Only 1/3 of Catholics Believe in Real Presence

[Particular]

If you ask any Catholic theologian what the most important part of Christian life is, they’ll tell you the Eucharist.

Which is why the U.S. bishops must feel like they have been double punched by new data from the Pew Research Center.

On July 23, the prestigious polling firm released a new report – “What Americans Know About Religion” – that found that half of Catholics in the United States don’t know the Catholic Church teaches the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Most of the other half thought the Church taught the Eucharist was just a symbol of Christ’s body, although 4 percent said they were unsure what the Church taught.

That was the first punch.

This week, Pew delivered the second – it reported that*only one-third of Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

It doesn’t take a math degree to figure out what that means, although Pew does helpfully fill in the blanks: “One-in-five Catholics (22 percent) reject the idea of transubstantiation [the technical term for the bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Christ], even though they know about the Church’s teaching.”

(I doubt the bishops will be heartened by the fact that the poll showed that 3 percent of Catholics “profess to believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist despite not knowing the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation.”)

It brings to mind the quote from the mid-20th*century American writer Flannery O’Connor: “Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it.”

O’Connor’s quote came from a letter describing a conversation about the Eucharist with non-Catholics, where a friend said she thought the Eucharist was a “pretty good” symbol.

Of course, it could be easy to ascribe this to a general ignorance of their faith by self-described Catholics. The Pew Research Center even acknowledges that practicing Catholics are more likely to believe Church teaching.

“About six-in-ten (63 percent) of the most observant Catholics — those who attend Mass at least once a week — accept the Church’s teaching about transubstantiation. Still, even among this most observant group of Catholics, roughly one-third (37 percent) don’t believe that the Communion bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ (including 23 percent who don’t know the Church’s teaching and 14 percent who know the Church’s teaching but don’t believe it). And among Catholics who do not attend Mass weekly, large majorities say they believe the bread and wine are symbolic and do not actually become the body and blood of Jesus,” the organization states.

But something else could be at play, which is indicated by the response to the other question on the survey about a particular Catholic belief: Just over 70 percent of Catholics knew that Purgatory is where the souls of those who have died undergo purification before they enter heaven.

This, by the way, wasn’t a true/false question; it was multiple choice – the other options were an offering made during confession, purification process made during self-reflection, and where souls go for eternal punishment.

In other words, significantly more Catholics know what the Church teaches about Purgatory than what the Church teaches about the Eucharist, which the Catechism calls “the source and summit of the Christian life.”

https://cruxnow.com/news-analysis/2...-third-of-catholics-believe-in-real-presence/

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

So 2/3 of Catholics have not been properly catechized. A research poll doesn't make Real Presence symbolic.

 

[Josiah]

https://cruxnow.com/news-analysis/2...-third-of-catholics-believe-in-real-presence/

1. You didn't read the article. I did. While the TITLE says "Real Presence" the survey was about Transubstantiation. As a former Catholic myself, surrounded by Catholic family and friends, it would not surprise me at if only one-third of active Catholics hold to Transubstantiation. What surprises me is that it's THAT high. Indeed, most Catholics aren't even taught that anymore (I wasn't in my First Communion Class). I'm not at all surprised that more Catholics know about Purgatory than Transubstantiation because I was taught about Purgatory in my Catholic years but never Transubstantiation.


2. I wonder who they asked. MILLIONS of people identify themselves as "Catholic" because that's their family heritage and/or they were baptized in a Catholic parish. I've seen surveys like this.... IMO, they do not reflect the views of ACTIVE Catholics.


3. Only 1/3 of the world's people believe that Jesus is the Savior. Does that mean ergo He is not the Savior?



.

