Shocking: Say it Ain't so

[chris_ZA]

I recently read this statement:

“A survey last year found that, worldwide, 50% of Catholic priests no longer believed in transubstantiation. Renewal?”
news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=171&id=436312005

This comes from an op-piece by Gerald Warner of ‘The Scotsman On Sunday’ from the 24th April 2005.

Has anyone heard of this survey?

Chris ZA

 

[palmas85]

chris ZA:

I recently read this statement:

“A survey last year found that, worldwide, 50% of Catholic priests no longer believed in transubstantiation. Renewal?”
news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=171&id=436312005

This comes from an op-piece by Gerald Warner of ‘The Scotsman On Sunday’ from the 24th April 2005.

Has anyone heard of this survey?

Chris ZA

I haven’t heard of that particular survey but I have heard of others which basically say the same thing.

As an aside just about half of the people in my parish don’t believe in transubstantiation either. They see communion as a symbolic representation and nothing more.

 

[Writer]

palmas85:

I haven’t heard of that particular survey but I have heard of others which basically say the same thing.

As an aside just about half of the people in my parish don’t believe in transubstantiation either. They see communion as a symbolic representation and nothing more.

If that’s what the believe, why are they Catholics?

 

[chris_ZA]

palmas85:

I haven’t heard of that particular survey but I have heard of others which basically say the same thing.

As an aside just about half of the people in my parish don’t believe in transubstantiation either. They see communion as a symbolic representation and nothing more.

From a totally selfish perspective the fact that 50% of Catholics who attend Mass do not believe in transubstantiation is regretable but doesn’t directly impact on me. If the priest who is celebrating ‘Mass’ doesn’t believe then I am not attending Mass and neither are 50% of Catholics. The Mass is invalid. If and when these priest become bishops then their consecrations and the subsequent ordination of ‘priests’ by them, irrespective of the ordinands intention, are invalid.

Also, if this is the belief about transubstantiation what about belief in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Surely the numbers that do not believe in this are likely to be higher. I am basing this on the fact that Luther and others believed in consubstatiation but rejected the Sacrifice of the Mass. Belief in that the Mass is an Eucharist Sacrifice is the distinctively Catholic doctrine as some protestants do believe in the true presence.

Chris ZA

 

[Deacon_Ed]

chris ZA:

From a totally selfish perspective the fact that 50% of Catholics who attend Mass do not believe in transubstantiation is regretable but doesn’t directly impact on me. If the priest who is celebrating ‘Mass’ doesn’t believe then I am not attending Mass and neither are 50% of Catholics. The Mass is invalid. If and when these priest become bishops then their consecrations and the subsequent ordination of ‘priests’ by them, irrespective of the ordinands intention, are invalid.

Just to set your minds at ease… There is an “implicit consent” on the part of the priest to “do what the Church does” when he celebrates a sacrament. As a result, the sacrament is validly confected (assuming all other criteria regarding form and matter are met). This falls under the general category of ecclesia supplet (the Church supplies) where what is missing is supplied by the Church.

Deacon Ed

 

[severinus]

Do we have a source containing the original survey? So far all we have is a second-hand report of an uncited survey.

 

[Kielbasi]

Quote:
Originally Posted by palmas85
*I haven’t heard of that particular survey but I have heard of others which basically say the same thing.

As an aside just about half of the people in my parish don’t believe in transubstantiation either. They see communion as a symbolic representation and nothing more.*

If that’s what the believe, why are they Catholics?

Most folks aren’t that big at changing religions, and that goes across the board, not every Presbyterian or Jew believes what the Presbyterian and Jewish faiths believe either. Religion and God are pillars of stability in folks lives, both with the orthodox and heterodox of all faiths, a connection between one’s ancestors and their descendents.

It really puts up a barrier to folks converting.

 

[Della]

severinus:

Do we have a source containing the original survey? So far all we have is a second-hand report of an uncited survey.

I’m with you. A lot could depend on how the survey was worded, who was taking the survey and why. I’ve seen so-called statistics on Catholic lay people who also were cited as not believing in transubstantiation when the questions were worded so precisely in each question that only a professional theologian would have known which responses were the right ones.

I truly doubt that as many as 50% of Catholic priests don’t believe in transubstantiation. I’ve never met one that didn’t and I live in a very liberal state. Besides, from what I’ve seen and read, our latest batch of seminarians are quite orthodox. So much so that all the old liberal priests are lamenting these young priests so-called inability to “get with it”, like they did in the 60’s. I wouldn’t start worrying just yet. Not until more solid evidence that this comes along.

