The REAL PRESENCE is always REAL

[Joysong]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, Sixtus. You gotta wonder whom Palmas meant by “Liberals?” Does that mean all people who attend the normative Pauline mass? What an unjust classification, but he may have made it before the posting of the rules about name-calling. [That doesn’t mean he won’t still think it, however]

Back to your thought …

I really appreciate seeing confirmation from others like yourself concerning belief in the Real Presence. Your deep devotion was edifying! Somehow in spite of the percentages Ecce-homo posted above, I have my own doubts that so few Catholics disbelieve the doctrine. Maybe someone could test it with another authentic viewpoint? From this blog:

On the subject of “lies, damned lies and statistics”: the widely-quoted “ 70% of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence” is one of those stats that needs to die a swift and sudden death.

That stat was derived not from asking a group of Catholics “Do you believe in the Real Presence? Answer yes or no.” but by presenting them with a group of statements of varying orthodoxy about the subject and letting them pick the one they thought most accurate. Most of these involved some belief in the actual presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
The actual statistic would be more like:”70% of Catholics believe in some way in the Real Presence, though they could use some clarification on the details.”

If we could all help put this in the dustbin …

 

[Ecce_homo_1]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, Sixtus. You gotta wonder whom Palmas meant by “Liberals?” Does that mean all people who attend the normative Pauline mass? What an unjust classification, but he may have made it before the posting of the rules about name-calling. [That doesn’t mean he won’t still think

it, however]

Back to your thought …

I really appreciate seeing confirmation from others like yourself concerning belief in the Real Presence. Your deep devotion was edifying! Somehow in spite of the percentages Ecce-homo posted above, I have my own doubts that so few Catholics disbelieve the doctrine. Maybe someone could test it with another authentic viewpoint? From this blog:

Actually the poor excuse in your article is something that needs to be put in the dustbin, the other options are:

1. “you are receiving bread and wine, which symbolize the spirit and teachings of Jesus and in so doing are expressing your attachment to His person and words.”
2. “you are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, which has become that because of your personal belief.”
3. “you are receiving bread and wine, in which Jesus is really and truly present.” (this got 8%)
4. “don’t know,” or refused to answer."

If you find any of those other answers provided an acceptible teaching ont he Catholic Churches teaching on the Real Presence, then I don’t know what to say, all of those are protestant teachings on the Lord’s Supper, they are in no way the Catholic teaching on the Real Presence which only 30% actually picked.

To be honest I would think the number is lower and only maybe 10-20% today could accurately pick the Catholic teaching on the Real Presence, I know not one of my family members could identify it. If I were a betting man I would say that my family would pick “you are receiving bread and wine, which symbolize the spirit and teachings of Jesus and in so doing are expressing your attachment to His person and words.”

This refusal to acknowledge the problem in today’s Church with the laity understanding a very foundational teaching is dangerous, it’s like ignore it and it will go away, there’s no problem everything is fine. It’s not fine, I actually have articles to prove it instead of just one guys opinion as to why the poll is worthless.
from the article:

but by presenting them with a group of statements of varying orthodoxy

Varying orthodoxy??? LOL, and this guy is talking about lies and damned lies? There’s no varying orthodoxy on the teaching of the Real Presence,t here’s the Catholic teaching and heretical teaching.

 

[Joysong]

Well, the gallup poll was taken in the Santa Fe, CA area, and does not seem to be reflective whatsoever of the Catholics in my area who are very devoted to the Eucharist. I have lived in other states where the same could be said. Is this near the famous Orange County, CA?

As I said, this was only one isolated article and not proof of anything nation-wide, or even world-wide for that matter. With no further statistic or polling other than in California, it does create disbelief. Polls are never 100% accurate, as you well know, but they are able to spot trends and can be partially useful. We don’t even know whether the people polled were “practicing” Catholics or whether lapsed ones were consulted.

Let’s not debate this, ok, for neither of us will know the full truth, no matter how many statistics are provided.

 

[netmilsmom]

I am no longer able to receive Him in the Hand or minister HIm by touching His flesh.

Why?

 

[palmas85]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, Sixtus. You gotta wonder whom Palmas meant by “Liberals?” Does that mean all people who attend the normative Pauline mass? What an unjust classification, but he may have made it before the posting of the rules about name-calling. [That doesn’t mean he won’t still think

it, however]

]:

Hi Joysong, You realy hate me don’t you? thats fine, it doesn’t bother me a bit. If you are truly interested in what I consider to be a liberal, all you had to do was ask.

