A 'Eucharistic' revival

[Jazzy]

LOUISIVLLE − Concerns over Catholics' beliefs about the Eucharist have become such an issue that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops launched a three-year Eucharistic revival in 2022.

The Rev. Thomas Cebula, parish administrator, said a growing number of Catholics have drifted from the core tenet of "Transubstantiation," the belief that Jesus literally inhabits the elements administered during Holy Communion.

"It's an attempt at adult formation but within the context of Catholic depreciation, what Catholics would term as the real presence of Jesus," he said. "In terms of public surveys, of Catholics being surveyed, you see the percentage is like 20% who believe in the real presence of Jesus. So many say it's simply symbolic, so that is quite a crisis in the Catholic church."

Continue reading

---

Thoughts as to why some Catholics have drifted from this important tenet?

 

[Lamb]

Catholics in the US will say they're Catholic even if they haven't gone to church in 10 years and don't believe everything Catholics believe. They're in name only. My husband's family is primarily "Catholic" but only a couple of them actually are practicing Catholics. So, I think the article is spot on that Catholics have moved away from believing in the real presence, because in my experience, a lot of them have moved away from most Catholic teachings.

 

[Josiah]

.


1. This article is wrong. Or perhaps is simply misquoting a priest. The article, written by "Yahoo News" (hardly an esteemed source for religious news) reports, "The Rev. Thomas Cebula, parish administrator, said a growing number of Catholics have drifted from the core tenet of "Transubstantiation," the belief that Jesus literally inhabits the elements administered during Holy Communion." This is wrong. That is NOT, N.O.T. the Catholic position of Transubstantiation. That's the Lutheran position commonly known as "Real Presence" A position that Catholicism condemns and repudiates. Transubstantiation is the unique doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church in 1551 that the bread and wine are CONVERTED INTO the Body and Blood of Jesus via a very specific means. The SUBSTANCE is TRANSFORMED (thus the word, Transubstantiation, a word taken from alchemy). That Christ is PRESENT is the ancient position, the Lutheran position, commonly called REAL PRESENCE in contrast to the new Catholic position of Transubstantiation which is that something is CONVERTED into something else in a very specific way. BTW, Orthodox and many Anglicans also hold to Real Presence but in the West, it is identified primarily with Lutherans.

2. There have been several studies that show most Catholics do not believe in the new Catholic dogma here. This is no surprise. It's not taught anymore - and largely hasn't since Vatican II. I don't have my materials anymore, but I recall looking at the First Communion stuff used in my parish and there was NOTHING about this specific change/conversion, it taught the Lutheran position. While I have not seen her in some years, my parents were/are good friends with a lady who teaches the First Communion Classes at the parish and she FLAT OUT not accept Transubstantiation and did not teach it to the youth. Since Catholics aren't taught it anymore, it's not shocking they don't believe it anymore.

3. But going by Catholics known to me (including pretty much my whole family), the common view of the Sacrament in Catholicism is Zwinglism (not Lutheranism), that Christ is not present at all, body and blood are not present at all, it's just a SYMBOL This view appeals to people who insist that God submits to our modern sense of physics and denies miracles. And that insistence exists in Catholicism just as it does in Protestantism.


See post #3...




.

 

[Albion]

There are a couple of realities in this story to keep in mind.

First, the drift--if that's what it is--away from belief in Transubstantiation on the part of Roman Catholics isn't new. It's been developing for decades, and it was years ago that one of the leading polling services reported that about 2/3 of America's Catholics do not believe in Transubstantiation but instead think that any change in the elements in Holy Communion is purely symbolic. The article here basically substantiates that.

Second, it isn't that they do believe in the Real Presence but not Transubstantiation. No, they believe in the purely symbolic view of Communion which is what most Protestants believe. And the two doctrines (Real Presence and Transubstantiation) are not identical, nor is the latter merely a more precise rendering of the former. Lutherans and Anglicans, for instance, do believe in the Real Presence but reject the Medieval innovation called Transubstantiation.

That's one place where the article we've been given here doesn't get it correct or at least doesn't bother to draw the necessary distinctions.

