I believe in the Eucharist

[tee_eff_em]

rayray81:

Catholicism has a large following. While at face value 30% seems like a small number, it depends on what it is 30% of. I think its safe to say that the number you would get to figure out what 30% of American Catholics is it would be enough to fill up an internet chat room, and then some.

True. I know nothing about the pool of Catholics surveyed. But I know tons of people who self-identify as Catholic, even though they don’t practice the faith.

For a similar number, I am told that (at least in my area) each week a parish receives on average, offertory envelopes from about 25% of registered parishioners.

So maybe the poll doesn’t reflect the beliefs of Catholics-in-the-pew so much as those non-practicing Catholics-outside-the-pews? (Or rather: Reflects both those populations without distinction)

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

tee_eff_em:

True. I know nothing about the pool of Catholics surveyed. But I know tons of people who self-identify as Catholic, even though they don’t practice the faith.

For a similar number, I am told that (at least in my area) each week a parish receives on average, offertory envelopes from about 25% of registered parishioners.

So maybe the poll doesn’t reflect the beliefs of Catholics-in-the-pew so much as those non-practicing Catholics-outside-the-pews? (Or rather: Reflects both those populations without distinction)

Excellent point. A much better poll would have separated the faithful practicing Catholics, from the cafeteria Catholics, from the sunday Catholics, from the name-only Catholics and then asked the question. I would guess that most of first group would believe what the Church believe and very few if any of the latter group would.

 

[oldschoolcath23]

I think that our culture may play a role in Catholic’s lack of knowledge or belief in the real presence. The post-modern “age of enlightenment” humanistic elites in the media, schools, and also (sadly) the churches have erased from our minds any connections to God or miracles because they can’t be “proven” by science.

Plus, America was a nation founded on protestant and anti-catholic beliefs, and belief in the real presence is about as catholic as you can get.

 

[rguil]

It is a contradiction to say “I am a Catholic but I do not believe that Jesus the Lord is present in the Eucharist” since believing in the Eucharist is a central doctrine of the Catholic Church and it is the central act of worship in the Mass (otherwise we would be idolaters). Not believing in the Eucharist, however, is one of the characteristics of the protestant churches.

 

[kmknapp]

ToledoLegate:

If you want to see the exact opposite of belief in the Real Presence, take a close look at this link:

spxreynoldsburg.com/ministers.html

Rather sad I think!

What is sad about a parish being certain to be able to commune all of its people in a respectful and worshipful manner?

karen marie

 

[Scanner]

Could somebody please illuminate me on the difference between

• 30% of Catholics believe that they are really and truly receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of Bread and Wine (this has always been the Church’s teaching regarding the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist).

and

• 10% of Catholics believe that when receiving Holy Communion, they are receiving bread and wine, in which Jesus Christ is really and truly present, but in a spiritual way.

And, how is a high school educated person able to tell the difference so that he/she is to beleive correctly for you all to judge worthy? Heck, I’m a college educated guy and I can’t really see too much of a difference.

Let’s break it apart:

1. Every Catholic (I would hope) beleives Jesus is divine.
2. The soul and spirit are fairly interchangable terms, athough not entirely.

I have edited this post 3 times because I fear getting banned for asking a poignant question. Is what seperates the 10% a belief that the wafer and the wine have been transformed into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, not just his divinity and soul? And that flesh and blood aren’t able to be discerned by our earthly senses?

I honestly didn’t realize this may be a problem so I thank you for bringing this subject up. Everytime I think I grasp something I find out different.

 

[Newvert]

Is what seperates the 10% a belief that the wafer and the wine have been transformed into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, not just his divinity and soul? And that flesh and blood aren’t able to be discerned by our earthly senses?

I think you actually hit on it here. The difference is between a belief in bread and wine plus spirit, and the belief that what *was *bread and wine has become “substantially” different- the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. The latter view is clearly the teaching of the Church and is derived from John 6 and other biblical passages as well as the teachings and traditions of the Early Church Fathers. It naturally continues to this day. I consider it the supreme act of Catholic faith- to believe something not according to the sense but because Christ and His Church say so.

As one somewhat later Early Father put it-
“Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the Wine as simply that; for they are according to the Master’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but- be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ”
-Cyril of Jerusalem, the year 350 AD

 

[tee_eff_em]

Scanner:

Could somebody please illuminate me on the difference between

• 30% of Catholics believe that they are really and truly receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of Bread and Wine (this has always been the Church’s teaching regarding the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist).

and

• 10% of Catholics believe that when receiving Holy Communion, they are receiving bread and wine, in which Jesus Christ is really and truly present, but in a spiritual way

Is what seperates the 10% a belief that the wafer and the wine have been transformed into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, not just his divinity and soul?

I’ll give my take on the difference.

