How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[JonNC]

I haven’t taken a poll, but over the years I have discussed theology, including the Eucharist, with a number of Catholics - family members and friends.

It seems to be that almost all of them treasure the Eucharist but do not believe that they are receiving the actual body and blood of Christ. Like most Protestants, they regard it as symbolic - important and even powerful to most of them but not as the church teaches. Are these people heretics? Have they automatically excommunicated themselves? Should they avoid receiving communion altogether? What should they be told? I doubt if their priests know their doubts or disbeliefs. Should they confess their disbelief?

My analysis? We live in an age when it's difficult for most people to believe that a prayer of consecration spoken by a priest in any way changes the substance of bread and wine. That can seem like a superstition more in keeping with the Middle Ages. But the idea that the spirit of Christ is present at Mass - that he is indeed present - is easy to accept. Didn't he promise to be with us always and everywhere?

I can’t answer the questions you ask about what Catholics should do, but I would like to comment on what you have said. I suspect, though I too have seen no surveys, that one might find similar results amongst western noncatholics whose communions, like Lutheranism, profess the real presence. And even though we express the nature of His presence differently, it is troubling that many doubt His presence.

I agree with you, that based on His own words, “this is my body”, this should be something we easily accept on faith. It is curious to me that some who think His presence is merely symbolic in the Eucharist, have no trouble believing the virgin birth or physical resurrection.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

I haven’t taken a poll, but over the years I have discussed theology, including the Eucharist, with a number of Catholics - family members and friends.

It seems to be that almost all of them treasure the Eucharist but do not believe that they are receiving the actual body and blood of Christ. Like most Protestants, they regard it as symbolic - important and even powerful to most of them but not as the church teaches. Are these people heretics? Have they automatically excommunicated themselves? Should they avoid receiving communion altogether? What should they be told? I doubt if their priests know their doubts or disbeliefs. Should they confess their disbelief?

My analysis? We live in an age when it's difficult for most people to believe that a prayer of consecration spoken by a priest in any way changes the substance of bread and wine. That can seem like a superstition more in keeping with the Middle Ages. But the idea that the spirit of Christ is present at Mass - that he is indeed present - is easy to accept. Didn't he promise to be with us always and everywhere?

With all due respect to you and your loved ones,but they do not believe due to the fact they do not understand the teachings of the church. They are like the Jews who disbelieved Jesus about the Eucharist. They think to far much with the human mind and lack the faith.

Here is what I ask people who disbelieve the Real Presence.

Do you believe the Word of God became Incarnate and Resurrected from dead? If you do,then why do you reject Jesus Real Presence? Who are we as mere mortals to tell God what He can and cannot do?

 

[Radical]

I can’t answer the questions you ask about what Catholics should do, but I would like to comment on what you have said. I suspect, though I too have seen no surveys, that one might find similar results amongst western noncatholics whose communions, like Lutheranism, profess the real presence.

I’ll link a Catholic survey once I get home.

I agree with you, that based on His own words, “this is my body”, this should be something we easily accept on faith. It is curious to me that some who think His presence is merely symbolic in the Eucharist,…

I would never say that his “presence is merely symbolic” unless I was being sloppy. I would say that he meant his body was symbolized by the bread, but I wouldn’t classify that as a “presence”. I would concede that he is present wherever two or three are gathered…Come to think of it, “symbolic presence” might just be the only terminology that is dodgier that “real presence”.

…have no trouble believing the virgin birth or physical resurrection.

I have no trouble with these b/c they are exactly what they purport to be. It is not as if it is proposed that Mary was a virgin notwithstanding the fact that she would have not displayed any of the physical realities that would be compatable with virginity. (Although, she would have exhibited pregnancy, a physical reality typically, but not necessarily, opposed to virginity, she would have exhibited an abscence of physical intercourse and an intact hymen [presumably]) Likewise, we are not expected to believe in a physical resurrection of our bodies that does not exhibit the accidents of a body. The problem with the “real bodily presence” is that there is no body really present (as those words are used in practically every other occasion) and the philosophical explanation amounts to no more than mumbo jumbo to the non-adherents.

 

[hawkeye]

I believe The Eucharist is what Jesus said it was, others understood what He meant, so they walked away, so hard a teaching to take.

Anyway why didn’t the apostles get their own food and wine, instead of taking what Jesus was sending around the table?

I haven’t been to any meal, where someone at the end of the table requests us to drink what they are having, or eat what they are eating.

They must have been intimately sharing, because Judas dipped bread into the cup,this is definitely not a normal meal, nor is it normal practice.

