It’s shocking!
You know how only a third of Catholics believe in the Real Presence?
Well, they don’t.
By which I mean: It isn’t true that only a third of Catholics believe in the Real Presence.
That’s a myth that got created due to thee things: (1) a pollster using a poorly worded questions that didn’t correspond to Catholic teaching, meaning that Catholics responding to the question weren’t sure how to answer it in a way that reflected their faith, and so the pro-Real Presence vote got split among several different categories. (2) Those reading the results of the poll didn’t pay careful attention to how the question was worded and what the implications were for how the different categories had to be pieced back together to get an accurate indication of belief in the Real Presence. (3) The general desire to lament how bad things are these days led people to read the results in terms of a staggering crisis of faith.
And so for years the idea has been floating around out there that only a small number of Catholics actually believe in the Real Presence, despite the fact that it isn’t true.
Now, I’m happy to concede that not enough Catholics believe in the Real Presence. 100% of them should. I’m also happy to concede that not enough Catholics understand the Real Presence in the manner articulated by the Church (transubstantiaion). Some have views that are fuzzy on that point, and bad catechesis is a key factor in that.
But the numbers are nowhere near as bleak as people make out.
And now there’s a new study (by the National Catholic Reporter folks, of all people), that backs this up. Fr. Richard John Neuhaus writes:
81 percent say that “belief that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist” is essential in their understanding of the Catholic faith. Keep in mind that the survey is of a cross section of the 65 million Catholics in the U.S. (although Latinos are greatly underrepresented). Among the more highly committed Catholics, it is reasonable to assume that belief in the Real Presence is considerably higher than 81 percent. This is worth keeping in mind because some years ago a clumsily worded question in a survey came up with the conclusion that only one third of Catholics believed in the Real Presence, and that “finding” still crops up in discussions on the state of Catholicism. Among active Catholics, belief in the Real Presence, as also in the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, and the Resurrection of Jesus, edges up toward unanimity.
GET THE STORY.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)
That’s good news. It’s true that a lot of Catholics talk as if Christ is “in” or “with” the consecrated host, rather than it truly being His body under the *appearance* of bread, but that is not anything like a complete lack of faith in the sacrament.
In one sense, I can’t blame those who speak that way. Christ being “in” the Eucharist is easier to imagine than the transubstantiation that the Church actually teaches. That’s not really something that fits tidily into the human mind with no remainder, the way most of us like things.
JIMMY LIVES!!
So, what was the poorly worded question?
Frodo lives!
I’ve taken enough poorly worded surveys that I’ve always assumed that particular one was poorly worded as well and therefore drew false conclusions.
Despite the statements of the polls, do we see this belief manifested in our churches? Irreverent reception of Holy Communion in the hand (I don’t mean to say that all reception in the hand is irreverent), multitudes doing the “Judas shuffle,” as Dr. Hahn once put it (leaving immediately after receiving the Blessed Sacrament), and the ubiquitous practice of not making any kind of thanksgiving after Mass!
I work with Catholic youth and I am convinced that the problem of today is not simply belief and disbelief, but simply indifference. Sure, Jesus is present in the tabernacle and in Holy Communion, but I’ve got to turn on my iPod or go play XBox. Many believe that Jesus is God, etc., but their conception of God is warped by a generation of inadequate catechesis and secular humanism. Our Lord is no longer the Almighty. He is now just a “cool dude” who “died and stuff.”
I went to Old World Swine, but I don’t see this posted there. Wait a minute…
Seriously, I saw that as well on First Things. Now at mass maybe I won’t have that occasional thought, “Most of you don’t even believe this.” Now if only our actions will truly reflect our belief. Some reverent silence before mass would be a great start. I’d love to hear all about your ski trip afterwards. Why not come over to the hall for coffee and donuts?
I have a copy of the survey at home. If Jimmy doesn’t post it, I’ll post it in the combox tonight when I get home. If memory serves,it is a Gallop poll from 1991 and had only 4 questions on it.
Some reverent silence before mass would be a great start. I’d love to hear all about your ski trip afterwards. Why not come over to the hall for coffee and donuts?
Unfortunately, there seems to be that lack of reverance prevalent in most churches, particularly mine.
Just yesterday, the Mass I was attending wasn’t even finished yet; however, crowds of people came in for the upcoming Spanish mass.
That would’ve been fine if not for the fact that the crowds of people that were awaiting in the back of the church were talking so much with their voices so loud, you could hardly hear what the priest was saying!
It sounded no longer a Mass but a carnival!