A liberal is one who adheres lock stock and barrel or in part to the Christology from Below form of Theology championed by among others Kung and Zanzig, or one who espouses Liberation Theology as per Boff and others, who see the Church as primarily a social service organization rather than the place to worship and adore God, those who see Christ mainly and primarily as a man not God, those who promote the use of Birth Control and or abortions, support either a married priesthood or a non celibate priesthood, who support female ordinations, who support a de-centralization of Vatican authority those who think that the Mass can be changed morphed and blended with anything at all to make it more relevant to whichever particular group happens to be there, those who oppose traditions as being old fashioned and unworkable in todays enlightened times, those who believe that prior to Vatican II we were all wallowing in darkness, those who hate and revile not only the Traditional Mass but Latin in the Mass or Church at all, those who feel that reform to be genuine must be on going and continuous, those who see baptism as acceptance into the community rather than the cleansing of original sin, those who abhor such non scriptural practices as Marian devotion, prayers to the Saints, apostolic succession etc, those who deny the teaching of Purgatory, Original Sin, Satan, etc and those who exalt man over God. There are of course other things as well but you get the drift

Not all liberals will support all those points, but all will support at least one of them.

If I considered a liberal to be one that attends the Pauline Mass then I would be one, as I attend the Pauline at least 5 times a week on the average, and I have never tried to hide or to deny that.

But in your zeal to attack me, you obviously didn’t care about facts. All you cared about was putting down someone who is admittedly a traditionalist and quite proud of it:thumbsup: .

And yes, as I’m sure you know some liberals will also do that every opportunity they get.

And yes I will say it again

PALMAS 85 IS UNCHARITABLE, MEAN SPIRITED, INDECENT AN NOW UNJUST AS WELL .

Just so you won’t have too

 

[netmilsmom]

Hi Joysong, You realy hate me don’t you? thats fine, it doesn’t bother me a bit. If you are truly interested in what I consider to be a liberal, all you had to do was ask.

If I considered a liberal to be one that attends the Pauline Mass then I would be one, as I attend the Pauline at least 5 times a week on the average, and I have never tried to hide or to deny that.

I also go to an NO.
We get along just fine!

 

[Karin]

And yes I will say it again

PALMAS 85 IS UNCHARITABLE, MEAN SPIRITED, INDECENT AN NOW UNJUST AS WELL .

Just so you won’t have too

LOL!
Join the group…or is it welcome to the clique

 

[Cristiano]

Hi Joysong, You realy hate me don’t you? thats fine, it doesn’t bother me a bit. If you are truly interested in what I consider to be a liberal, all you had to do was ask.

A liberal is one who adheres lock stock and barrel or in part to the Christology from Below form of Theology championed by among others Kung and Zanzig, or one who espouses Liberation Theology as per Boff and others, who see the Church as primarily a social service organization rather than the place to worship and adore God, those who see Christ mainly and primarily as a man not God, those who promote the use of Birth Control and or abortions, support either a married priesthood or a non celibate priesthood, who support female ordinations, who support a de-centralization of Vatican authority those who think that the Mass can be changed morphed and blended with anything at all to make it more relevant to whichever particular group happens to be there, those who oppose traditions as being old fashioned and unworkable in todays enlightened times, those who believe that prior to Vatican II we were all wallowing in darkness, those who hate and revile not only the Traditional Mass but Latin in the Mass or Church at all, those who feel that reform to be genuine must be on going and continuous, those who see baptism as acceptance into the community rather than the cleansing of original sin, those who abhor such non scriptural practices as Marian devotion, prayers to the Saints, apostolic succession etc, those who deny the teaching of Purgatory, Original Sin, Satan, etc and those who exalt man over God. There are of course other things as well but you get the drift

Not all liberals will support all those points, but all will support at least one of them.

If I considered a liberal to be one that attends the Pauline Mass then I would be one, as I attend the Pauline at least 5 times a week on the average, and I have never tried to hide or to deny that.

But in your zeal to attack me, you obviously didn’t care about facts. All you cared about was putting down someone who is admittedly a traditionalist and quite proud of it:thumbsup: .

And yes, as I’m sure you know some liberals will also do that every opportunity they get.

And yes I will say it again

PALMAS 85 IS UNCHARITABLE, MEAN SPIRITED, INDECENT AN NOW UNJUST AS WELL .

Just so you won’t have too

Dang!!!

Now you are telling me that I am a closet Traditionalist?

After all this effort of trying to be more open minded!

 

[Karin]

PALMAS 85 IS UNCHARITABLE, MEAN SPIRITED, INDECENT AN NOW UNJUST AS WELL .

Palmas85…
By no means should you be made to feel this way aout expressing your views!

 

[Joysong]

Excuse me, Karin,

Palmas was not simply expressing a point of view. He was publicly demeaning the post of a new member (only her 5th post) with the following words:

This particular topic has been beat to death on this forum and is usually brought up in an attempt to cause dissension and start a squabble between Traditionalists and Liberals. While I personally love a good brawl here, most do not, so I will refrain from answering this obviously loaded question and I hope that others also recognize what this post really is all about.