 

[Roy5]

hawkeye
Actually, I participated in a communion service in the Holy Land (Jerusalem), and we were told that we were following the tradition at the time of Jesus. We all sat at a very low table - not really sat - and shared the bread and cup by passing them along. We were told that in those days meals were shared in that way, with no concern about germs and such, since theyr did not know about germs????

 

[Radical]

I haven’t taken a poll, but over the years I have discussed theology, including the Eucharist, with a number of Catholics - family members and friends.

It seems to be that almost all of them treasure the Eucharist but do not believe that they are receiving the actual body and blood of Christ.

here is a survey from US Catholics…see page 54 and following

 

[Radical]

I have enjoyed our conversation and will pray for the blessings of the Holy Spirit to come upon you.

Thank-you

I was for many years a “cafeteria Catholic” and over the last couple of years have come to the realization that my faith is kind of like being pregnant…either you are or not, or said another way…either you’re with us or against us.

I used to have contempt for “cafeteria Catholics” thinking that they should have the integrity to either adhere to the official teachings or go elsewhere. After talking to such Catholics and reading some of their works (Garry Wills’s explanation as to why he is still Catholic for example) I have come to realize that many of them hold that their Church has been hijacked by the hierarchy and that the Catholic Church belongs to the cafeteria bunch as much as to the hierarchy…they want to reform it from within.

It is comforting to know that as Christians we believe almost the same things and that is wonderful.

agreed

I have great appreciation for Ecumenism and hope that one day we will all be ONE just as Jesus desires!!

I don’t see how unification is possible when a party to the process (the Catholic Church) can not admit that its official teaching might contain error or that it doesn’t possess a monopoly on the fullness of truth…cafeteria Catholics, on the other hand should acknowledge those things, and so, IMHO, for unification to occur, we need them in charge.

May God bless you.

 

[JonNC]

I have no trouble with these b/c they are exactly what they purport to be. It is not as if it is proposed that Mary was a virgin notwithstanding the fact that she would have not displayed any of the physical realities that would be compatable with virginity. (Although, she would have exhibited pregnancy, a physical reality typically, but not necessarily, opposed to virginity, she would have exhibited an abscence of physical intercourse and an intact hymen [presumably]) Likewise, we are not expected to believe in a physical resurrection of our bodies that does not exhibit the accidents of a body. The problem with the “real bodily presence” is that there is no body really present (as those words are used in practically every other occasion) and the philosophical explanation amounts to no more than mumbo jumbo to the non-adherents.

Radical, I know from our different discussions on the issue that you do not believe in the real presence. I must assume, therefore, that you belong to a communion that likewise doesn’t confess the real presence. I understand your belief and respectfully disagree.

My comment, on the otherhand, was directed towards those who belong to a communion - Catholic, Lutheran, some Anglican, Orthodox - that confesses the real presence, and then they say they don’t really believe it.

Jon

 

[cbsjrcol]

Thank-you

I used to have contempt for “cafeteria Catholics” thinking that they should have the integrity to either adhere to the official teachings or go elsewhere. After talking to such Catholics and reading some of their works (Garry Wills’s explanation as to why he is still Catholic for example) I have come to realize that many of them hold that their Church has been hijacked by the hierarchy and that the Catholic Church belongs to the cafeteria bunch as much as to the hierarchy…they want to reform it from within.

agreed

I don’t see how unification is possible when a party to the process (the Catholic Church) can not admit that its official teaching might contain error or that it doesn’t possess a monopoly on the fullness of truth…cafeteria Catholics, on the other hand should acknowledge those things, and so, IMHO, for unification to occur, we need them in charge.

May God bless you.

Radical,

Thanks for the reply…I don’t know of or have read Gary Wills…but I can say that just claiming to be Catholic does not make you a Catholic. With that said, there are certainly lots of professed Catholics who are acting as you suggest. The scary part is if they are correct (which the aren’t)…it would mean that Satan has WON. Jesus said he would protect his Church until the end of time. I don’t believe that Jesus was wrong.

Regarding your last point, can you share with me those area’s of Catholic official teaching that are in error. The teachings of the Church state the it cannot teach error regarding Faith and Morals. Those would be the infallable areas…please understand that teachings can evolve but they cannot change. Regarding the fullness of truth, Catholics believe in Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium (the teaching authority of the Catholic Church), and of course the Bible to complete the Deposit of Faith.

Cafeteria Catholics (I was one for a LONG time) tend to give Catholicism a bad name, because we either didn’t KNOW what we believed (poorly catechised) OR thought we could faithfully disagree and it would have no consequences. Just look at Bart Stupak. We are supposed to have what is called a properly formed conscience. If I am in disagreement with a teaching of the Catholic Church regarding Faith and Morals, I am supposed to study the stated Catholic position, pray for guidance and then hopefully agree with the premise being considered. If still in disagreement…more prayer and study. Finally after a real complete and faithful period, if one still disagrees…that person should ascend to the teachings of the church and be faithfully obedient. There are lots of folks who hate what they think the Church teaches, but that is because they don’t have the complete story of what the Church actually teaches. Catholics do believe that we have the fullness of truth…that is NOT to say that there aren’t bad Catholics…just that the teachings in the areas of Faith and Morals are correct.

