In 1992, I commissioned the first public opinion poll through George Gallup on belief in the Holy Eucharist, revealing that fewer than 30% of practicing Catholics held to the full truth of our Eucharistic faith. In 2019, Pew Research conducted a similar survey, with the very same results.
Last September, the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (generally reliable) showed an exact flip of the data, with 64% supposedly expressing a correct understanding of the Sacrament.
And now, we are treated to the latest survey, conducted by Vinea Research, which informs us that “69% of Catholics who attend Mass at least yearly believe that the Eucharistic elements become the invisible substance of Christ.”
How are we to explain the sudden change? A change harder to fathom than transubstantiation!
Jesuit Father Tom Gaunt of CARA suggests that the low figure from the Pew survey may have resulted from the wording of that survey because it posed a false“either/or” question. He goes on to offer this curious defense: “Pew also made the mistake of confusing a lack of knowledge with disagreement.”
He continues: “They [communicants] don’t explicitly know what the church teaches when you ask them directly. But implicitly or intuitively, they hold to the real presence.” Would we ever make that argument in any other area, as though facts are incidental to reality? If the average Catholic doesn’t “know” what the Eucharist is, why is that?
Ironically enough, I think the average non-Catholic does know what Catholic Eucharistic belief is. If you polled the first 100 commuters arriving in Grand Central Station by asking, “What does the Catholic Church teach about Communion?” the vast majority, while disagreeing with the teaching, would say, “Catholics believe the bread is the Body of Christ.”
Which leads to the just released Vinea survey. I never heard of that organization until today, nor of their director, Hans Plate, who is described on the Vinea website as a “Confirmation catechist” and as having “start[ed] the Greeters Ministry” in his parish.
His data proposes a five-percent leap over CARA. So, what question did he ask to elicit such an encouraging result? Plate notes that using Pew’s wording, only 41% chose the first answer that the bread and wine “actually become” Christ (so not too far off from the earlier polls). Using different language, he got a different response. The re-wording went like this:
Which of the following best describes Catholic teaching about the bread and wine used for Communion?
a. Jesus Christ is truly present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist
b. Bread and wine are symbols of Jesus, but Jesus is not truly present
c. Not sure
We learn that 69% chose the first option that Jesus is “truly present.”
However, there is a serious problem: The first option presented is heretical (as is the second, of course) as worded. Jesus is not present “in the bread and wine.” That position is called “impanation” (panis, “bread” in Latin) and was rejected even by Martin Luther!
The doctrine of transubstantiation holds that the entire substance of the bread is changed into the entire substance of the Body of Christ and the entire substance of the wine is changed into His Blood. In other words, bread and wine no longer exist, except in their outward appearances (see CCC 1374ff). At least Luther taught that the bread and wine co-existed with the Body and Blood of the Lord (consubstantiation).
So, rejoicing over the miraculous change in Eucharistic faith must be short-lived.
At the same time, we find ourselves in the final days of the national “Eucharistic Revival,” a well-intentioned project which, I think, has gone nowhere. Three years ago, I penned a reflection for this site on elements of liturgical praxis that needed attention, if we were to restore true Catholic faith in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. Twice, I sent that article to the chairman of the Revival and once, to the Committee in general; I never received the courtesy of even an acknowledgment. Why? Because I identified eight hot-button items that have become “sacred cows,” unable to be discussed. The two most important, in my estimation, were use of lay distributors of Holy Communion and reception of Communion in the hand.
If the reader goes to the Eucharistic Revival website, he will find no mention of any need for liturgical reform, leading one to conclude that everything is just “hunky-dory”. But we all know that it really isn’t. If the promoters of the Revival think that organizing processions around the country are going to change things, they are sorely mistaken. Do not misunderstand me: I love processions, have participated in hundreds, and re-introduced them in all the parishes I have served. As beautiful and impressive as these processions have been, however, anyone on the ground admits that they have attracted the already-devout; in other words, we are saving the saved (and maybe some curious souls looking on from the sidelines).
If the signs and symbols of the liturgy do not reinforce that doctrinal assertion, nothing can or will change. Don’t expect a second-grader to believe that “Jesus is present” when the Sacred Host is treated like a Frito in all too many parishes.