 

[Particular]

1. You didn't read the article. I did. While the TITLE says "Real Presence" the survey was about Transubstantiation. As a former Catholic myself, surrounded by Catholic family and friends, it would not surprise me at if only one-third of active Catholics hold to Transubstantiation. What surprises me is that it's THAT high. Indeed, most Catholics aren't even taught that anymore (I wasn't in my First Communion Class). I'm not at all surprised that more Catholics know about Purgatory than Transubstantiation because I was taught about Purgatory in my Catholic years but never Transubstantiation.


2. I wonder who they asked. MILLIONS of people identify themselves as "Catholic" because that's their family heritage and/or they were baptized in a Catholic parish. I've seen surveys like this.... IMO, they do not reflect the views of ACTIVE Catholics.


3. Only 1/3 of the world's people believe that Jesus is the Savior. Does that mean ergo He is not the Savior?



.

You are attempting to slice an atom. The survey is about Catholics, not Lutherans. Real Presence is Transubstantiation for Catholics. Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation are just poor reflections of themselves.
The point is that not even Catholics believe it.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

You are attempting to slice an atom. The survey is about Catholics, not Lutherans. Real Presence is Transubstantiation for Catholics. Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation are just poor reflections of themselves.
The point is that not even Catholics believe it.

According to this article 1/3 of Catholics do believe in real presence. Why are you fighting so hard to discredit one way in which God's grace is delivered to us poor sinners in need of His forgiveness? I think that's what we should really be looking at.

 

[Particular]

According to this article 1/3 of Catholics do believe in real presence. Why are you fighting so hard to discredit one way in which God's grace is delivered to us poor sinners in need of His forgiveness? I think that's what we should really be looking at.

2/3 don't even believe their church teaching. Even they recognize that Jesus wasn't being literal.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

2/3 don't even believe their church teaching. Even they recognize that Jesus wasn't being literal.

You don't know that those 2/3 have been properly catechized. A lot of Catholics are actually lapsed Catholics who don't read the Bible, receive instruction or even go to church. They get confirmed and that's it. You're grasping at straws, your big proof now is to point to a research poll. You've abandoned Scripture, because you know you can't win the argument there. You're too unfamiliar with what it says and teaches. So again, why are you fighting so hard against how God has chosen to forgive sinners in need?

 

[Particular]

You don't know that those 2/3 have been properly catechized. A lot of Catholics are actually lapsed Catholics who don't read the Bible, receive instruction or even go to church. They get confirmed and that's it. You're grasping at straws, your big proof now is to point to a research poll. You've abandoned Scripture, because you know you can't win the argument there. You're too unfamiliar with what it says and teaches. So again, why are you fighting so hard against how God has chosen to forgive sinners in need?

I the words of John Winger: "Just the facts, Jack!"

 

[Lamb]

From the OP's link

"Although Pew gives the numbers of those who know the Church teaching and reject it, it doesn’t ask how many of those who don’t know the Church teaching on the Eucharist correctly, but would change their own views to bring them in line with the Church."

 

[Josiah]

2/3 don't even believe their church teaching.

PERHAPS. I wouldn't be shocked. Most Catholics rarely attend church and never participate in any studies. And the only time they were taught about the Eucharist was when they were 8 in First Communion and the Catholic dogma on the Eucharist isn't taught there (I know, I completed First Communion and the RCC's dogma of transubstantiation wasn't even mentioned).

I think what MAY be confusing to you is the TITLE of the article says "Real Presence' but the survey was about Transubstantiation. IF the survey had been about Real Presence.... I suspect (but can't know) the result would be different. Of my many family members (nearly all active Catholics), I know of NONE who don't accept Real Presence but I only know of ONE who accepts the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation. So if I surveyed MY Catholic family, the results would have been much worse than this survey. But again, I don't know who they asked.... and not one of their questions is reported in the article, so we cannot know WHAT specifically they were asked. The article ONLY says it was about Transubstantiation, the whole dogma that by the power of the priest, the bread and wine cease to exist and are transformed via a precise mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind an indistinguishable mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents. MY experience is most Catholics don't hold to that, in fact, one of my Catholic teachers flat out STATED the Church's teaching hasn't been taught to Catholic laity since Vatican 11 (long before I was born); she said what is TAUGHT is a mixture of the Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox positions and there is now SILENCE on everything related to the dogma of Transubstantiation. That's my experience as a former Catholic and in speaking to all the Catholics I know.