No. What separates the 10% is that they don’t believe the wafer and wine are transformed – They believe that what they are receiving are bread and wine. The Church teaches us that we are receiving Jesus, even though he *looks like * bread and wine. Does that help?

Jesus is present in the Blessed Sacrament. This is a tautology (a statement true by necessity) because Jesus is the Blessed Sacrament. Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, the Eucharist is Jesus. Jesus can’t be the Eucharist without being *present in * the Eucharist. (That’s the tautology part)

Notice the words I did not use above, *viz * “bread” and “wine” – The Church cannot say “Jesus is present in the bread and wine” because the Church teaches that the bread and wine are no longer present in the Blessed Sacrament. The the Sacred Species still bears the *appearances * of bread and wine, but those substances (bread and wine) are no more, having been changed into the substance of Jesus. Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, *appearing * as if bread, *appearing * as if wine, but not *being * those things at all.

(If I have not clearly answered your question, please let me know what I can do to help.
If anyone thinks I have made an error above, I welcome correction.)

 

[tee_eff_em]

Arrgh, I must correct myself already.

tee_eff_em:

No. What separates the 10% is that they don’t believe the wafer and wine are transformed – They believe that what they are receiving are bread and wine. The Church teaches us that we are receiving Jesus, even though he *looks like * bread and wine. Does that help?

Of course they don’t believe the elements have been transformed – Neither does the Church*. Manifestly, they have not been transformed. They still appear bread & wine – They still bear those forms.

But apparently, since the 10% don’t see transformation, they deny transubstantiation: that the substances of the elements have been changed. This is a denial of the constant teaching of the Church.

(* Eucharistic miracles aside)

 

[Scanner]

I guess I still don’t get it.

If you don’t mind, I think I would like to stick to the field of natural and supernatural for clarification.

On the natural level, what has transformed? I would assume nothing. You could take that wafer and wine to a laboratory and it would register as wafer and wine with all our worldly senses and instrumentation. Not only that, but would not all the Catholic clergy state at the natural level, it is a wafer and wine. Right?

Okay.

On the supernatural level, what has happened? I would assume the priest has imbibed the wafer and wine with the spirit and divinity of Jesus Christ (which is why you have to worthy to receive it).

I guess I am having a hard time reconciling that “body and blood” are material things and exist at the material level. I kind of always felt the Eucharist was a “mini-transcendence” of sorts through Jesus Christ from the material world to the spiritual world. That we shouldn’t be focusing on flesh and blood, but rather spirit.

 

[Mike_C]

The belief in the Eucharistic Presence is the basic belief of Catholics. Its not just symbolic. I think most Catholics don’t believe in the Eucharistic Presence. When an Eucharistic Minister drops the Host, and does nothing (covering It with a cloth), what does that mean?

I too have a college education. I don’t fully understand it either, not by my senses. Remember the words of “Tantum Ergo”, sung at Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament.

“Faith for all defects supplying, Where the feeble senses fail”

Do you fully understand how your TV works? But I bet you watch it.

A few years ago I visited Canterbury Cathedral in England (The Vatican of the Anglican Church). They had a sign that stated “Please be quiet, you are in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament” !!

 

[tee_eff_em]

Scanner:

If you don’t mind, I think I would like to stick to the field of natural and supernatural for clarification.

I am sorry that I am ill-equipped to explain it more clearly (FTR I am college educated too).

I cannot talk about it in terms of “natural” and “supernatural” because I have not learned it in those terms and I am reluctant to use them in ways that may not be technically correct.

The Church uses philosophical/metaphysical terms like “substance” and “accident”. I’m not sure I can even define these technically. But here is my best shot (and as always, submitting to the authority of the magisterium, I welcome correction if I am mistaken):

*Substance * is the *stuff * that something is. This is a difficult term that I can make no better definition of.

*Accident * is what can be perceived. You are right that any scientific analysis would conclude that the Sacred Species are bread and wine – But that is because science, even the simplest (or most complex) science of our own senses, can only measure the accidents of a thing, not its substance.

This is why the confection of the Eucharist is called *transubstantiation * and not transformation. It is the substance – the stuff itself – which is changed, not the accidents – the form of the stuff.

WHAT FOLLOWS IS A VERY BAD ANALOGY

Water is stuff that has the substance of water. It can be in any of several states – Liquid water, solid ice, gaseous vapor – But the substance is still water. These are tranformational changes.
(In reality, each of these states retains the accidents of water – The accidents of liquid water, solid water, or gaseous water respectively – That’s part of why this is a bad anaolgy)

I can’t make a similar analogy about a substantial change (transubstantiation) because the only one I know of is the confection of the Eucharist. But follows is one about substantial identity, which makes my head hurt when I think about it too hard )

You, Scanner, are a person, but you are not physically the same person you were yesterday, nor a year ago, nor ten years ago, nor when you were a child of 5. You have consumed resources, expelled wastes, stored and transformed some in the meantime, but there is no denying the material that constitutes you is different from that which constituted you in former times.
But have you ever stopped being you? Of course not – In that sense you are *identical * to the you of former times – You are *substantially * the same, even if *accidentally * different.
(This is still a bad analogy, as you may well argue that you have also acquired many experiences over time, perhaps even that such acquisition has changed the substantial you. I’m not prepared to argue otherwise except to ask “When did you stop being that *you * to become the present you? How did you know?”)