Things are unpleasant enough without your adding more commentary, especially since it was not a matter you knew anything about, apparently.

Palmas,

Of course I don’t hate you, and I admire your zeal for what you believe. You simply rush in without thought sometimes and fuel the flame of dissension with acrid remarks like these. Obviously for Sixtus to have made a statement so late in the thread regarding your post #2, this offended him as well.

To be honest, your words did not leave any other choice besides traditional or liberal, which in your past posting experience usually means N.O. people. Had you said, between traditionalists and N.O., it may have gone over a little smoother, but as the statement reads, it can be considered offensive. I stand with my word “unjust” also, because you did not know her true intention and judged her.

Did you apologize to Marygraces? Will you do so to Sixtus? To me? To the reader?

Can I suggest you count to one hundred and pray before criticizing a newcomer’s motives?

 

[Ecce_homo_1]

Let’s not debate this, ok, for neither of us will know the full truth, no matter how many statistics are provided.

I never wanted to debate it I was just backing up what I posted when called into question, One guy insisted I retract the statement. It was just to let folks know I didn’t make the number up out of thin air. Being a man who received CCD in the 1980’s I can list the things I WASN’T taught in CCD or by my parents who were basically palms and ashes Catholics at this point.

1. Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
2. Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as is taught by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I remember mention of body and blood but it was put in a way where it would be more in line with a Protestant heretical teaching.
3. Any prayers
4. Necessity to confess all mortal sins prior to receiving the Eucharist.
5. Eucharistic adoration
6. Communion of Saints
7. Catholic Church neccessary for salvation
   etc…

You get the point, just by going off my own experiences I had no problem accepting the 30% figure at all, in fact I thought in my generation it was pretty high to be honest. In fact I learned all this in my twenties through my own investigation. What I learned in CCD would be no different I would assume from what a Lutheran would receive in Sunday school.

I think I’m getting off topic a bit but you get my point, I don’t want to debate the figures, but I think most Catholics can agree the state of catechisis particularly Catholics understanding of what the basics such as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If many I believe the majority of Catholics are lost on these essential and basic doctrines how can we not point it out?

Oh and if you think this is bad read an entire gallup poll from Catholics, it’ll make you cry, the vast majority believe in contraception, abortion, women priesthood, and a littany of other major sins as acceptable amongst Catholics. It’s a different gallup poll and I can provide it people want to see it, but it may take a bit to find. I warn you it is very depressing to see what Catholics deem acceptable.

 

[netmilsmom]

Excuse me, Karin,

Palmas was not simply expressing a point of view. He was publicly demeaning the post of a new member (only her 5th post) with the following words:

Things are unpleasant enough without your adding more commentary, especially since it was not a matter you knew anything about, apparently.

Hmmmm, she wasn’t talking to you.

To be honest, your words did not leave any other choice besides traditional or liberal, which in your past posting experience usually means N.O. people.

It really is time to open your eyes.
Why do you put yourself into a different catagory than Karin, Palmas and myself who all attend an NO Holy Mass.
Do you?
When you speak of people who slam the NO you always lump certain people into it. I’m included. Perhaps it is not your flavor of NO, or perhaps your NO is superior to ours in your own mind, but you need to wake up, get over yourself and stop slamming those of us YOU want to label.

The label is wrong and therefore you are as well. It’s quite enough.

 

[Karin]

No, No, Excuse me Ms. Joysong!
1ST…I WAS NOT TALKING TO YOU…WHAT A SET YOU MUST HAVE THAT YOU THINK YOU CAN REPRIMAND ME AND INSULT ME!

Excuse me, Karin,

Palmas was not simply expressing a point of view. He was publicly demeaning the post of a new member (only her 5th post) with the following words:
Nope I see it as he was simple expressing his OWN opinion…Geez do you always have to read something that is not there??? You really seem to have issues with folks that express their honest opinions, especially when they do not conform to you standard!

Things are unpleasant enough without your adding more commentary, especially since it was not a matter you knew anything about, apparently.
And just why are things unpleasant Joysong? It was not becuase of my sentence telling Palmas that he should not be made to feel that way regarding his posts.
**I mean your first post on this thread and you are off BASHING and BAD MOUTHING fellow posters and all the time with a BIG SMILE on your face **

joysong:

It is so sad that you did not receive a welcome, but an unpleasant lack of charity from the customary group in this section

. Note well their names, for you will find them gathered whenever someone speaks well of the N.O. mass. It isn’t YOU, it’s your principles that are being withstood.
And thank you Joysong for once again ASSUMING something …you have no idea what I know or dont know…but it would seem that you know it all

You know Joysong as you have been told before, I am sure, the IGNORE button is there for a reason…you got the INVISIBLE button down pat…perhaps it is time to try the other too

 

[Joysong]

I agree with you Ecce,

…that we need to do a lot more with catechesis, but it has been my experience as a catechist that many parents do not feel obligated to send their children to CCD, or they work and are unable to. My own feeling is that one class a week for an hour or so is entirely too little time for instruction.