Cato the Elder famously ended every one of his addresses to the Roman Senate (regardless of topic) with the urgent demand: “Carthago delenda est” (Carthage must be destroyed). He was accused of being a “Johnny-One-Note,” but he was right, as history demonstrated. And I suspect that I shall go to my grave raising the same hot-button issues, with the same institutional response (or non-response).
I can only hope that the next generation of clergy will see that processions and congresses (as nice as they are) cannot achieve what honest assessment (and reform) must do, namely, admit that many mistakes have been made in our Eucharistic praxis and that, unless and until those issues are addressed, we shall continue to have commuters at Grand Central Station know more about the Holy Eucharist than practicing Catholics.
• (Editor’s note: This essay was updated and edited on June 14, 2024.)
Related at CWR: “Gutting the Mystery out of the Mystery” (Nov 19, 2021) by Rev. Peter M.J. Stravinskas.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
The teaching of the Real Presence will be bolstered if, at every Mass just before the reception of Holy Communion, the priest/bishop (or even the deacon) announced to the faithful (and not so faithful): “Holy Communion is the true Presence of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread. Only those Catholics baptized and made free of serious sin by the Sacrament of Reconciliation administered by a priest should approach the communion rail. Christ’s Body should be received on the tongue while kneeling.”
The second thing that would help belief in the Real Presence would be FIVE FULL MINUTES OF PRAYERFUL SILENCE after the reception of Christ’s Body. That would further drive home the reality because it would distress the congregation enough to begin asking themselves and each other, “Why are we spending such a long time in silence after Communion.”
Christ said: “Take and eat”, not “open wide little baby so daddy can feed you. Good little baby”.
You also left out some important words: “Only those Catholics baptized and made free of serious sin–LIKE ME…”
Gosh! I’d sooner join an Anglican or Lutheran congregation than to put up with such pompous, judgmental, and condescending nonsense.
“Gosh! I’d sooner join an Anglican or Lutheran congregation than to put up with such pompous, judgmental, and condescending nonsense.”
Revealing.
The Deacon is correct. From the Code of Canon Law:
“Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess;…”
And the Catechism:
“Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.” (CCC 1415)
All of which is rooted in what St. Paul states:
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be 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 any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” (1 Cor 11:27-29)
There’s more of that “nonsense”, but that should suffice to show that your issue is not with the Deacon but with the Church.
It’s not canon law as such that I have a problem with, nor the CCC, nor St. Paul. Rather, it’s the idea that “at every Mass just before the reception of Holy Communion, the priest announces to the faithful (and not so faithful–have to get that in there): “…only those Catholics baptized and made free of serious sin …should approach the communion rail (most Churches don’t have communion rails)…and should be received on the tongue while kneeling”
Are there any other canons we should quote at Mass? This is the kind of pompous nonsense I am referring to. The Deacon and his ilk seem to me to have as much pastoral sense as a dictionary. This is the kind of nonsense that Pope Francis is trying to lead us out of and away from. There are ways to communicate important points without getting people’s backs up, without sowing a great deal of misunderstanding, without turning a good number of people off. My sense is that you and the Deacon probably have no clue how to achieve this.
I agree with you that situations differ from parish and parish, and so such an announcement should be left to the prudential judgment of bishop, priests, etc.
When we lived in Ohio for a year, about 20 years ago, the priest—who was mild-mannered and attentive to pastoral needs—would simply note prior to Holy Communion that one must be a Catholic in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist. I’ve heard/seen similar things in other parishes. It never came off as judgmental or off-putting at all.
“There are ways to communicate important points without getting people’s backs up, without sowing a great deal of misunderstanding, without turning a good number of people off. My sense is that you and the Deacon probably have no clue how to achieve this.”
Ah, well, who am I to question your sense of such things? Regardless, I’ve spoken to many Protestants over the years and have explained Catholic teaching on this point and all of them understood and appreciated it. But, hey, “Clueless Carl” has such a nice ring to it.