Why this trend among Roman Catholics has occurred, I don't know; but Lamb is correct that a possible answer is that the one overriding "belief" most Roman Catholics hold to is that theirs is the original and only "true church."

Believing in that principle is of first importance with them, and the myriad of other doctrines that their church has defined, even including "must believe" ones, may be just too much for the average parishioner to deal with. As a result, he affirms the "one true church" teaching and doesn't think too much about most of the other very complicated doctrines of his church, having already accepted the idea that that the church will be right.

 

[Josiah]

.


Common Views of Communion:


Let’s carefully look at the relevant Scriptures here, at what is STATED and what is NOT stated...



Matthew 26:26-29, “While they were still eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat, this is my body.’ Then He took the cup, (wine) gave thanks and offered it to them saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the new covenant which is poured out for many of you for the forgiveness of sins. I tell, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) again until I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”



1 Corinthians 11:23-29, “Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘This is my body which is for you, do this in remembrance of me. In the same way, He took the cup saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, do this, as often as you drink it, remembering me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner is guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”



Real Presence...


Historically, this has been one of the most stressed and treasured teachings of Christianity. As we look at the Scriptures, a literal reading embraces that the meaning of “is” is “is.” Jesus says “This IS my Body… this IS my Blood.” This historic, ancient position holds that Christ is present in the Eucharist, fully, “for real” and this is the essence of the doctrine of Real Presence. It accept this “at His word” and as a mystery. This position does not even attempt to get into the science or physics of all this – those who hold to this don’t believe they are being cannibals (an early charge against Christians showing that even nonchristians understood that Christians believed Christ is truly present) and they realize that it doesn’t look or taste like anything other than bread and wine, but they take Jesus at His word – and leave it at that. The position does not get into the questions of HOW or WHEN or WHY – it just accepts that the word “is” means exists, present, “there.”


But while not specifically a part of our doctrine, it does not deny that bread and wine are present, too. As we look at the Scriptures, we see that after the Consecration, we find the realities referred to as bread, wine, body and blood – all FOUR, without any distinction or differentiation, and thus this position just accept that all 4 are “real” and “there.” In a sense, all 4 are the “is.” The focus, however, is entirely on the Body and Blood (so we speak of it as such), the bread and wine are fairly irrelevant (you can have bread and wine any day!) but it accepts that bread and wine are equally “really there,” too. It is only the bread and wine that our senses perceive, but faith perceives much more! The Eucharist is not just bread and wine, it is also Jesus! This is Real Presence.

While this position is primarily associated in the West with Lutheranism, it is also accepted by Eastern Orthodox Churches and by many Anglicans and some Methodist.



The Newer Catholic View….


Real Presence was the view from the earliest Christians, and is still the doctrine among Lutheran, Orthodox and many Anglican and some Methodist Christians. Technically, it's still ONE view of The Catholic Church although such has been largely "buried" by a new concept it invented in the Middle Ages called “Transubstantiation.” Technically, the unique Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation (1551) does not replace Real Presence (since, again, Real Presence is simply the literal affirmation that Christ is literally present) but adds to it (although Catholicism has suggested that the Real Presence view is heretical).

The Catholic Dogma of Transubstantiation dogmatically rejects 2 of the 4 realities spoken of in the biblical texts – the bread and the wine. The new Catholic dogma states the bread and wine were converted into the body and blood (in a very specific sense) and thus the bread and wine cease to exist in any real way (Catholicism says they exist only as an “Aristotelian Accidents” - from the pagan philosopher Aristotle’s theory of accidents); the Catholic Church now speaks only of the “appearance” of bread and wine “remaining” but insists that the bread and wine are not really “there.” The bread and wine were “transubstantiated” (from the concept of alchemy) into the Body and Blood of Jesus.


The Newer "Evangelical" View...


Zwingli in the late 16th Century held that what Jesus and Paul stated (see the biblical texts above) is simply not possible. "Jesus is in heaven and so cannot be here." Since what these Scriptures state is not possible ("it cannot be true") thus Zwingli (for the first time in history) held that all this is allegory and symbolism. Rather than noting the word "IS", Zwingli held that it more technically is "symbolizes."