AGAIN, IF we knew what the questions were.... and WHO was asked.... we might make some sense out of this survey. BUT I've seen these kinds of Catholic surveys HUNDREDS of times. It's all about the SAME THING. The Catholic Church is lamenting - passionately - the pathetic job it's doing in training the people in the doctrine of the Church. It acknowledges this problem and is TRYING to wake up parishes to DO something about this. I think this survey and this report is just ONE MORE example of this lament and call to correct things. Nothing more. I wonder, if we asked 10 people of your denomination (maybe 5 of which haven't been to church since Christmas and ahve never in their lives attended any class about anything biblical) to list the Ten Commandments.... I wonder if 2/3's of them could? MAYBE , if not, that would not say anything is wrong with the Ten Commandments but with the teaching of the laity ALSO in YOUR denomination? Maybe the denomination that has no ignorance about anything among those who embrace them can cast the first stone....

Even they recognize that Jesus wasn't being literal.

You need to read the article you submitted. It says they reject TRANSUBSTANTIATION (the Catholic teaching), that by the grace of the priest by virtue of his ordination, the bread and wine cease to exist and are CONVERTED into the Body and Blood of Christ via Transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian accidents. Yeah, I'm not surprised that many Catholics don't hold to that, I doubt most Catholics have even heard of that. NOWHERE does the article state that EVEN ONE Catholic rejects that Christ is PRESENT in the Eucharist. Frankly, the Catholics aren't interested in whether most Catholics hold to the Lutheran or Orthdox position, they are decrying that many don't hold to the CATHOLIC position. Duh. No news there. They are rejecting the dogmatization of alchemy and Aristotle's theory of accidents, not that Christ is present. Nearly all Catholics I know DO take Jesus literally, but not alchemy or Aristotle.






.

 

[Particular]

PERHAPS. I wouldn't be shocked. Most Catholics rarely attend church and never participate in any studies. And the only time they were taught about the Eucharist was when they were 8 in First Communion and the Catholic dogma on the Eucharist isn't taught there (I know, I completed First Communion and the RCC's dogma of transubstantiation wasn't even mentioned).

I think what MAY be confusing to you is the TITLE of the article says "Real Presence' but the survey was about Transubstantiation. IF the survey had been about Real Presence.... I suspect (but can't know) the result would be different. Of my many family members (nearly all active Catholics), I know of NONE who don't accept Real Presence but I only know of ONE who accepts the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation. So if I surveyed MY Catholic family, the results would have been much worse than this survey. But again, I don't know who they asked.... and not one of their questions is reported in the article, so we cannot know WHAT specifically they were asked. The article ONLY says it was about Transubstantiation, the whole dogma that by the power of the priest, the bread and wine cease to exist and are transformed via a precise mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind an indistinguishable mixture of reality and Aristotelian Accidents. MY experience is most Catholics don't hold to that, in fact, one of my Catholic teachers flat out STATED the Church's teaching hasn't been taught to Catholic laity since Vatican 11 (long before I was born); she said what is TAUGHT is a mixture of the Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox positions and there is now SILENCE on everything related to the dogma of Transubstantiation. That's my experience as a former Catholic and in speaking to all the Catholics I know.