In other words, you believe that the way Catholics received communion for 2000 years, up until 60 years ago, was “pompous nonsense” and people were treated as babies??? Wow. That is quite dismissive of a church which, until changes the made 60 years ago, was THRIVING. Well, its NOT thriving now, hence all of these calls for renewal. But if the renewals are limited to one shot deal processions, I predict nothing much will change. I am old enough to recall receiving communion on the tongue, while kneeling, and though a child at the time, I never felt demeaned by the process. Because we were taught the host was actually Jesus with us and thus too sacred to be touched by unconsecrated hands. I’d be interested in why unconsumed hosts are sometimes found in the pews or between pages of the hymnals if this current process is all so ducky?? Lack of belief is a certainly evident there, and yet another reason to take action to stop such desecration.
I do believe that lay ministers are used too often to administer communion. I see one go up to assist at daily Mass when I attend, where there are at most 40 people in attendance at Mass. How long could it possibly take for a priest to do the distribution of communion alone? What on Earth is the rush? I would also ask as many priests have, why the lines for communion these days are so much longer than the lines for confession? Its because respect has evaporated, and a sense of respect is conveyed by one’s ACTIONS. And Thomas James, if you believe that suggesting one not be in a state of sin is “judgmental” (rather than simply the Catholic standard which applies to ALL, and has existed from the time of the Apostles) I would speculate you might not care for the practice of Confession, and might indeed be happier in a Protestant church.I gather from your tone that you dont think Confession is a necessity for one’s spiritual life?? Any of us who think we are as important as God needs to do some research into the sin of pride.
Reply to LJ:
You say: “In other words, you believe that the way Catholics received communion for 2000 years, up until 60 years ago, was “pompous nonsense” and people were treated as babies??? Wow. That is quite dismissive of a church which, until changes the made 60 years ago, was THRIVING.”
No, the Church was not thriving. Numbers, just showing up, does not amount to “thriving”. This is why Vatican II was called. The rot was on the inside.
You wrote: “I am old enough to recall receiving communion on the tongue, while kneeling, and though a child at the time, I never felt demeaned by the process.”
Perhaps not (feel demeaned), but you were.
You continue: “Because we were taught the host was actually Jesus with us and thus too sacred to be touched by unconsecrated hands.”
Bingo! And you still buy into that pharisaical nonsense. My goodness, when was your tongue ever consecrated? As we read in the Letter of James: “The tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.” If your hands are unworthy, how much more your tongue!
And why didn’t Jesus realize that it was inappropriate for the Apostles to “take and eat”, especially given he knew that in a short time they would all abandon him? If the communion host is too sacred for your hands to touch, then it is too sacred for the priest’s hands to touch, especially if Father’s hands were just touching the altar server where he shouldn’t be touched, and there was a lot of that going on in the Pre-Vatican II era–gosh, the number of people I’ve had to deal with over the years who will never set foot inside a Church again because of sexual abuse by the “holy and worthy hands” of a priest who was trusted by everyone! And a real factor–among many others–in the perpetuation of this abuse was this false elevation of the priest to a superior status.
You write again: “And Thomas James, if you believe that suggesting one not be in a state of sin is “judgmental” (rather than simply the Catholic standard which applies to ALL, and has existed from the time of the Apostles) I would speculate you might not care for the practice of Confession,”
Well, you speculate all you want, but that’s a big problem with you and people like you. You make all sorts of unwarranted inferences, like your entire reasoning above. Confession is a wonderful sacrament, but what is going to move people to return to confession is not a lot of “finger wagging”, but a deeper sense of the love and mercy of God. Any pompous fool can get up there and “finger wag” the congregation, quote canons and sections of the Catechism, but it takes a special person to inspire people with the good news of Christ’s resurrection and victory over death, who can witness personally to the joy of Christ’s love such that I can say to myself: “I want to live in the light and love that fills his life. I need to get to Confession”.
Pretty much everything you say is based on your own personal opinion, not on any authority. Which is generally a Protestant position, whether you realize it or not. YOU say the folks attending church back in the day were “just showing up”?? And you know the level of their piety and depth of belief exactly HOW?? Showing up is half the battle in life. Its a certainty if you DO NOT show up, you are not participating in your religious faith. At least, not if you claim to be Catholic.
Tongues are not consecrated but HANDS are, according to apostolic tradition. I have lost track of how many hands I have seen which are visibly dirty, from wiping drool from a child, blowing noses, gardening, or otherwise unclean, and thus, YES, hands are MUCH dirtier than the tongue. Sins committed by speaking have to do with mental states and actions, and not a lack of physical cleanliness. Except in YOUR opinion.