Many believe that Jesus is God, etc.,
Now if only our actions will truly reflect our belief.
Somehow, James 2 comes to mind here. Faith without works is dead.
Many believe that Jesus is God, etc.,
Now if only our actions will truly reflect our belief.
Somehow, James 2 comes to mind here. Faith without works is dead.
Welcome back to your own blog, Jimmy.
Somehow, James 2 comes to mind here. Faith without works is dead.
So I think to myself maybe we should just look at actual mass attendance to answer the question. Why survey this? How could a survey be more accurate? How do we know people aren’t just parroting the answer they are supposed to give i.e. biasing the question the other way?
After all, if I believe that really is Jesus, how could I possibly miss (excepting the normal reasons, of course)?
I work with Catholic youth and I am convinced that the problem of today is not simply belief and disbelief, but simply indifference.
DING.DING.DING!
Indifference is THE answer. I think this touches on the many posts about fallen away catholics.
“Poorly catechised” is a common response.
“They know and don’t care” is what I think.
Indifference is THE answer.
CORRECTION — It is not THE answer — IT IS *THE PROBLEM*!
First, WELCOME BACK, JIMMY!
Sacra Doctrina Despite the statements of the polls, do we see this belief manifested in our churches? Well said! The deemphasization of the sacred has DEFINITELY contributed to this phenomenon of Catholics not believing in the real presence. How can they? When people walk up to receive the holy eucharist surrounded by people chatting, talking on cell-phones (not joking here), chewing gum, wearing provocative clothing etc only to receive in their hand from a well-meaning eucharistic minister, does this REALLY give the impression that this is REALLY the true body of Our Lord and Saviour? As I have heard many priests (but not enough) ask, “if you knew you were going to meet God right here, right now, would you stand up to Him eye to eye and shake His hand? Or would you kneel before Him, humbled?” Perception is everything here, and as you say, it definitely breeds the indifference, specifically in our youth, that you were talking about.
VESA, I go to a church which is a historic landmark. This means that during mass, there is always a throng of tourists in shorts, t-shirts and flip-flops making their way around the church with their cameras. Most are quiet enough, but some are just clueless. Our church has ushers (actually, usually just one now). He is a dour old man who maybe 20 years ago would have scolded or not permitted these people to enter with immodest dress, and certainly not during mass. But since the “spirit of Vatican II” took hold, a) the church does not want to lose any potential revenue through donations, which they assume the tourists will leave and b) who are WE to judge how others dress anyway? The ushers, and the church today in general are dong a VERY poor job in enforcing what should be obvious out of fear of “not being cool” or worse, “being judgemental”.
And before anyone here brands me as a prude, I have lived in Africa where some tribes people come to mass wearing almost nothing, save a blanket around their shoulders and ornamental beads. There is nothing wrong with this, as THIS is “dressing up” for them and there is nothing immodest about it. But here in the West, we have specific dress codes on what is and is not acceptable and should be held to these same standards in church. And what’s even sadder is this should not even have to be said.
I do hope you are right. My anecdotal evidence still suggests that most people use the phrase “real presence” in way that simply is not what the Church teaches. You know, the way people say something like “I completely beleive in the permance of marriage, unless things don’t work out.”
What do we do with that kind of answer? Do they believe in the permanence of marriage, or not? Same thing with real presence.
Real conversation.
Me: A lot of Catholics don’t beleive that Jesus is present in the Eucharist.
Other: Jesus is present in everyone.
Me: Yes, I know, but I mean, in a special way.
Other: Everyone is special.
That posted prematurely, I meant to add that the “Other” was the pastor of a huge parish who had just given a remarkably vague homily on these matters.
Ed, hello. I understand your sentiments, but I don’t think comparing the real presence in the sacrament of the eucharist and permanence in the sacrament of marriage is valid. One equation is substantial and the other circumstantial. Meaning in the case of the Eucharist, there is a yes or no fact at work, “is it or isn’t it comprised of substance ‘x’?” In the other, the question is one of circumstance, “is marriage permanent or not?” Meaning there are always circustances, foreseen and unforseen which can or cannot intervene with time to interfere with “permanence”. To that end, there has always been the case of annulment within the church, which identifies that while on the outside, the couple was married, the actual sacrament never existed. This is of course based on scripture in that even Our Lord said that all marriage was valid and sacred except in the case of “fornicatoris”. Ergo, what might be expected as permanent, might not turn out to be.
I just wanted to point this out. But I beleive your other point is valid, in that many people go into marriage these days EXPECTING it may not be permanent, when the opposite should be true.