 

[chris_ZA]

Deacon Ed:

Just to set your minds at ease… There is an “implicit consent” on the part of the priest to “do what the Church does” when he celebrates a sacrament. As a result, the sacrament is validly confected (assuming all other criteria regarding form and matter are met). This falls under the general category of ecclesia supplet (the Church supplies) where what is missing is supplied by the Church.

Deacon Ed

Thanks, but what if he actually has the intention of not celebrating the Mass or not doing what the church does. I must be missing something here. How broad does ecclesia supplet go? Surely at some stage like the Anglicans you loose the priesthood.

Chris ZA

 

[Della]

chris ZA:

Thanks, but what if he actually has the intention of not celebrating the Mass or not doing what the church does. I must be missing something here. How broad does ecclesia supplet go? Surely at some stage like the Anglicans you loose the priesthood.

Chris ZA

If a priest is that far away from believing what the Church teaches he should have a good long talk with his bishop.

When we go to Mass we expect that the priest is doing what the Church intends. If he isn’t and is being deceptive about it, that is his sin not the people’s nor the Church’s. The people would receive believing transubstantiation to have taken place. At the least they would be receiving a spiritual communion since they intended to receive what the Church offered.

Even if every priest in the world did not intend to do what the Church intends in the consecration, that would have no bearing on the validity of the priesthood. It would simply mean that they had fallen into heresy or become apostate or whatever, but once a priest is ordained a priest he is a priest forever. And any bishop who didn’t believe is still a bishop and still has the authority to lay hands on men to consecrate them to the priesthood. The priesthood lies in Jesus hands and under his authority not that of men alone. It can never become invalid unless done by an excommunicated bishop or conferred upon those who cannot be priests, such as women.

 

[chris_ZA]

severinus:

Do we have a source containing the original survey? So far all we have is a second-hand report of an uncited survey.

That is why I started the thread to try and find the original survey.

I simply cannot believe that half of priests do not believe in transubstantiation.

On the other hand this is an article by a leading Scottish journalists in a leading Scottish paper who is pro-Catholic. The rest of the facts he quotes are disturbing i.e." In France, “Eldest Daughter of the Church”, attendance at Mass is now down to 8% (2% among young people). In the United States, in 1965, the year Vatican II ended, there were 49,000 men in training for the priesthood; by 2002 it had slumped to 4,700. Today there are around 3,000 parishes in the US without priests. Renewal?

In Britain, 90% of pupils attending Catholic secondary schools lapse from the faith before leaving. The number of baptisms in England and Wales in 1964 was over 137,000; today it is less than half that number. Nearer home, Glasgow archdiocese had 334,000 Catholics and 361 priests on the eve of Vatican II; by 1996 those numbers had fallen to 250,000 and 209 - and that was a decade ago."

So he seems to have done his homework.

In fact I tried to search for this survey on the web. I only got more depressed with results of other surveys on things like homosexual orientation, existence of a Homosexual sub-culture at the seminary you attended etc.

I have e-mailed the New Scotsman to try and get more info, but thought I would also try the CAF.

Like I said say it ain’t so.

Chris ZA

 

[chris_ZA]

Della:

If a priest is that far away from believing what the Church teaches he should have a good long talk with his bishop. It can never become invalid unless done by an excommunicated bishop or conferred upon those who cannot be priests, such as women.

I don’t think this is strictly correct, the Eastern Orthodox were/are excommunicated and have valid sacraments.

The Anglicans lost apostolic succession.

I think intention plays a vital role.

Chris ZA

 

[Deacon_Ed]

chris ZA:

Thanks, but what if he actually has the intention of not celebrating the Mass or not doing what the church does. I must be missing something here. How broad does ecclesia supplet go? Surely at some stage like the Anglicans you loose the priesthood.

Chris ZA

Chris,

The intention of the priest is relevant–it is presumed that he intends to do what the Church intends. Usually this is an implicit intention – he need not make it every time since by doing what the Church directs the intention is presumed. If he explicitly intends not to do what the Church does while still going through the motions most theologians (but not all) hold that the Church supplies what is missing (the intention) since the spiritual life of the people is at stake. Remember, he is a validly ordained priest.

The loss of the priesthood for the Anglicans (and here, too, there are theologians that disagree with Pope Leo XIII on this) was due, primarily to two factors: the first is that the bishops did not intend to do what the Church does when ordaining a man to the priesthood. Ecclesia supplet did not apply because they were no longer part of the Church and therefore there was no Church to supply what was missing.

The principle of ecclesia supplet is fairly broad in scope.