I have never seen any “finger wagging” at church. Which is a shame, because some people could use a bit of finger wagging to help them get back on track.People in fact need information and guidance to help them live their lives in a happy and productive way which is pleasing to God.One man’s finger wagging is another mans enlightenment. Which does NOT mean substituting your own opinion for the laws of the church, no matter how smart you want to believe you are.I have actually heard CATHOLICS tell me that they NEVER go to confession because they dont have anything to tell the priest. REALLY???? Candidate for sainthood then?? Unlikely. Just someone who thinks a lot about themselves. In fact, it says a great deal about the weakness of human nature and what is wrong with a do it yourself approach to religion.
As for the throw away line about sex abuse, surely you must know that Priests have no monopoly on that issue. One need only google news stories to see doctors, teachers, dentists, coaches, scout leaders, pizza delivery guys and whomever being abusers. Its just that the media prefers to trumpet the stories that have to do with the small number of men who take a vow of chastity. So much more titillating that way than reporting about abusive truck drivers.
Oh, if only they would listen to your wisdom! I long for such a Mass but in light of the mess of this world, am grateful for any Mass at all. We are blessed!
Totally agree with the author of this statement; Priests/Deacons should state clearly how one can and should receive the Body and Blood of Christ in Eucharist. As for the prayerful, silent time following reception of Eucharist, I hve asked our parish liturgy committee which I chair for a short period of time following reception and been told by the Choir leader, “no, we need to start singing our communion hymn as soon as we get back to the choir area because that is the requirement”. Sadly, music could be delayed 2-3-4 minutes, yet, our priest (who is reverant and in line with church teaching/traditional) decided to go aong with the choir. Unfortunately, part of this in my estimation is that there is not the belief by too many that the Eucharist is only a symbol of the body and blood of Christ and not the real presence
My read of earlier surveys suggested that Catholic folk who had quit the Church for various reasons were included in the Catholics cited as not believing in the eucharist….
most all surveys, to one degree or another, treat “Catholic” the same way the Church and society treat “Catholic”, purely a cultural/ethnic thing…
Where a true Catholic Christian is a disciple of the Christ, seeking to follow the first and greatest commandment literally, which leads to all the rest, and a survey of them would find them near universal in accepting of ancient beliefs, and astonishingly small in actual numbers.
At the Last Judgment, Christ is not going to ask whether we understood the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, whether we believed that the “bread and wine” remained as they were or whether it was the substance of bread and wine that changed while the accidents remained the same. He’s going to inquire whether, through out actions, we discerned his real presence in those who are hungry, in prison, sick, forsaken, etc. To use a phrase coined by C.S. Lewis, there is way too much “Churchianity” in your Christianity.
Allow me to quote Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh: “…what we see is that we treat the Church as a place where we can take refuge; we run away from life into the Church. We hide from life in the Church. How often it happens that instead of coming out of the Church in order to be sent “like sheep among the wolves”, we go out, ready to run away from all danger, to hide, to refuse to face any challenge. God tells us to go out into the world for his salvation; we run back to be hidden under his cloak….We do not live our lives on Christ’s own terms. We want God to live on ours. We want him to be our protection, our help, our safety. We almost say to him: “Die for me. I’m afraid of dying, both for myself or for my neighbor, or even for you.”
At our final accounting Jesus will not be happy about the lies we told ourselves about him. Of Course it includes our failures to live the corporal works of mercy. But it also includes not feeling superior to those who take honoring liturgical practice seriously. Humility matters, as Jesus made clear with his institution of His sacrament of His Body and His Blood, a demand of committed discipleship that drove many away.
Matthew 25 is but one component among many in the Gospel, with all being required.
Thomas James, if a priest says at Mass only Catholics may approach it is not pomposity, it is an invitation.
It would depend on the movement of God to that person hearing it from whom God wants a positive response. Of course the individual could outright refuse. Or he might for the moment be distracted with the beautiful image of the BVM he is noticing for the first time.
In view of current developments I feel it is also germane to add that nothing in Matthew 25 is about synodalism and there is nothing in Scripture attesting to being moved to one another’s suffering as a result of synodalism.