 

[tee_eff_em]

I was pushing the 3000 character limit in that last post.

I’m not claiming it will be easier to understand, but for the core Catholic teaching on the Real Presence, refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #'s 1373-1381.

 

[LilyOfTheFather]

I believe that the Eucharist is really and truly the body and blood of Christ, even though it may not look, smell, feel, or taste like blood and flesh to us. How can somebody read about the Eucharistic miracles that have happened (ie the ones in South Korea with the lady called Julia) and not believe that it is the Body and Blood? This statistic of seventy percent honestly worries me… a statistic of any more than zero percent would worry me.

 

[burnside]

Not being American,i am not eligible to vote against John Kerry.
However,i thought i’d mention something i read at Newsmax.com
John Kerry has a Religion Director,Mara Vanderslice,who was once part of an anti-catholic group which,in 1989,spat the Eucharist on the floor of St.Patrick’s Cathedral.

 

[Scanner]

When I say I am college educated, it is not to make a prideful statement.

I guess what I am saying is if the Church is going to forward a pivotal beleif for the faithful (and by the judgemental tone of some here, the second poster, I would assume it is pivotal), I guess it should be simple. How can you beleive something when you don’t even understand what it is they are trying to get you to beleive? Especially if they are ministering it to a high school educated person?

You know?

I think I may be grasping it slowly - you are saying it is the body and blood of Christ, that a transmutation has occured at the physical level (like changing lead into gold like alchemists once tried to do) but our senses cannot discern it.

Right?

 

[system]

I was the second poster. I am not judgmental. I’m a sinner just like everyone else. I don’t look at anyone else and what they are doing and think, “eeew, what a terrible person” or “eeew, what a terrible sinner.”

But you either accept the Catholic teachings, 100%, or you don’t. If you don’t, you can call yourself anything you want, but you’re not a Catholic as defined as (and by) the Catholic Church. Bob Kerry calls himself Catholic. I tend to think he’s not; he thinks he is, but he’s not accepting of all the Church’s teachings. Catholics don’t make up the rules as they go along. The rules are already there.

However, the central point is believing the Eucharist is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ. If you don’t accept at least that, I’d be surprised one would even consider themselves a Catholic. Believe me, there are some Church teachings I have trouble with, but heck, I’ve made the jump and the leap and I’m going to accept them because I submit to the full authority of Rome, even though I don’t understand them. I’m hoping I’ll have my questions answered (if I even care at that time) later.

We’re simply humans, with faults and limited understanding. How could we possibly understand the spiritual mysteries using only our reason…

And yes, even though we may not understand completely transubstantiation, we have to accept at least that in order to be Catholic…

JELane

 

[system]

JElane:

I was the second poster. I am not judgmental. I’m a sinner just like everyone else. I don’t look at anyone else and what they are doing and think, “eeew, what a terrible person” or “eeew, what a terrible sinner.”

But you either accept the Catholic teachings, 100%, or you don’t. If you don’t, you can call yourself anything you want, but you’re not a Catholic as defined as (and by) the Catholic Church. Bob Kerry calls himself Catholic. I tend to think he’s not; he thinks he is, but he’s not accepting of all the Church’s teachings. Catholics don’t make up the rules as they go along. The rules are already there.

However, the central point is believing the Eucharist is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ. If one doesn’t accept at least that, I’d be surprised one would even consider themselves a Catholic. Believe me, there are some Church teachings I have trouble with, but heck, I’ve made the jump and the leap and I’m going to accept them because I submit to the full authority of Rome, even though I don’t understand them. I’m hoping I’ll have my questions answered (if I even care at that time) later.

We’re simply humans, with faults and limited understanding. How could we possibly understand the spiritual mysteries using only our reason…

And yes, even though we may not understand completely transubstantiation, we have to accept at least that in order to be Catholic…

JELane

 

[system]

JElane:

Bob Kerry calls himself Catholic.

Yikes, of course I know his name is John (edit option not available for some reason). Lucky thing I wasn’t looking for him on a ballot.

JELane

 

[tee_eff_em]

JElane:

Yikes, of course I know his name is John (edit option not available for some reason). Lucky thing I wasn’t looking for him on a ballot.

JELane

You could always move to Florida!