Deacon Ed

 

[bear06]

severinus:

Do we have a source containing the original survey? So far all we have is a second-hand report of an uncited survey.

Not only that, I’ve read a few other pieces by Warner and he tends to report, how shall I say, non-factual events which might be found on a site like traditio. It might just be poor fact checking or maybe he has an agenda. Either way, I’d also like to see the original poll, not that I’d find it too hard to believe.

 

[Hegesippus]

chris ZA:

From a totally selfish perspective the fact that 50% of Catholics who attend Mass do not believe in transubstantiation is regretable but doesn’t directly impact on me. If the priest who is celebrating ‘Mass’ doesn’t believe then I am not attending Mass and neither are 50% of Catholics. The Mass is invalid. If and when these priest become bishops then their consecrations and the subsequent ordination of ‘priests’ by them, irrespective of the ordinands intention, are invalid.

Also, if this is the belief about transubstantiation what about belief in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Surely the numbers that do not believe in this are likely to be higher. I am basing this on the fact that Luther and others believed in consubstatiation but rejected the Sacrifice of the Mass. Belief in that the Mass is an Eucharist Sacrifice is the distinctively Catholic doctrine as some protestants do believe in the true presence.

Chris ZA

are you sure that the bishops ordinations are invalid. Or isnt this close to what the Donatists believe. It is Christ that performs the sacrament.

 

[Fortiterinre]

This is one of the worst kind of survey references. We are told nothing about survey controls, sample size, selection methods, etc. The only thing surveys like this are good for is to write a provocative magazine headline; it’s designed to be “shocking” in a way that a forthright survey could not be. I am sure there are plenty of problems with Catholic priests whose views on the Blessed Sacrament are closer to Cranmer’s than the Pope’s; but this survey tells us absolutely nothing.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Hegesippus:

are you sure that the bishops ordinations are invalid. Or isnt this close to what the Donatists believe. It is Christ that performs the sacrament.

It is absolutely true that our sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato which is Latin shorthand for “Christ acts through the priest.” Nevertheless, Christ only operates through validly ordained ministers (bishop, priest, deacon). This has nothing to do with the Donotist Controversy which revolved around the spiritual state of the minister and everything to do with the validity of his orders.

Deacon Ed

 

[viktor_aleksndr]

chris ZA:

I recently read this statement:

“A survey last year found that, worldwide, 50% of Catholic priests no longer believed in transubstantiation. Renewal?”
news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=171&id=436312005

This comes from an op-piece by Gerald Warner of ‘The Scotsman On Sunday’ from the 24th April 2005.

Has anyone heard of this survey?

Chris ZA

Maybe this are the priest who doesn’t live according to their vocation. It is sad that many priests today are using their vocation to gain power and wealth and not to be the ministers of Christ.

 

[palmas85]

Writer:

If that’s what the believe, why are they Catholics?

Good question indeed. I don’t have a clue. Maybe for the same reason that many Catholics pick and choose which parts of the faith they will accept and believe. Abortion, birth control, authority of the Pope, Papal Infallibility, belief in the Holy Trinity, the list is endless. Sometimes I think that many people, not only Catholics, profess a faith, but do so only for appearances sake. They don’t really believe. A very sad situation

 

[palmas85]

chris ZA:

From a totally selfish perspective the fact that 50% of Catholics who attend Mass do not believe in transubstantiation is regretable but doesn’t directly impact on me. If the priest who is celebrating ‘Mass’ doesn’t believe then I am not attending Mass and neither are 50% of Catholics. The Mass is invalid. If and when these priest become bishops then their consecrations and the subsequent ordination of ‘priests’ by them, irrespective of the ordinands intention, are invalid.

Also, if this is the belief about transubstantiation what about belief in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Surely the numbers that do not believe in this are likely to be higher. I am basing this on the fact that Luther and others believed in consubstatiation but rejected the Sacrifice of the Mass. Belief in that the Mass is an Eucharist Sacrifice is the distinctively Catholic doctrine as some protestants do believe in the true presence.

Chris ZA

My own personal opinion is that many Catholics are so poorly catechized these days, that they don’t really have a clue what is going on. As an example, one of my co-workers, best friend actually, is currently enrolled in the RCIA at the local parish. I got him interested so I hope it works out. There are about ten or so people enrolled. Half are baptized Catholics, never confirmed with almost no religious instruction at all. All are in their 20’s and 30’s as is my friend. The folks running the program say that is about average for the process. It seems to me that something is seriously wrong with either the Catechism programs or the parents either aren’t sending their kids or explaining things. There is really only so much you can absorb by osmosis.