Actually if you survey the history of each heretical group what you find is precisely is a highly integrated group sensibility affecting each one according to its own idiosyncrasy and all of them in common behaving synodalistical but according to their own patterning.
This has many aspects. For example, one of my Catholic acquaintances is deeply attracted to John Wesley as someone who is an evangelical-orthodox epitome.
Interesting that you think you know what Christ will say at the last Judgement. That sounds like pride again. Unquestionably Jesus spoke in the scriptures about how we were to treat each other. He was also quoted as saying ” this is my body, this is my blood”. Was He lying? Should those objects be treated casually, without reverence, as NOTHING of value? I dont think so. Further, a focus only on material needs smacks of socialism or communism to me. All focus on human wants and NONE on our relationship with God. Thanks but I dont need to get a dose of Karl Marx at church every Sunday.
To be fair, Our Lord does tell us in Matthew 25 what He will ask of us at Judgment. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be additional things He will ask.
Sorry, Thomas, you have that inverted…the first thing is to love God and lose self, from whence flows true selfless love of neighbor, as otherwise that love is polluted with own greed and need, including trying to buy one’s way to heaven with good works.
As for judgement, it is exceptionally rash to assume being with God/in-heaven after death when God not truly loved in life, and no real judgement required at all, as we condemn ourselves, since after life ends, it far too late to learn to love.
Although I agree with the theological premise of Fr Stravinskas’ article I disagree with the conclusion that the Hans Plate survey is incorrect because of the understanding of being ‘in’ the bread, rather than the bread becoming the living Christ.
The latter is true, although for the theologically untrained mind that nuance in wording that distinguishes reality from misunderstanding, the response that Christ is in the bread is in fact a recognition of the real presence however that diagram is theologically incorrect. The positive acknowledgement is true faith in the real presence.
And in agreement with Stravinskas that education of the difference in wording from ‘in’ to becoming Christ would further deepen and spiritually enrichen the believer’s faith.
You hit the nail on the head with this Father.
I recently brought this up with a group of parishioners, mentioning how we are a Church of signs and symbols, and how we had eliminated all of the Real Presence signs and symbols that we had in my long-ago childhood as an altar boy. After my comments I was met with silence. People have had communion in the hand standing for so long that they think it is great. I have seen women with a baby in arms and her other hand holding the hand of a toddler and through great contortions get the Eucharist in one hand and bend down to consume it. It is as though communion on the tongue was forbidden (which it was for a while during Covid).
I don’t see it changing – too many priests and bishops invested in the current practice, and people in general do not like to admit that they made a mistake.
The universe is Copernican. We orbit the Sun. It’s not Ptolemaic, no matter how important we think we are. For that reason, the LM is preferred. The great Unmoved Mover at the center axis of the church and universe commands the behavior of the priests, the servers and all in attendance – the way it SHOULD be. There is something so fundamentally flawed when “disorder” to this foundational structure occurs. From there, as the twig is bent so grows the tree. We need to highlight the Tabernacle and Real Presence in everything we do especially in His magnificent proximity. Everything other than that is a denigration. Let us return completely to the Copernican, God-centered Mass and be done with the Ptolemaic, which is pale, banal, flat and destructive.
Brother James,
Or, maybe the point is that only by accepting the doctrine is it possible for us to be changed into Christ and then, as you advocate, REALLY act as Christ present in the world: “You will not change me into yourself, as you change food into your flesh, but you will be changed into me” (St Augustine, Confessions, Bk. 7, Ch. 10).
Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh (Russian Orthodox priest, 1914-2003) surely would not disagree…So, before the Catholic Church risks ambulating too far synodally, is it time to choose the LORD OF HISTORY over the pretentious “arc of history”?
About which, here’s a meditation by Dom Gregory Dix (Anglican monk/priest, 1901-1952):
“Christianity is the revelation of Divine Truth from beyond all history and all time, but it is so only because it is the only fully historical religion. It is the only religion which actually depends entirely upon history [italics, more than simply an idea]. It is faith in the Incarnate God, it is Divine redemption given from within history [italics], not by the promulgation of doctrines (even true doctrines) but by the wrenching of one Man’s flesh and the spilling of His blood upon one particular square yard of ground, outside one particular city gate during three particular unrepeatable hours, which could have been measured on a clock. You cannot (and you never could) enter into the truth of Christianity apart from its history. And that historical condition of Christian truth is not something which begins at Bethlehem and ends at Olivet. It applies equally to the Church, the Body of Christ [!]. which He launched into history no less unreservedly than the Body of His flesh” (“Jew and Greek: A Study in the Primitive Church,” Harper, 1953, p. 5).