AGAIN, IF we knew what the questions were.... and WHO was asked.... we might make some sense out of this survey. BUT I've seen these kinds of Catholic surveys HUNDREDS of times. It's all about the SAME THING. The Catholic Church is lamenting - passionately - the pathetic job it's doing in training the people in the doctrine of the Church. It acknowledges this problem and is TRYING to wake up parishes to DO something about this. I think this survey and this report is just ONE MORE example of this lament and call to correct things. Nothing more. I wonder, if we asked 10 people of your denomination (maybe 5 of which haven't been to church since Christmas and ahve never in their lives attended any class about anything biblical) to list the Ten Commandments.... I wonder if 2/3's of them could? MAYBE , if not, that would not say anything is wrong with the Ten Commandments but with the teaching of the laity ALSO in YOUR denomination? Maybe the denomination that has no ignorance about anything among those who embrace them can cast the first stone....







You need to read the article you submitted. It says they reject TRANSUBSTANTIATION (the Catholic teaching), that by the grace of the priest by virtue of his ordination, the bread and wine cease to exist and are CONVERTED into the Body and Blood of Christ via Transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian accidents. Yeah, I'm not surprised that many Catholics don't hold to that, I doubt most Catholics have even heard of that. NOWHERE does the article state that EVEN ONE Catholic rejects that Christ is PRESENT in the Eucharist. Frankly, the Catholics aren't interested in whether most Catholics hold to the Lutheran or Orthdox position, they are decrying that many don't hold to the CATHOLIC position. Duh. No news there. They are rejecting the dogmatization of alchemy and Aristotle's theory of accidents, not that Christ is present. Nearly all Catholics I know DO take Jesus literally, but not alchemy or Aristotle.






.

I read the article. Your position isn't truly real presence. It's a quasi version where is doesn't actually mean is.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

I the words of John Winger: "Just the facts, Jack!"

First, it's a Pew Research poll and now you're quoting Stripes.

No matter what you're shown, you will never believe the fact of real presence. I leave you with these words of Scripture.

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding." - Proverbs 3:5

 

[Particular]

First, it's a Pew Research poll and now you're quoting Stripes.

No matter what you're shown, you will never believe the fact of real presence. I leave you with these words of Scripture.

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding." - Proverbs 3:5

I believe Christ Jesus is really present always, both in the fellowship of believers and individually. Jesus told us that he would be with us always.
I do not think Jesus was claiming the bread was his body or the wine was his blood as I have already explained.

 

[Albion]

Pew may have "recently" reported on such a finding, but what appears to be the exact same thing was reported on by one research outfit or another at least a decade ago.

What it proves is not that the Catholic Church doesn't know its own belief system. Nor does it mean that 2/3 of the members are not properly catechized. For some, it may be lack of knowledge, but for many it's just that they will believe whatever they want to believe...as many Catholics do with other teachings that they find unacceptable or unbelievable--Purgatory, the Church's marriage regulations, restricting the priesthood to men, opposition to birth control, etc.

 

[Josiah]

I do not think Jesus was claiming the bread was his body or the wine was his blood as I have already explained.

Okay. You don't believe in Transubstantiation, either. Most of the Catholics I know don't believe in it either, in fact most (like me) were not taught it in our First Communion Classes. I eventually learned it from Catholic teachers, but the same teachers told me that Transubstantiation hasn't been typically taught to laity for the past 50-75 years. Thus, most Catholics not believing it (in part because they've never been taught it) doesn't surprise me much.



I accept the original, universal view - held for some 1500 years - that the meaning of is is is and thus what follows the is is: Body, blood, bread, wine, forgiveness. I accept the words THERE (is... body... blood...bread....wine...forgiveness) rather than deleting them and substituting words NOT there: change....transform.... alchemy.... transubstantiation....Aristotle.... acciidents.... was.....now.....become....seems..... not....appears....symbolize. I hold it is bsst to believe the words present (words Jesus said and the Holy Spirit inspired) rather than words deleted and replaced with entirrely different or even contradictory words. Seems right to me. Seemed right to everyone for at least the first 1500 years of Christianityper

