table.

When the brother who was the sacristan returned to see the stonework, over 100 years old, had been turned to rubble, he cried.

It’s things like this that made me develop more traditional leanings. Also I was taught from a very young age that the Eucharist = Jesus and we should show respect to Him. It only followed naturally that I should kneel for communion.

I remember explaining what we believe about the Eucharist to a Muslim once. He said: “if you really believe that then why don’t you all approach the altar on your knees?”
 
I don’t like wrecked churches either and I understand you can think for yourself as I certainly do. I was also not on the big change bandwagon in the 60s because I was a baby-to-preschooler and my parents were old. I did however see why many of the younger people wanted the updates and changes; it was a time of great change in just about everything, not just the Church. Just saying that if you had lived back then you would perhaps have been on the other side of the issue, not due to peer pressure but because it would have genuinely felt more holy to you.

I myself have no big preference (and don’t feel either way is more reverent or holier. The reverence is in my own heart, not externals) and for that reason will receive any way the priest for whatever country I am in wishes to distribute.
 
Well, I can’t argue with your feelings. If you feel that neither is more reverent then that’s grand. But the fact is that, in the West at least, kneeling was reserved for royalty. It conveyed reverence in a manner that was understood by all. I am sure people are capable of being reverent in their hearts, but to dismiss “the externals” as being inconsequential is a bit much. Why should we bother building nice churches, or using precious metals for the body and blood of Christ in that case?
 
There have been miracles where the host has turned into heart tissue. DNA testing confirmed that the tissue belonged to a Jewish male, about 30 years old, who was in a state of extreme stress, almost as if they were being…crucified.
 
I like a nice church both as a work of art and as an expression of love or honor for God.

However, I feel the same amount of reverence and love for Jesus whether I am receiving Him kneeling or standing, on the tongue or hand, in St Peter’s Basilica or in a school gym or on a football field. One can have a preference certainly, and I can safely say I prefer Mass in St. Peter’s over Mass on folding chairs in the school gym. One can also say one prefers to receive one way or the other for any number of reasons - I know plenty of people whose preference is dictated not by reverence, but by the fact that they cannot reliably use their hands.

It’s the same Jesus regardless of all these externals though. I love him the same. I even love nowadays that He comes to me in so many places, in so many ways, in all kinds of settings all over the world.
 
AdamPeter said:
Young people are also capable of thinking for themselves.
Click to expand...
“Capable of thinking for themselves” <> “think for themselves”. Ask anyone in the music or entertainment industries, let alone those in marketing. 😉
It does strike me as odd that the mass was done one way for about 1500 years, and then in the 60’s such a sudden change occured.
Click to expand...
That’s because that’s not the way it happened. 😉
 
Yes. And those are valid feelings. But the problem is that the mass and the church buildings were designed to raise the heart to heaven in a practical and tangible manner, through, ritual, sight, sound, smell, and beauty. Something of that does tend to get lost today. People might more easily believe in the real presence if we treated the Church as a place where a King lives, rather than a community centre.
 
Mattapoisett64 said:
40.png
R_H_Benson:
Because the Church went from this:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

to this:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Click to expand...
Would you have us believe that your second picture is representative of how the Eucharist is celebrated in 99% of churches today?
Click to expand...
Looking at the second picture, I see no one over the age of about 30. I think this picture was taken in the 70’s, right after Vatican II, and this looks like a college or university mass said in an all purpose room in a university/college setting.
Maybe next time the poster could post a picture of a mass said on the hood of a Jeep in a WWII combat zone, and set it up for criticism.
 
Last edited:
Well at least they’ve got pink butterflies.

Pink Butterflies and the… dun dun dun… Novus Ordo are bound together like peas and carrots. I think the Holy Father recently spoke about the new canonical obligation to have pictures of pink butterflies present.
 
Last edited:
joeybaggz said:
Looking at the second picture, I see no one over the age of about 30. I think this picture was taken in the 70’s, right after Vatican II,
Click to expand...
Maybe about 1970, in 1974 when I was cool and graduating from high school, young people had a lot longer hair.
 
Maybe about 1970, in 1974 when I was cool and graduating from high school, young people had a lot longer hair.
[/quote]

Actually looking at it again, I’m thinking possibly the late 60’s. I know on the east coast, for the most part, the long hair and “hippie” look really didn’t arrive till about '70. And the guy to the left of the altar in the blue pants has a white belt on. That was definitely late 60’s. I’m thinking this was a mass celebrated in a Newman Center at a public university all purpose room.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top