And, the CHURCH is the “Body of Christ” because it is sacramental and Eucharistic–the Eucharist at each Mass being the continuation and extension of the very same and singular event on Calvary, but now in an unbloody manner (CCC n. 1374). Not a symbolic facsimile.
Now, in response to Fr. Stravinskas:
Would the Eucharistic Revival be BEST SERVED if every bishop of particular dioceses (and their priests) simply spent 10 minutes in a homily reminding the flock Who it is who is REALLY present on the altar?
And, who they, the laity REALLY are?
And, if so-called Eucharistic ministers were accurately and differently identified as “extraordinary ministers for [distribution of!] Holy Communion”? And, if they were not herded forward except in extraordinary circumstances?
Maybe, too, the Eucharistic Congress could recall Eucharistic “coherence”—the original proposal—and the inseparable bond to morality (and, yes surely, Thomas James’ charity)—and, therefore, the sacrilege of falsely receiving the sacramental Real Presence?
‘ Take and eat ‘ – Lord operating in the eternal now in the Divine Will, talking to the future Bishops/ Apostles as fuller icons and Father figures , who are called to tend the sheep and feed the lamb – with the pure , holy Father Love in The Spirit to help bring forth good holy thoughts , persons , families .. the strength and graces needed in those roles , to sacrifice the carnal passions to live in the higher joy of trusting in the infinite Love , of belonging to such a good Father and to want to reciprocate that Love ..
Has wondered if couple of areas that could increase the truth of the Real Presence are – the focus and emphasis on the operation of the Divine Will in the priest in the Persona Christi role .. thankfully , there is more revelation on same in our times that the laity too can take in in awe !
Another area – instead of the comparison to marriage – with excess focus on the carnal aspect of same, to have more gratitude , through the Passion meditations – gratitude for the great # of debts being forgiven at such a great price , for the joy of being loved infinitly by a good Father , of belonging to Him and The Church …a joy that is to last and deepen and widen where as the ‘pleasure ‘ aspect in marriage is not meant to last – instead to disappear as do the labor pains ..
There could be comparison on the opposite spectrum – a Godly marriage in which the couple are to be the visible signs of the presence of God , where as illicit relationships can manifest the presence of the father of lies , as does receiving The Body in unworthy manner . The presence of the father of lies being enough to destroy faith and trust , love and joy , health and holiness !
The grace and goodness in offering up sacrifices – esp. in the carnal realm to to be embraced more by laity too that instead of feeling pity for those who are celibate to have more of an attitude of awe and gratitude to cherish the role of being heros in the spiritual warfare !
https://wherepeteris.com/author/sister-gabriela-of-the-incarnation-o-c-d/
Blessings !
I think it was a Pew survey that said that approximately 20% of Catholics pray every day. Probably a lot of the Eucharistic trouble can be improved by Catholics doing daily Catholic meditation on any subject at all.
All I want to know is how Thomas James knows what Christ will or will not say to us when we die.
RomyLu: It’s very easy. See Matthew 25:
Parable of the Last Judgment
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[a] you did it to me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but I did not find anything in there about accuracy of one’s theological opinions, whether one had the correct theological formula for the Eucharist (i.e., transubstantiation, or transignification or transfinalization, etc.). In fact, the ones serving the hungry and imprisoned had no idea that they were serving and loving Christ: “When did we see you….?”
Nothing in there too about proper liturgical etiquette. I think we put way too much emphasis on liturgy, language, right doctrine, right theology, etc., and frankly, that makes life much easier for clergy, doesn’t it? I can just be a “sanctuary priest” and concern myself with vestments, homilies (especially finger wagging homilies), sanctuary decor, candles, Latin, looking sanctimonious and being the object of the people’s veneration for me, and I can just leave all the difficult work of charity to lay people, whose task is “ad extra” as Fr. Stravinskas would say. And, I can spend my time writing anti-Francis articles that spread that toxicity throughout the Church, in the belief that I’m doing good.