I am the eternal optimist and believe that there is plenty of common ground for discussions that with the help of the Holy Spirit could lead us to the One church that Jesus wants.

God’s Peace

 

[Radical]

Radical,

Thanks for the reply…I don’t know of or have read Gary Wills…but I can say that just claiming to be Catholic does not make you a Catholic. With that said, there are certainly lots of professed Catholics who are acting as you suggest. The scary part is if they are correct (which the aren’t)…it would mean that Satan has WON. Jesus said he would protect his Church until the end of time. I don’t believe that Jesus was wrong.

This assertion of yours could only be valid if:

a) the Catholic Church is equivalent to THE Church;
b) the faith of the Church (which is to be protected) is coextensive with the specified faith of the Catholic hierarchy; and
c) your interpretation of an ambiguous verse (or two) is correct such that Jesus did promise that no error could or would ever creep in.

Needless to say, I don’t accept any of those three prerequisites.

Regarding your last point, can you share with me those area’s of Catholic official teaching that are in error.

Well, to name a few:

1. Petrine supremacy
2. The real bodily presence
3. The Marion doctrines (apart from her virginity ante partum)
4. Indulgences and the Treasury of Merits and all that go with them

The teachings of the Church state the it cannot teach error regarding Faith and Morals.

I guess you could also add that teaching to the list of errors

Those would be the infallable areas…please understand that teachings can evolve but they cannot change.

You should understand that evolution is change. Change occurs slowly and incrementally, but at the end of the day what started as a fish has become a lizard (at least, so goes the theory). With incremental layers having piled up, the Catholic Church of today has a vastly different set of doctrine from what was possessed by the early church.

Cafeteria Catholics (I was one for a LONG time) tend to give Catholicism a bad name, because we either didn’t KNOW what we believed (poorly catechised) OR thought we could faithfully disagree and it would have no consequences.

This is true, but then again, certain very bright and well informed cafeteria Catholics such as Garry Wills present a Catholicism that is much easier to respect by those of us on the outside.

I am the eternal optimist and believe that there is plenty of common ground for discussions that with the help of the Holy Spirit could lead us to the One church that Jesus wants.

God’s Peace

There is plenty of common ground that unites us, but a proper and full unification requires mutual respect and a toleration of each other’s set of beliefs. I am prepared to (officially) allow for a variety of beliefs wrt to the Lord’s Supper within the modern Church (in keeping with the variety that existed in the first centuries and including Real Presence, Spiritual Presence and No Special Presence)…will the Catholic Church do likewise? Your answer will (no doubt) negate an optimistic view from this side. Rome isn’t seeking unification with other churches. Instead it requires subjection of those other churches to its authority and its beliefs…which, if acheived, would result in the elimination of those other churches.

 

[Radical]

Hello Jon,

Radical, I know from our different discussions on the issue that you do not believe in the real presence. I must assume, therefore, that you belong to a communion that likewise doesn’t confess the real presence. I understand your belief and respectfully disagree.

Understood….I just don’t like the term “symbolic presence” ….seems to me to be on par with “solid gas”

My comment, on the otherhand, was directed towards those who belong to a communion - Catholic, Lutheran, some Anglican, Orthodox - that confesses the real presence, and then they say they don’t really believe it.

As indicated to the other fellow (with the oddly spelt handle) I am hoping that these people you had in mind will be able to change their communions from within.

Cheers.

 

[Nicea325]

Radical:

1) Petrine supremacy

Supremacy? No such thing,where did you come up with such a notion?

It is called primacy,not supremacy.

 

[JonNC]

=Radical;6529964]Hello Jon,

Understood….I just don’t like the term “symbolic presence” ….seems to me to be on par with “solid gas”

I hope you know I didn’t mean it to offend.

As indicated to the other fellow (with the oddly spelt handle) I am hoping that these people you had in mind will be able to change their communions from within.

Oh, no you don’t!!

Jon

 

[Monica4316]

Every year after lent I am taught something very important. This time for some reason I could not get my mind off of the Eucharist.

John 6:66 (the devils numbers) That blows my mind.

Did anyone ever really make that connection. That is the scripture where the disciples that could not accept the true teaching that Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is the living Christ left Jesus and walked away.