In both modern spins (Catholicisms "Transubstantiation" and Zwingli's "Just symbolism"), the Mystery is being subjected to science concepts, the issue seems to be what “can’t” be instead of what Scripture simply says is.


Real Presence: The meaning of "is" is "is." Christ's Body and Blood are present in some mysterious way. Bread, Wine, Body and Blood are all there. What Scripture states is simply accepted (as is, without explanation). It's mystery/miracle.

Transubstantiation: The meaning of "is" is "converted via a very specific means." Christ's Body and Blood are present but not wine or bread (at least not in a full or usual way). It's an alchemic conversion.

Symbolic: The meaning of "is" is "symbolizes." Nothing happens. Bread and grape juice are there but not Body and Blood . It's Symbolism, metaphor.






.

 

[Faith]

Catholics in the US will say they're Catholic even if they haven't gone to church in 10 years and don't believe everything Catholics believe. They're in name only. My husband's family is primarily "Catholic" but only a couple of them actually are practicing Catholics. So, I think the article is spot on that Catholics have moved away from believing in the real presence, because in my experience, a lot of them have moved away from most Catholic teachings.

My biggest problem when I was Catholic (and I’ve gone to Mass twice recently) is their teaching on birth control. It’s my understanding that LCMS can use birth control just not methods that could abort the baby, like some say the Pill can.
When I was Catholic, (and younger, lol) we used birth control but I never confessed it until after my child bearing years were behind me,

So that’s a biggie that I think Catholics also refuse to follow and I guess would make them ”cafeteria Catholics”.

 

[tango]

Catholics in the US will say they're Catholic even if they haven't gone to church in 10 years and don't believe everything Catholics believe. They're in name only. My husband's family is primarily "Catholic" but only a couple of them actually are practicing Catholics. So, I think the article is spot on that Catholics have moved away from believing in the real presence, because in my experience, a lot of them have moved away from most Catholic teachings.

I think this is part of general declines in "religion".

If people who may once have gone to church on Sunday just because it was socially expected now figure there's no need to go through the pretense, they may feel more free to identify their faith as "none" rather than figuring "Christian" is the default.

Someone who identifies with a religion for no reason other than their family identifies with that religion probably won't know much about the finer details of what the religion believes and would quite possibly reject some or all of even the central tenets of that religion.

Obviously if your grandfather sang in the church choir and your uncle "went into the church" then you don't have to, you know, actually do anything for yourself to be a good Christian. Right?

 

[Albion]

I think this is part of general declines in "religion".

...you don't have to, you know, actually do anything for yourself to be a good Christian. Right?

That could be it, but I have a feeling that there's another reason.

I am referring to the fact that people have decided for themselves where they stand on matters that are above their learning level, and they've done this in a way that earlier generations would have hesitated to do. This is partly because the daily news is available to everyone, including the editorial content, AND we all have likewise become comfortable with the notion that every person should have an opinion. Just consider how many times any issue is debated on the basis of what some opinion poll has reported.

Getting back to the religious side of the issue here, this mindset works against the idea that church members are expected to know and affirm all of their church's doctrines. Well, in the Catholic case especially, that's almost impossible, at least for the average person for whom history and theology aren't hobbies.

As a result, they take refuge in holding their own beliefs on quite a few beliefs, regardless of what the institutional church has decided for them. One indicator of this development can, I think, be seen in the growth and popularity of the churches that have the FEWEST defined doctrines. Non-denominationals come easily to mind. They're growing while most of the older denominations are declining, and many of these non-denominational or independent churches have as their official 'statement of beliefs' no more than five or six very basic propositions that are common to the great majority of Christian churches.

 

[tango]

That could be it, but I have a feeling that there's another reason.

I am referring to the fact that people have decided for themselves where they stand on matters that are above their learning level, and they've done this in a way that earlier generations would have hesitated to do. This is partly because the daily news is available to everyone, including the editorial content, AND we all have likewise become comfortable with the notion that every person should have an opinion. Just consider how many times any issue is debated on the basis of what some opinion poll has reported.

There's certainly something to this argument. I think it's good that people no longer blindly believe whatever the doctor/lawyer/teacher/priest/whoever tells them but at the same time people seem to think an opinion is as good as an informed opinion, which isn't such a good thing. Somewhere between total deference and no deference we've lost sight of the fact it's perfectly OK to not know, or to not have a particular opinion on something.