“Other” sounds like “Deaf & Blind” from another thread. Have they ever been spotted together?
A.M.D.G.
I wanted to pass along a reason for hope. I just met the other day with my friend Megan who works as a missionary for the Fellowship of Catholic University Students (F.O.C.U.S.). This is a link that speaks of all the good they are doing to change the culture in this nation for the better. God love them for it!
http://www.focusonline.org/about/News%20Releases/National%20Catholic%20Register%20Sharp%20FOCUS%20December%202007.html
A question from outside – how does “the Presense” get into Eucharist?
Does that happen during the priest’s blessing of the Eucharist?
What if the priest is performing duties unworthyly?
Does the faith of the congregation and singing of hymns plays in role in this?
Does the size of the congregation or their reverence make a difference?
What if someone’s cell phone goes off during the service – does this diminish the Presense?
What is the priest forgets some of the words – does this diminish or negate the Presense?
What about those congregation that don’t have a priest, can any righteous person step forward and pronounce mass?
Is the presense stronger in the Eucharist when the Pope says the blessing?
Can you any type of bread or cracker be used in the Eucharist?
I think part of the problem is not indifference but how to demonstrate what is meant by substance. The kind of definitions one finds seem to put the whole idea at odds with chemistry.
Hello California,
I think you are being genuine when asking these questions, and there is a definite answer for each of them. But my question to you is, why does any of this matter to you? What is the reason you are asking these questions? If it is to learn more about Catholicism, then I applaud your inquiries. For the best possible answer, why not go to a Catholic church and ask? There are a number of groups specifically for people seeking answers to such questions.
Good luck in your journey.
California Star,
Here is my stab at very brief answers to your questions:
A question from outside – how does “the Presense” get into Eucharist? Through an ordained priest saying the prayers of consecration. The Eucharist IS Jesus. Jesus does not come “into the Eucharist”.
Does that happen during the priest’s blessing of the Eucharist? Yes (the consecration)
What if the priest is performing duties unworthyly? Doesn’t matter as far as the Real Presence is concerned. In a sense, they always perform them unworthily.
Does the faith of the congregation and singing of hymns plays in role in this? It may help our sense of the Presence, but it doesn’t make Jesus more or less present in the Eucharist.
Does the size of the congregation or their reverence make a difference? Again, it helps us, but Jesus is truly present regardless.
What if someone’s cell phone goes off during the service – does this diminish the Presense? No.
What is the priest forgets some of the words – does this diminish or negate the Presense? There are specific words that must be said at the consecration. Otherwise the sacrament is invalid.
What about those congregation that don’t have a priest, can any righteous person step forward and pronounce mass? No. Must be an ordained priest to do the consecration. However, you don’t need to be a priest to distribute the Eucharist, just to do the consecration.
Is the presense stronger in the Eucharist when the Pope says the blessing? No.
Can you any type of bread or cracker be used in the Eucharist? No. Must be unleavened wheat bread. There may be other restrictions.
Hello John E. For more information on your comments, please see this Article.
I heard somewhere that “Real Presence” was a term originally used by Anglo-Catholics who didn’t want to sound too Roman Catholic by endorsing transubstantiation. Any truth to this? If so, ought its roots impact how Catholics use the term?
Hi California,
Let me add that there is only one Mass eternally celebrated in Heaven and that during a valid earthly rite an angel substitutes the earthly bread and wine for Our Lord’s body and blood, although it’s nature remains veiled. That’s my understanding. All the important workings are accomplished by God. The worldly details distract us because we cannot see what is really happening. Many Saints have had visions of the infant Jesus in the Host or of angels at Mass, but that is a special grace.
Hello Kevin,
You may have gotten that concept from an article posted on catholic.com sometime ago (I personally don’t particularly like or respect that site for many reasons, so I won’t post the link to it). The long and short is that to a Catholic, “Real Presence” means transubstantiation, as you say. But in other “christian” sects, the term has been misused, twisted, bastardized as much the word “Christian” itself. It is a perfectly valid phrase and concept in the English language (which as I mentioned before, is very theologically imprecise). But often taken out of context and coopted by others outside the Catholic faith to justify their positions on the subject. And by the way, any Catholic who doesn’t want to “sound too Roman Catholic” has serious issues.
Memphis, I have never heard of angels substitute the earthly bread and wine for Our Lord’s body. I have seen pictures of the angels “assisting” in the mass (this comes from Revelation) in missals etc, but no reference to what you just said.