We read: “Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but I did not find anything in there about accuracy of one’s theological opinions…”
You’re actually onto something…it’s not about our “theological opinions.” It’s about the historical and doctrinal reality of the Incarnation–the alarming (Benedict’s term) self-disclosure of God…
So why the self-authenticating magic trick to annex the Church to process theology? Is this subordination the missing definition of invertebrate “synodality”?
Thomas James and RomyLu it appears to me at least one of you is synodaling, maybe the both of you.
Matthew 25 does not stand by itself as how Thomas James casts it. Actually your reading of Matthew 25 is not novel, it has been around a long time among Catholic dissenters. It came to my direct knowledge in the 1990’s but I can see from that it was present in its advocates for at least 20 years prior to their putting it into my hearing. They are always prowling around for disciples. Some of them are quick to “call out” those who reveal them. But some others of them are more devious and carry on their messaging sideways never addressing the challenge and behaving as if they are being dogged by a “spirit of disputation”.
Catholics who engage in religious practices like this are most certainly NOT the saved. Many of us are fighting daily to remain in a state of grace, due to this or that besetting sin. We NEED to be strengthened with everything our tradition provides, including sacramentals like processions.
How on earth can a Catholic priest, who hears confessions weekly and understands Catholic teaching, refer to members of the Church Militant as “the saved”? Has Fr. Stravinskas become a born again Christian or a Calvinist?
Get a life, sir!
This is such a HUGE subject, the Holy Eucharest,that I scarcely know where to begin;one may choose to start it with decidedly negative comments like, oh, why is the Bishop of the diocese that Pres. Biden resides in (Maryland)NOT publicly rebuking him because he (Biden) IS IN a state of MORTAL SiN by his PUBLIC endorsement of BABY MURDER, abortion, all the way up to the moment of birth? (Isn’t Biden supposed to REFRAIN from receiving H.C.?) Further, why is said Bishop NOT threatening Biden with PUBLIC EXCOMMUNICATION if he,Biden, doesn’t stop his loudmouthed support of abortion? OH, that’s right; the Bishop is not being ‘PASTORAL’ if he makes this insufferable moron STOP pushing BABY MURDER, then receiving the Eucharist in a state of presumed Mortal Sin; that’s just too cruel to this cognitavely addled AC meat puppet! And these are just TWO of the many questions I might have concerning the incredibly harmful abuse of the H. E. so extant today. Just saying MARKRITE
I’ve come to this article late but have to agree with Fr. Stravinskas re his two chief hot button issues. And that the avoidance of those two issues is foolish (understatement).
You reply: “You’re actually onto something…it’s not about our “theological opinions.” It’s about the historical and doctrinal reality of the Incarnation–the alarming (Benedict’s term) self-disclosure of God…”
And you’re onto something too! God the Son joined himself to a human nature, and as John Paul II said so often, in doing so, he joined himself to every man, as it were. Which explains why our salvation depends upon how we loved him in loving the human persons to whom he has joined himself. And the key verse is: “When did we see you hungry, naked, in prison, etc.?” So, clearly, it is not about one’s intellectual assent to “the historical and doctrinal reality of the Incarnation” and the depth of one’s understanding of that doctrine, but the actual love of those to whom God the Son joined himself in his Incarnation.
As for the “self-authenticating magic trick to annex the Church to process theology?”
I have no idea what you are talking about–and I’ve read that line a few times.
And finally, you ask: “Is this subordination the missing definition of invertebrate “synodality”?
Once again, I have no idea what this means. But, it does sound profound! I’ll give you that!
Brother James,
Your concluding two questions are fair enough. Again, I agree with you that “theological opinions” don’t count for much. Two further responses:
FIRST, a constant tension within the Church is between divine self-revelation and then the contribution of theologians whose ideas are to support and deepen—not replace or contradict— what the Church formally teaches (as the guardian established by Christ: Mt 28:19-20).
Some of what the process-theologians have infiltrated into the synodal “style” is contrary to the guarded magisterium. For such a “synod” to then presume to validate its own fictions is a circular fallacy and what is meant by “self-authenticating.”