Getting back to the religious side of the issue here, this mindset works against the idea that church members are expected to know and affirm all of their church's doctrines. Well, in the Catholic case especially, that's almost impossible, at least for the average person for whom history and theology aren't hobbies.

As a result, they take refuge in holding their own beliefs on quite a few beliefs, regardless of what the institutional church has decided for them. One indicator of this development can, I think, be seen in the growth and popularity of the churches that have the FEWEST defined doctrines. Non-denominationals come easily to mind. They're growing while most of the older denominations are declining, and many of these non-denominational or independent churches have as their official 'statement of beliefs' no more than five or six very basic propositions that are common to the great majority of Christian churches.

Cutting back on the statement of beliefs isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd personally say that unless agreement is expected a statement shouldn't be included in the statement of beliefs.

Some years ago when I was new to an area and looking for a church I specifically ruled one church out because their statement of faith included an insistence that Christians should have nothing to do with alcohol. Apparently Christians should not work in places that sell it, shouldn't consume it, shouldn't have any interaction with it. Their "proof" texts were Eph 5:18 and Prov 20:1, neither of which prohibits alcohol. My view was that if they were going to flagrantly abuse Scripture on the public web site I shouldn't be surprised if they similarly abused it in a more private setting, and didn't even visit the church.

At one extreme if you don't believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead it's hard to make any claim that you are a Christian at all. At the other extreme it's not important whether you believe the collection should be taken up before or after communion. To insist that members of a church believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is reasonable; to insist that all have the exact same viewpoint of the correct order of service is much less so. If a church really wants to exclude people who prefer a different order they are obviously free to do so, but one might wonder why they would feel it to be of such high importance.

 

[Albion]

At one extreme if you don't believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead it's hard to make any claim that you are a Christian at all. At the other extreme it's not important whether you believe the collection should be taken up before or after communion.

I cannot imagine that very many people would disagree with that, but the issue we started with here concerned Transubstantiation, a major and distinctive teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, so it's nothing like a procedural matter like the timing of the collection.

If a church really wants to exclude people who prefer a different order they are obviously free to do so, but one might wonder why they would feel it to be of such high importance.

Well, Holy Communion is one of the sacraments ordained by Christ himself and commanded of his followers. What it amounts to, what it's all about, would seem to me to be in about the same category as Baptism which we know has been debated fiercely on forums such as this one with all manner of posters feeling that "getting it right" is of great importance.

 

[tango]

I cannot imagine that very many people would disagree with that, but the issue we started with here concerned Transubstantiation, a major and distinctive teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, so it's nothing like a procedural matter like the timing of the collection.

Granted, but in a world where people increasingly decide for themselves (whether based on information, guesswork or social media chatter) it doesn't seem surprising that people are being a little more particular about which sections they accept and which they don't.

I can't help thinking there may also be a touch of the same kind of silly thinking we see in political "discussion" going on, which ultimately boils down to the idea that I am a rational thinking being who considered the two parties and on balance decided that my party is better, while you are an unthinking fool who votes for the Other Party and therefore must agree with every single thing that anyone associated with that party ever says or does.

Well, Holy Communion is one of the sacraments ordained by Christ himself and commanded of his followers. What it amounts to, what it's all about, would seem to me to be in about the same category as Baptism which we know has been debated fiercely on forums such as this one with all manner of posters feeling that "getting it right" is of great importance.

If getting it exactly right were of such great importance we might expect Jesus to give clear instructions as to exactly how it should be done, no? Instead he "broke the bread" and said "do this as often as you eat in remembrance of me". In the absence of explicit step-by-step instructions maybe what matters is that we do it, not that we obsess over every single detail. Personally I would expect that, if the idea was that the bread and wine literally became his body and blood, he would have said something that left no doubt rather than using language that could so easily be taken as metaphorical.

 

[Albion]

Granted, but in a world where people increasingly decide for themselves (whether based on information, guesswork or social media chatter) it doesn't seem surprising that people are being a little more particular about which sections they accept and which they don't.

Right.