Also, I have never heard there is an eternal mass being said in heaven either. It doesn’t seem that in heaven there would be any need for a liturgy, since there is no one needing salvation up there. Do you have any materials or references here? Thanks.
Eucharistic Prayer I:
“Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing.”
John E. yes, as I stated, that comes directly from Revelation 8:3 – 8:4. But it doesn’t say anything about angels doing the substitution of the species of bread and wine into body and blood. Like I said, I have never heard this before. Do you have any reference to it? Or for the other comment Memphis made about an eternal mass being said in heaven? thanks.
deusdonat, I don’t you think you understood my post; maybe someone can point it out better. i’m saying, people can, and in religion often do, use the same words with terribly different understandings of them. so a survey on a questions like this (whether the results are good or bad) is unreliable.
also, and i touch on this lightly, but it has come up up: strictly speaking –someone, correct me if I’m wrong– I suggest that “transubstantiation” is a philosophical accounting for the miracle of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Provided one defends the Real Presence, one can offer other philosophical accountings of the Real Presence.
ps: any suggestion that angels are responsible in any way for the confection of the Eucharist at Mass is totally, totally, wrong.
My understanding is that the Church does not require her members to believe in transubstantiation. It’s just Aristotelian philosophical language used in the Latin tradition in order to describe the miracle that must be believed by all Catholics.
JohnE, I agree with all your answers, except the last is too strong. Leavened bread can be used, and is in the East.
deusdonat, i have looked at some other of your posts. i’m not looking to do a put down here, but if you “have never heard there is an eternal mass being said in heaven” etc., (and what that all means) I really think you would do better to post questions than to attmptt to give analysis of liturgy. kind regards, edp.
Ed, I think I understand your meaning now.
And as for your subsequent comments re angels, I agree with you, as I have not ever heard this before. Neither have I ever heard of an eternal liturgy/mass in heaven. But I’d like to find out from Memphis where this came from.
Also, I have never heard there is an eternal mass being said in heaven either.
Given the fact that Jesus is a divine, eternal being, His act of the Eucharistic celebration the first time it was offered would be an eternal act; thus, I, myself, would argue that there is an eternal Mass taking place with Jesus being the High Priest.
Scott Hahn, in his book, “The Lamb’s Supper”, posits that the Book of Revelation describes the eternal mass that occurs in Heaven.
deosdonat,
You might also keep in mind that the sacrifice of Jesus is an eternal sacrifice — that which we all take part in during each and every Mass.
That is, contrary to some protestant misunderstanding and propoganda, we do not “re-crucify” Jesus.
VESA, I understand what you are saying, but once again, I have never heard this as Catholic doctrine. Can you point me towards anything mentioning this?
ED, while I repect your opinion on the subject of the potential for “real presence” interpretation, I find your analytical skills to be a bit off so far. And rather than sniping and making a comment such as if I “have never heard there is an eternal mass being said in heaven” etc….I really think you would do better to post questions than to attmptt to give analysis of liturgy.” you could have simply corrected me or guided me against error by POSTING A SOURCE, which is all I asked for.
Again, I have never heard of the church stating there is a “mass eternally celebrated in heaven”. If you are saying this is Catholic docrine, then please provide your source. If not, then you have no right to make such “recommendations” of what I should or shouldn’t post.
I caught John’s post before you did, and CHARITABLY posted a link to guide him to the appropriate source regarding uleavened bread. Maybe charity is something you would “do well” to exercise in greater quantity?
Regardless, one more (and final) time; if you are anyone can quote anything re an eternal mass being said in heaven I would love to read it.
So many points…
First, I often caution my students about accepting the results of any “science”, including social science, until it has been verified by other independent studies. Wow, one poll in 1991 and everyone reacts. I hate to say it, but, wow, one poll in 2007 and the same result in the opposite direction. This is not how science is done.
I understand the mathematics of sampling and statistics, but as one of my math professors in graduate school said, “you can’t draw a line through a single data point.” This study should be done by sociologists who specialize in religious studies who know how to ask non-biased questions. It should be done over time so that cultural influences can be tracked. For example, it would have been interesting to take the same poll two months before and after The Passion of the Christ opened.
What we want, hopefully, is to tease out the factors which lead at least some of the Catholic population to either misunderstand or deny the Real Presence. Is it apathy? Is it poor catechesis? Is it the pull of the material world and an misunderstanding of how the scientific method plays into understanding it? Is it the presence of sin? Are the factors synergistic?
Does the Vatican have a group that studies these things?