I think Andreas Hofer made an excellent point the other day about seeing the faith LIVED. If both parents were role models to their children of what it means to follow Christ, and supplemented the CCD class with home training and prayer, we might see a different statistic in the polls. [Not that I put a lot of stock in polls, religious or political … just my opinion]

The question is, what can each of us do in our own domestic and social circles to help overcome error, without crushing the spirits of those we hope to reach. Preaching hell-fire and damnation may strike terror temporarily in the mind, but it has little lasting power to move one to love with the obedience and joy of a son of God.

 

[palmas85]

Excuse me, Karin,

Palmas was not simply expressing a point of view. He was publicly demeaning the post of a new member (only her 5th post) with the following words:

Things are unpleasant enough without your adding more commentary, especially since it was not a matter you knew anything about, apparently.

[Of course I don’t hate you, and I admire your zeal for what you believe. You simply rush in without thought sometimes and fuel the flame of dissension with acrid remarks like these. Obviously for Sixtus to have made a statement so late in the thread regarding your post #2, this offended him as well.

To be honest, your words did not leave any other choice besides traditional or liberal, which in your past posting experience usually means N.O. people. Had you said, between traditionalists and N.O., it may have gone over a little smoother, but as the statement reads, it can be considered offensive. I stand with my word “unjust” also, because you did not know her true intention and judged her.

Did you apologize to Marygraces? Will you do so to Sixtus? To me? To the reader?

**Can I suggest you count to one hundred and pray before criticizing a newcomer’s motives?

You can suggest all you want You are entitled to say anything that you want to say. As I said it really doesn’t bother me. If I see something that to me looks like a set up, I will call it a set up. It is really nothing more than my opinion anyway. Simple. If it is not, then I’m wrong and no harm has really been done, now has it?. Or do you really believe that people on this forum are so emotionally fragile that an internet statement from someone they don’t know and will never even see, might cause them psychological harm?.

But on the other hand if it is a set up, and they often are, as you well know Joy, the posts don’t drag on and on pull opposing views into the fire and causing dissension…

I never rush in without thought Joy. I’ve been a cop far too long to ever do that. You rush in, you never know just what you might find. No I think about things, reflect on what was said and more importantly, how it was said, the wording, the syntax, etc. Old investigators trick you know.

You can actually tell a lot by those things, educational level general level of maturity, mental state a lot of neat things. I take all of that into consideration.

And you see, you have done exactly what you accuse me of doing… You judge me, yet you ask me to apologize? Seems kind of like a double standard Joy, but I’ve come to expect that from some people here

I am firmly convinced that if I do something wrong then the moderators will let me know.

What exactly are as you call them N.O. people anyway?

Oh and lest I forget

PALMAS85 IS MEAN SPIRITED, UNCHARITABLE, INDECNT AND DEFINITELY UNJUST

 

[Joysong]

Palmas,

There were five people who felt your post was inappropriate and insulting. It is not solely my opinion. Look at the thread again. As for judging a person who has only posted 5 times, how could you know her motive with certainty, and if you felt you DID know it was a “set up,” why not let the people judge for themselves instead of jumping in to warn them in the fashion of a “coxcomb” [Maurin’s word]? It sets a very uncomfortable tone, and gives the impression that people are unable to think for themselves, besides being uncharitable.

Contrary to your assumption, Palmas, I have no ill will towards you.

 

[netmilsmom]

What exactly are as you call them N.O. people anyway?

The unanswered question remains.

 

[palmas85]

Palmas,

There were five people who felt your post was inappropriate and insulting. It is not solely my opinion. Look at the thread again. As for judging a person who has only posted 5 times, how could you know her motive with certainty, and if you felt you DID know it was a “set up,” why not let the people judge for themselves instead of jumping in to warn them in the fashion of a “coxcomb” [Maurin’s word]? It sets a very uncomfortable tone, and gives the impression that people are unable to think for themselves, besides being uncharitable.

Contrary to your assumption, Palmas, I have no ill will towards you.

I notice that you still have not defined what you mean by the term N.O. People.

There is an old adage that actions speak louder than words.

PALMAS85 IS MEAN SPIRITED, UNCHARITABLE, INDECNT AND DEFINITELY UNJUST. DOUBLE ON THE UNCHARITABLE

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

This thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.