If getting it exactly right were of such great importance we might expect Jesus to give clear instructions as to exactly how it should be done, no? Instead he "broke the bread" and said "do this as often as you eat in remembrance of me". In the absence of explicit step-by-step instructions maybe what matters is that we do it, not that we obsess over every single detail.

Yes, but now we're discussing the matter apart from the doctrinal teachings as rendered by the institutional church.

If a person disagrees, then we'd think he would choose another denomination, one that agrees with his own interpretation. But this discussion is framed by the fact that there are many, many people who are loyal to the Roman Catholic Church and yet calmly and firmly disavow what it teaches!

We would think that they would feel some discomfort about that or acknowledge that this makes them heretics or something in that vein, but no.

In today's world, they feel no such conflict or discomfort about it. That's why this story is noteworthy. Such a mindset wasn't common a few generations back.

Personally I would expect that, if the idea was that the bread and wine literally became his body and blood, he would have said something that left no doubt rather than using language that could so easily be taken as metaphorical.

Well, we need to recognize that, in Catholic thinking, true doctrine is identified and defined by Holy Tradition in addition to Holy Scripture (or, put another way, that Holy Scripture is an element in Tradition).

There is little doubt that the early church believed in the Real Presence, not that this was merely a symbol or analogy. That allowed the later doctrine of Transubstantiation to be justified as a version of Real Presence as opposed to being an innovation.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Continue reading

---

Thoughts as to why some Catholics have drifted from this important tenet?

It is simple, I think, people drift away from the real presence because the bread and wine are self evidently still bread and wine in every physical property that a parishioner can experience - taste, smell, appearance, all testify to the real presence of bread and wine and none of those sense experiences testifies to the real presence of the body and the blood of the Lord, Jesus Christ. It's just too hard, for many, to believe what Jesus said in preference to believing what their senses tell them.

 

[Lamb]

It is simple, I think, people drift away from the real presence because the bread and wine are self evidently still bread and wine in every physical property that a parishioner can experience - taste, smell, appearance, all testify to the real presence of bread and wine and none of those sense experiences testifies to the real presence of the body and the blood of the Lord, Jesus Christ. It's just too hard, for many, to believe what Jesus said in preference to believing what their senses tell them.

How could Jesus perform such a great miracle? Doesn't that seem to be the question from those many who don't believe in the Real Presence? It's as if they don't get it that Jesus is God and can do great things, things way beyond our understanding.

 

[Albion]

How could Jesus perform such a great miracle? Doesn't that seem to be the question from those many who don't believe in the Real Presence? It's as if they don't get it that Jesus is God and can do great things, things way beyond our understanding.

Perhaps. That is to say that there are people on all sides of the issue, just as there are on other controversial issues, therefore some members probably do fit the description you gave while others fit a different one.

But to the extent that the Real Presence or Transubstantiation is a great and awesome miracle in the eyes of those who believe it, that's one reason for those Catholics to think that their church is "better" than other Christian denominations.

In other words, it's not a deterrent to most Catholics that this teaching is beyond the natural, precisely because that's what many Catholics suppose proves the superiority of their particular denomination.

Many Protestant churches are simply prayer meetings, and their people don't believe in the bodily Assumption of Mary, the many tales of people having met up with saints or angels, etc., or of being the recipients of the stigmata, for instance. The apparitions and miraculous events Catholics believe took place at Lourdes, Fatima, and other such sites are about their own Catholic church and not the other Christian churches the neighbors attend on Sunday morning.

 

[tango]

Yes, but now we're discussing the matter apart from the doctrinal teachings as rendered by the institutional church.

If a person disagrees, then we'd think he would choose another denomination, one that agrees with his own interpretation. But this discussion is framed by the fact that there are many, many people who are loyal to the Roman Catholic Church and yet calmly and firmly disavow what it teaches!

We would think that they would feel some discomfort about that or acknowledge that this makes them heretics or something in that vein, but no.

I'm not sure why they should feel such discomfort about it. My church is a Mennonite church, and Mennonites are known for pacifism. I'm not a pacifist, at least not to the extent you would expect from a Mennonite, but the church doesn't have a problem with it so I don't see why I need to have a problem with it. A few years ago I was asked to consider standing as an elder in the church, I raised the issue with the pastor again, and he confirmed it wouldn't be a problem even though I'm very open about the fact I don't have an issue with using whatever force it takes to defend myself and my family.