Now.... if you personally can't wrap your brain around things like Real Presence, the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, the Inspiration of Scripture (and about 100 similar things) well, doesn't concern or surprise me. Truth doesn't depend on whether you (or anyone) can understand or explain it. And if this seems problematic to your understanding of physics (as it was to Zwingli) and perhaps like Zwingli you've never taken a single college course in physics, well.... that too doesn't concern or surprise me, Truth doesn't depend on some person's understanding of physics (persons who frankly don't understand physics either). No Scripture calls on sinful, fallen, people to use their puny human brains to CORRECT God, insisting (as Zwingli did) that what Scripture clearly states cannot be true and thus he has to appoint himself to correct it for God (each bloat being smarter than God). Nope. We are told to be STEWARDS of the MYSTERIES of God. We are told to "HOLD FAST to the mysteries as we have been taught." You may not be able to understand how body, blood, bread, wine and forgiveness can be received in Communion.... why receiving it wrongly causes judgment... how all this fits with ancient theories of physics.... but frankly, such could not matter less. What matters is what Jesus said and Paul penned: is, body, blood, bread. wine, forgiveness.




.






.

 

[Particular]

Okay. You don't believe in Transubstantiation, either. Most of the Catholics I know don't believe in it either, in fact most (like me) have never been taught it in our First Communion Classes. I eventually learned it from Catholic teachers, but the same teachers told me that Transubstantiation hasn't been typically taught to laity for the past 50-75 years. Thus, most Catholics not believing it (in part because they've never been taught it) doesn't surprise me much.


I accept the original, universal view - held for some 1500 years - that the meaning of is is is and thus what follows the is is: Body, blood, bread, wine, forgiveness. I accept the words THERE (is... body... blood...bread....wine...forgiveness) rather than deleting them and substituting words NOT there: change....transform.... alchemy.... transubstantiation....Aristotle.... acciidents.... was.....now.....become....seems..... not....appears....symbolize. I hold it is bsst to believe the words present (words Jesus said and the Holy Spirit inspired) rather than words deleted and replaced with entirrely different or even contradictory words. Seems right to me. Seemed right to everyone for at least the first 1500 years of Christianity.






.

I understand what you accept. I think the argument that everybody else believed it isn't very strong.
First, that's an assumption. You cannot actually prove it.
Second, the large group of Jews in Jesus day had been taught falsely by Rabbi's who held to a faulty tradition.
The text of scripture is obviously filled with metaphor and symbolism. A literal interpretation makes the conversation very bizarre and really makes Christianity works based. That seems out of character with God's grace.
When Jesus says "do this in remembrance of me", I take communion in remembrance of Jesus. No changing of elements needed.

 

[Josiah]

I accept the original, universal view - held for some 1500 years - that the meaning of is is is and thus what follows the is is: Body, blood, bread, wine, forgiveness. I accept the words THERE (is... body... blood...bread....wine...forgiveness) rather than deleting them and substituting words NOT there: change....transform.... alchemy.... transubstantiation....Aristotle.... acciidents.... was.....now.....become....seems..... not....appears....symbolize. I hold it is bsst to believe the words present (words Jesus said and the Holy Spirit inspired) rather than words deleted and replaced with entirrely different or even contradictory words. Seems right to me. Seemed right to everyone for at least the first 1500 years of Christianity.


.

The text of scripture is obviously filled with metaphor and symbolism.

"OBVIOUSLY?" According to what Scripture? According to WHOM? You? If it's OBVIOUS, why can't you produce the name of even ONE Christian in over 1500 years who thought it AT ALL, much less "OBVIOUSLY?"

A literal interpretation makes the conversation very bizarre

Well.... beyond complete human understanding. Like the conversations about the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, the Inspiration of Scripture, God's grace and mercy, and about 100 other things....

Frankly, if you find that you can't wrap your brain around very, very simple words like these is of little concern. IMO, divine Truth does not depend on whether you understand it or not, whether you can explain it all. And if it seems impossible via your understanding of physics (what is your formal education in physics?) for Jesus statement to be true (body, blood, bread, wine are present) well, that too seems of little consequence. NOWHERE in the Bible are we told to be correctors of God, to correct what God said because it can't really be true and seems "ununderstandable" or "impossible according to my understanding of physics - and I know more about that topic than God does."