Judas comes to mind. It was Judas that was one of his Apostles and left Jesus. Did you notice when he left him. At the Eucharist!!! Judas could not accept that teaching.

As a kid me and my brother when we were first beginning to drive would go to Church and split right after communion. My Dad would always say are you like Judas are you going to leave right after the Eucharist

I never really understood until years later what he was saying. Trust me I stay now!!

Jesus was quite clear when he stated For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. John 6:53-56)

Even the disciples said this is a hard saying who can listen to it? See Jesus knew some would not believe. This is where Judas fell away. John 6:64.

Many say he was speaking sybolically. But he wasn’t. If so both the Jews who were suspicious of him and the disciples who accepted everything up to this point would have remained with him if he were.

But he did not correct the protesters.

12 times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven.

4 times he said he said they would have to eat my flesh and drink my blood.

Who can really accept this teaching? Can you?

We as Roman Catholic’s are not just symbolically commemorating Jesus in the Eucharist we are actually participating in his body and blood as Paul tells us.

The cup of blessing which we bless, IS IT NOT a participation in the blood of Christ. The bread which we bread, IS IT NOT a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor 10:16)

Jesus said DO THIS in memory of me!! Do This!!!

well said!

I completely accept the Eucharist.

Jesus said it so plainly… “This is My Body”. Who are we to say otherwise?

 

[Nicea325]

well said!

I completely accept the Eucharist.

Jesus said it so plainly… “This is My Body”. Who are we to say otherwise?

Exactly! I ask those you reject the Real Presence to explain to me how they can ACCEPT the Incarnation/Resurrection,but REJECT a declaration by Jesus (God): This IS my Body.

Jesus did not say: This represents my Body or a symbol of my Body. I think God would have chosen those words in order to avoid confusion. But guess what? He did not!

Didn’t God say: Let there be light? Did it happen? I cannot find one verse where God declares something and does not happen.

 

[JonNC]

Exactly! I ask those you reject the Real Presence to explain to me how they can ACCEPT the Incarnation/Resurrection,but REJECT a declaration by Jesus (God): This IS my Body.

This is so very well said, especially since it sounds like this:

I agree with you, that based on His own words, “this is my body”, this should be something we easily accept on faith. It is curious to me that some who think His presence is merely symbolic in the Eucharist, have no trouble believing the virgin birth or physical resurrection.

which is what I said in post #41.



Jon

 

[Nicea325]

This is so very well said, especially since it sounds like this:

which is what I said in post #41.



Jon

Amen brother…amen!

 

[Radical]

I hope you know I didn’t mean it to offend.

Jon, you’re a charitable fellow…if I came across something from you that even remotely approached the edge of offensiveness, I would assume that I had somehow misunderstood your intent.

Oh, no you don’t!!

Jon

That horse might already be out of the barn…closing the door may no longer be an option.

 

[Radical]

Radical:

1) Petrine supremacy

Supremacy? No such thing,where did you come up with such a notion?

It is called primacy,not supremacy.

Tell you what, why don’t you google “Petrine Supremacy” and then get back to me on that one.

In the mean time, I’ll try to find the time to respond to your post quoting Kelly et al.

 

[cbsjrcol]

Thank-you

I used to have contempt for “cafeteria Catholics” thinking that they should have the integrity to either adhere to the official teachings or go elsewhere. After talking to such Catholics and reading some of their works (Garry Wills’s explanation as to why he is still Catholic for example) I have come to realize that many of them hold that their Church has been hijacked by the hierarchy and that the Catholic Church belongs to the cafeteria bunch as much as to the hierarchy…they want to reform it from within.

agreed

I don’t see how unification is possible when a party to the process (the Catholic Church) can not admit that its official teaching might contain error or that it doesn’t possess a monopoly on the fullness of truth…cafeteria Catholics, on the other hand should acknowledge those things, and so, IMHO, for unification to occur, we need them in charge.

May God bless you.

Radical,

I appreciate your views but certainly don’t agree with them! It seems as though your mind is made up and you are happy and content (because it seems that you want the church that meets YOUR needs…not the ONE the Jesus established). I am guessing that as a Christian you believe in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Ressurection…none of which can be explained in terms that most of us can comprehend. So we take them on Faith…just seems odd that if what I just suggested is true, why one can’t believe in the primacy of Peter, or Marian doctrine!

One final thought…do you realize that you have Catholics in your heritage–virtually everyone was a Catholic prior to the Reformation. Do you ever wonder if those that led the Reformation would be happy with what has happened to the Church today. The Catholic Church has certainly had its’ share of sinners (and still does today)…but it is teaching the same things that were taught by the Apostles 2000 years ago. It is the ONE that we refer to in the Nicene Creed!

God’s Peace