In today's world, they feel no such conflict or discomfort about it. That's why this story is noteworthy. Such a mindset wasn't common a few generations back.

A few generations back people didn't question anything that "authority" told them. If it's not a problem to identify with a poltiical party even if you don't agree with every one of their stances, why is it a problem to identify with a church and disagree with some of their stances? Obviously it would be hard to justify a claim to be a libertarian if your go-to response to problems was to consider how the government should get involved, just as it would be hard to justify a claim to be a Christian if you didn't believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. But, for example, it's perfectly possible to be a Republican while not wanting Trump to be president again, and perfectly possible to be a Christian while disputing some teachings of whatever church you attend.

Perhaps a part of it depends on exactly how you identify. I don't particularly identify as a Mennonite, although the church I attend is a Mennonite church. My last church was a Baptist church, although I wouldn't necessarily identify specifically as a Baptist. It's just that, of the churches local enough to attend, the one I like best happens to be that denomination. I don't know how many people who claim loyalty to Catholicism are devout Catholics, how many are from Catholic families, and how many like the style of Catholic services without necessarily agreeing with every aspect of Catholic teaching.

 

[tango]

How could Jesus perform such a great miracle? Doesn't that seem to be the question from those many who don't believe in the Real Presence? It's as if they don't get it that Jesus is God and can do great things, things way beyond our understanding.

Is there a reason one can't believe that Jesus can do a great miracle even if he chooses not to in any given situation? If Jesus wanted to he could literally transform the bread and grape juice into a fillet steak and 50-year-ol Glenfarclas single malt, but he evidently chooses not to do that.

If the purpose is to remember Jesus, does it matter whether what we eat and drink are a perfectly normal wafer and splash of grape juice, things that become Jesus in some mysterious way, or things that literally transform into actual flesh and blood? I can't help thinking that "do this, in remembrance of me" is the important aspect rather than endless theological debates over exactly what it is we are eating and drinking. If you're gathering with other believers but don't have anything made from grapes available, what would you do? Would you simply not take anything because your cup wouldn't contain grapes or would you substitute something else?

 

[Albion]

I'm not sure why they should feel such discomfort about it.

Well, it's because we're talking about a teaching that the church considers obligatory for members, not something open to individual judgment, and that not believing amounts to heresy.

My church is a Mennonite church, and Mennonites are known for pacifism. I'm not a pacifist, at least not to the extent you would expect from a Mennonite, but the church doesn't have a problem with it so I don't see why I need to have a problem with it.

Okay, but those churches have a somewhat different approach to the matter. It's the Roman Catholic Church in particular that was the subject of this thread.

Perhaps a part of it depends on exactly how you identify. I don't particularly identify as a Mennonite, although the church I attend is a Mennonite church. My last church was a Baptist church, although I wouldn't necessarily identify specifically as a Baptist.

That IS an important point, all right. If the person--you, for example--don't actually hold membership in a particular Christian denomination, you can pretty much be welcome as a visitor (and as a prospective member?) for quite a long time. There are people who attend Catholic churches for decades without ever joining. Spouses of Catholic members, for example. No problem.

But if such a person were to JOIN that church, he would make solemn promises and be officially under the discipline of the church, so a different set of expectations or obligations would then apply.

 

[tango]

Well, it's because we're talking about a teaching that the church considers obligatory for members, not something open to individual judgment, and that not believing amounts to heresy.

In which case perhaps the question should be why the Catholic church tolerates the people, rather than why the people identify as Catholic?

 

[Albion]

In which case perhaps the question should be why the Catholic church tolerates the people, rather than why the people identify as Catholic?

There was a time when it absolutely would not tolerate them, but these days and in this country, the church is scrambling to retain the declining number of members it has, which is not unlike most other denominations.

In addition, the question here was about a mental purpose of evasion, not something done by a member that is obvious. There are some behaviors that would get a member barred from receiving Holy Communion, for example, but when the issue is belief in the doctrine we call Transubstantiation, the dissenters aren't advertising it.