Sacra Doctrina said:
“I work with Catholic youth and I am convinced that the problem of today is not simply belief and disbelief, but simply indifference.”
I have worked with Catholic youth, as well (as a teacher in a private parochial teacher, some years ago).. These students were very reverent and understood the Real Presence, very well. Indifference implies a lack of directed energy towards an end. Most kids, today, do have ends in sight,and they do have the energy to pursue them (as Sacra pointed out), but they seem to be ephemeral ends — material benefits, prestige, “feeling good,” etc. This may be one reason why they do not understand the Real Presence: some parts of society has gone to great lengths (especially, sadly, the educational system, in my opinion), to create a here-and-now attitude among children. They have gone to great lengths to make the children feel distracted.
It is often said that life is more complicated today than it was fifty years ago. Hogwash. Socrates would have been able to adapt relatively easily, even today, because the important questions have not changed since his time. They have only been covered over by a continuously changing set of meaningless questions that demand an immediate response that, nevertheless, are of little importance. Children know this, instinctively. They know they have been conned, but lack the experience to know how to verbalize it or defend against it as an adult might. This has had the effect of making them feel displaced and is one of the factors which Eric Hoffer identified as contributing to a “True Believer” mentality. I do not mean a true believer in the real presence, but of any passing fad that will make them feel anchored, for a time. The problem is that time always runs out for these material anchors and so they find something else. The youth today are restless, in many cases.
What has been left out: they are not being exposed to things that relate to the eternal. They are not being made sensitive to Truth (look at Postmodern ideas and how they have infiltrated education), Beauty (see Tim J.’s post, above about art), Proper Relation of Man among his peers (Planned Parenthood, Culture of Narcissism, anyone?), History (instant punditry on tv).
There is hope, but it will only turn around when a true reverence of the eternal is restored. The Eucharist is our one connection to eternity in this life. If people could understand why that is the case or Who makes it the case, then they might begin to understand why the Eucharist is so unique.
There is so much more to say, but I think I will let other people have the floor.
The Chicken
deosdonat,
Are you denying that the sacrifice offered at Mass is not the very same sacrifice offered by Our Lord at Calvary?
If so, you are not Catholic in the least!
VESA, how you ever came to that odd and completely scurrilous conclusion is beyond me. I’m not going to even dignify that with an answer.
And still, you have no source to point me or anyone here towards ANY doctrine stating there is “one eternal mass” being said in heaven. Too bad you need to resort to insult and accusation rather than backing up your comments. Doesn’t say much for your character.
Another take here on whether you will find the Eucharist or Mass celebrated in heaven.
Read from the Successor of Peter!
“This unique and eternal sacrifice is made truly present in the Sacrament of the Altar. In truth, The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice (CCC, 1367).”
– Lumen Gentium
Link:
Lumen Gentium
VESA I guess you don’t understand the concept between the mass/liturgy and sacrifice of the eucharist. The sacrifice, which is eternal, and NO ONE IS DISPUTING THIS, is only one aspect (although the main one) of the liturgy, which is also comprised of supplication, scripture, thanksgiving etc.
I would like to thank “Anon” for posting what I believe and have been taught is the correct response: St. Thomas Aquinas on the Eucharist; Mass in heaven? No!.
Now, for the others here who have resorted to lower tactics to mask their own wayward understanding of the subject, can you please stop with the name-calling, insinuations and defamation? It is only exposing your own ignorance here.
thank you.
John E. yes, as I stated, that comes directly from Revelation 8:3 – 8:4. But it doesn’t say anything about angels doing the substitution of the species of bread and wine into body and blood. Like I said, I have never heard this before. Do you have any reference to it?
My apologies — I did not mean this as an argument in support of the statement that angels are responsible for this. The Eucharistic prayer was what came to mind as being misunderstood in order to make such a statement.
Or for the other comment Memphis made about an eternal mass being said in heaven? thanks. Not off hand, but if the celebrant prays that “…your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven…”, then there must be an altar in heaven. If there’s no Mass in heaven, what’s the altar for?
Where in my posts did I even utter Mass in Heaven?
Also, you seem to take issue with so-called insinuations, defamation, name-calling from other posts except your own.
Wow, one poll in 1991 and everyone reacts. I hate to say it, but, wow, one poll in 2007 and the same result in the opposite direction. This is not how science is done… This study should be done by sociologists who specialize in religious studies who know how to ask non-biased questions. It should be done over time so that cultural influences can be tracked.
This was not about polls in 1991 or 2007. Rather, “American Catholics Today presents trends in American Catholic opinion from 1987 to 2005, using four identical surveys.”
