I was amazed that while talking to my children all in their late 20’s and30’s they did know that the eucharist is the real body and blood of Christ. They went to Catholic schools but never heard of transubstantiation. They throught it was just a symbol of Christ. When I went to school and it was Sunday school once a week I was taught it. Who could forget such a big word?
Nothing surprises me anymore.
If I were to judge by by Catholic school education, yes, I would have to agree with you. We knew in no uncertain terms that the priest changed bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and that it was no mere metaphor. How much they used the word, transubstantiation, I don’t remember at the grade school level, although I am sure they did use it, but most certainly they did make clear that the consecrated host was no longer bread, but had become the Body of Christ. There was even a lot of discussion of how the priest’s finger were consecrated and that he was only permitted to touch the host with those consecrated fingers-- that was before we had communion in the hand-- kind of dates me, doesn’t it? lol
Later on, especially after 1965, it does not surprise me that many critical truths were glossed over. For one thing, Catholic schools became increasingly taught by lay teachers instead of religious orders; one could not expect the first waves of lay teachers to have the same depth of training in the faith. For another, the Catholic Church in America, and I’m not criticizing the Second Vatican Council or the Novus Ordo, seemed more like the Protestant churches than before. There was less accent on statuary and stained glass windows, less use of incense, fewer novenas and benedictions, less stress on the Rosary, more participation by the laity which in some ways gave a sense of “democracy” in the parishes, the rise of the diaconate, lectors, modern church music, etc., and more accent on social justice issues and community. Many teachers of religion probably felt it was a good thing, ecumenically speaking, that Catholicism and Protestantism looked pretty much alike. Many probably felt that transubstantiation was less a dogma and more a theory, and had actually missed the boat in their own catechesis. I do remember times when non-Catholic ideas abounded in the Catholic Church, and this was pretty much tolerated until the Vatican began to put its foot down. These are all my perceptions, anyway, which may or may not accord with yours. I felt the many in the laity were going through a questioning period, a questioning of all that was traditionally taught by the Church. For many there was expectation of more change to come. The very nuns that handed me my faith in the traditional Church, itself became immersed in the feminism of the day. But thank God the sea has calmed, and though some dissenting winds are yet felt, the storm has subsided.