Frankly, with all due respect (and I mean nothing personal), truth just doesn't depend on what SEEMS to YOU "bizarre" or what SEEMS to YOU to simply be not true and thus must be spun to "mean" the opposite. We are called to be STEWARDS (caretakers, protectors) of the MYSTERIES of God. Nowhere are to called to doubt God or correct God if something strikes self as "bizaare" or "can't be true." A little humility seems necessary.

No changing of elements needed.

Agreed. But then read the words (the ones THERE rather than the words NOT there) and yoiu'll discover something.... you might have a real epiphany.... the word "change" never appears. Not once. Not in any Eucharistic texts. Not ever. Nor do the words "symbolize" "seems" "not". The key word is is (real, present, exists) and what follows is the "is" is body, blood, bread, wine, forgiveness. Obviously. Not that hard, my friend. All the Second Graders in my First Communion class were fine with that. It's not that hard. Not rocket science.




.

 

[Particular]

"OBVIOUSLY?" According to what Scripture? According to WHOM? You? If it's OBVIOUS, why can't you produce the name of even ONE Christian in over 1500 years who thought it AT ALL, much less "OBVIOUSLY?"






Well.... beyond complete human understanding. Like the conversations about the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, the Inspiration of Scripture, God's grace and mercy, and about 100 other things....

Frankly, if you find that you can't wrap your brain around very, very simple words like these is of little concern. IMO, divine Truth does not depend on whether you understand it or not, whether you can explain it all. And if it seems impossible via your understanding of physics (what is your formal education in physics?) for Jesus statement to be true (body, blood, bread, wine are present) well, that too seems of little consequence. NOWHERE in the Bible are we told to be correctors of God, to correct what God said because it can't really be true and seems "ununderstandable" or "impossible according to my understanding of physics - and I know more about that topic than God does."

Frankly, with all due respect (and I mean nothing personal), truth just doesn't depend on what SEEMS to YOU "bizarre" or what SEEMS to YOU to simply be not true and thus must be spun to "mean" the opposite. We are called to be STEWARDS (caretakers, protectors) of the MYSTERIES of God. Nowhere are to called to doubt God or correct God if something strikes self as "bizaare" or "can't be true." A little humility seems necessary.







Agreed. But then read the words (the ones THERE rather than the words NOT there) and yoiu'll discover something.... you might have a real epiphany.... the word "change" never appears. Not once. Not in any Eucharistic texts. Not ever. Nor do the words "symbolize" "seems" "not". The key word is is (real, present, exists) and what follows is the "is" is body, blood, bread, wine, forgiveness. Obviously. Not that hard, my friend. All the Second Graders in my First Communion class were fine with that. It's not that hard. Not rocket science.




.

I take your comments personally. You are not talking about the topic, you are denigrating me. I can take it no other way.
As for any actual argument in your post, I find no merit in your argument.

 

[Albion]

I take your comments personally. You are not talking about the topic, you are denigrating me. I can take it no other way.
As for any actual argument in your post, I find no merit in your argument.

No matter who you are, on a discussion board you have to be able to defend an argument that you, yourself, have presented to the body for discussion. If you are unable, there are other hobbies.

And if you are apt to feel threatened when your claims are challenged, it's a good idea not to be launching personal attacks in your own posts.

 

[Particular]

No matter who you are, on a discussion board you have to be able to defend an argument that you, yourself, have presented to the body for discussion. If you are unable, there are other hobbies.

And if you are apt to feel threatened when your claims are challenged, it's a good idea not to be launching personal attacks in your own posts.

I defend the argument. I believe the same cannot be said when the other person attacks the person rather than the argument. Perhaps you cannot distinguish between the two. I understand if you struggle with seeing the difference.