I concur that even what is self-evident cannot be abbreviated into one sentence.
SECOND, given this first response, and the fact that “synodality” has not been clearly defined—but is now poised to define itself (!) in a “synod on synodality (!)”—might we say that the de facto definition of synodality is this: to enthrone itself? So as to substitute today’s theological opinion for Revelation—including the universal and inborn natural law? Instead, this from the recent Council: “Christ the Lord…by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to himself [!] …” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 22).
As with mass media and now synodality, in 1967 Marshall McLuhan already said it in one sentence: “the medium is the message.”
Really? The clarifying point, here, is that synodality is only something that the Church DOES and not what the Church IS. So, to yet another great desktop, process-theologian, President Clinton—that’s “what the meaning of is, IS!”
The assertion that Matthew 25 prescinds from intellectual assent to the Gospel is anathema.
The assertion that Matthew 25 alone of the Gospel requires intellectual assent is anathema.
The assertion that Matthew 25 does not require intellectual assent for the Gospel is anathema.
The assertion that Matthew 25 is provided to subsist apart from the Gospel is anathema -whether with or without intellectual assent.
” I was hugry and you fed Me …’ – hunger of The Lord for His children to know Him and love Him , with His own Love wich is the hunger of human hearts too …having witnessed atleast two occasions in which a few drops of the baptismal water and a fussy little one falls asleep in angelic peace .. same after the anointing in a near death person ..
The experience of exorcists – powerful witness of need to be doing things in His Way …to thus set persons free from prisons …
” One soul can make a differnce for the world ‘ -Lord’s words to St.Faustina ;
sts are promised how they would continue ‘to work’ from heaven ..helping us to live in holiness and adoration to set hearts free from ‘prisons ‘- of hatreds and wars , addictions and evils ..
Lord’s rest is in bringing comfort and healing to the weary and downtrodden – not just at a physical level either …The Jewish people had fallen into the error of ‘misreading ‘ the Sabbat rest , using same to accuse The Lord who was ever getting His ‘rest ‘ with The Father , in bringing the right relationship and order into lives ; He had pointed out how the enemy gets its ‘rest’of destruction and evils not in places that are already ‘dry’, lacking in love and holiness but in places where there is some order .
May the Voice of The Father calling us to care for the poor – both physical and spiritual – echoe in our hearts , to make us all ‘rich’ as persons who can requite The Love and Adoration owed The Father – through our Lord who became ‘poor’ to help us to be restored to the right relationship, with all His children, to taste how one is already blessed by The Father ! FIAT !
I wanted to make you aware of a serious problem with the poll being Vinea Research poll being reported in your article. Unfortunately, it cannot be compared to the results of the Pew Research report, because only the former correctly describes the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation.
The Pew Research Poll asked:
Which of the following best describes Catholic teaching about the bread and wine used for Communion? The bread and wine…
a. Actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ
b. Are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ
c. Not sure
Regardless of the official teaching of the Catholic Church, what do you personally believe about the bread and wine used for Communion? During Catholic Mass, the bread and wine…
a. Actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ
b. Are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ
The Vinea Research Poll asks:
Which of the following best describes Catholic teaching about the bread and wine used for Communion?
a. Jesus Christ is truly present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist
b. Bread and wine are symbols of Jesus, but Jesus is not truly present
c. Not sure
Regardless of the official teaching of the Catholic Church, what do you personally believe about the bread and wine used for Communion?
a. Jesus Christ is truly present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist
b. Bread and wine are symbols of Jesus, but Jesus is not truly present
The problem with the Vinea Research poll is that it doesn’t express the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation as described, for example at the council of Trent because it says that the bread and wine remain present. This is heretical and was anathematised at Trent.
“If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema.
If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema.
(Council of Trent, Session 13, Canons 1, 2; Denz. 883-884)”
Jesus is not present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. There is no bread and wine remaining except in appearance only. In reality there is only the body and blood of Christ. This is the dogma of transubstantiation.
That the Vinea Research poll doesn’t provide a correct response option is of serious concern. The poll should be retracted.
Sincerely,
John Lewis
Thanks, John, for the comment. I agree with you about the CNA brief and the Vinea Research poll. See this recent CWR piece by Fr. Peter Stravinskas, which addresses it directly.