According to this article, “There were four surveys carried out by the Gallup Organization in six-year intervals” (’87, ’93, ’99 and ’05), notably “always in the weeks immediately following Easter.” “The first survey in the spring of 1987 was carried out in anticipation of Pope John Paul II’s second visit to the United States. Our fourth survey was carried out following his death just after this past Easter and coincident with the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the papacy as Benedict XVI.” The 2005 phone survey had a “sample size of 875 and a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.”
As to sociologists, “William V. D’Antonio earned a doctorate from Michigan State University and has held faculty positions at Michigan State, 1957-59; Notre Dame, 1959-71 (professor and chair 1966-71); University of Connecticut, 1971-82 (professor and chair 1971-76). He was American Sociological Association Executive Officer, 1982-91, and has served as Visiting Research Professor at The Catholic University of America, 1993;-present. He is coauthor of eight books and coeditor of four books. With Sulpician Fr. Anthony Pogorelc, he is completing a two-year study of Voice of the Faithful.”
sorry, dd. all the nuance of speech is lost in comboxes, and one can only post in printed words. if you take my post to mean more than what i expressly stated it to be, well, what can ui do? the fact is, though, you are, or were, attempting analysis of matters that is beyond your ken (whether that statement is welcomed or not), and for the sake of others reading, i will correct you and suggest better things. you may disregard me entirely of course. cheers either way.
John, First, thanks for the clarification.
Second, the matter has already been put to rest. Please see the link above.
Third, as I mentioned, that offeratory prayer comes directly from Revelation- which is nothing if not full of allegory. The “altar” being described is not necessarily corporeal, as we simply do not have that kind of understanding of heaven. While Muslims may believe they can eat, drink, and above all have sex in heaven, we simply do not share that doctrine.
In John 14:6, Our Lord states, “In my father’s house there are many mansions”. And I would challenge you to find any priest alive who would say this is to be taken as a literal substantive structure residing in some very large zip-code in heaven. It does however convey a meaning through physical realities that we humans can best understand. The same holds true with the altar in heaven.
There is, certainly, a connection between the heavenly liturgy and the eternal sacrifice of the Mass, as Cardinal Arinze points out in THE HOLY EUCHARIST UNITES HEAVEN AND EARTH.
But some food for thought. Christ is really, but not physically, present in the Eucharist. His mode of existence in heaven is different than the mode of His existence in the Eucharist. Cardinal Dulles explains what St. Thomas Aquinas has to say about the two different modes of existence here:
The Mass is a foreshadowing of, and a real participation in, the heavenly liturgy. But since Christ is present naturally at the heavenly liturgy, and not eucharistically, and not eucharistically, I assume it is technically correct to say that the heavenly liturgy is not a Mass, properly speaking.
The Mass is a foreshadowing of, and a real participation in, the heavenly liturgy. But since Christ is present naturally at the heavenly liturgy, and not eucharistically, and not eucharistically, I assume it is technically correct to say that the heavenly liturgy is not a Mass, properly speaking.
Esquire:
Thanks for that clarification.
ESQUIRE, neither Arinze or Aquinas has mentioned the concept or said the words “Heavenly Liturgy”. You did.
VESA, Where in my posts did I even utter Mass in Heaven?
I guess you can add “short memory” among your issues. You wrote: I, myself, would argue that there is an eternal Mass taking place with Jesus being the High Priest.
Posted by: Vesa | Jan 14, 2008 2:37:07 PM
Well, argue what you want, but it is contrary to Catholicism. As Aquinas states, there is no eucharistic sacrifice in heaven, which means there is no liturgy. Case closed.
ED, the fact is, though, you are, or were, attempting analysis of matters that is beyond your ken
Prove it. I have corrected you twice and stated nothing contrary to Catholic doctrine. So, I would suggest you are wrong (yet again) here, in that you are not worthy or capable of making such an assessment.
for the sake of others reading, i will correct you and suggest better things.
LOL! Please show me where you have “corrected” me anywhere? I corrected the errant analogy of two sacraments and corrected the wayward assumption of an eternal liturgy in heaven. You did not say you espouse this wayward teaching, but neither did you deny it. Maybe you simply didn’t know the answer either way?
Either way, while you may wish to wear your credentials on your sleave in the hopes it may help you win an argument, you simply do not know who I am or my credentials. So, I invite you to show me one post or statement I have made contrary to church doctrine to put this matter to rest.
I stated previously that I had never heard of an “eternal mass being said in heaven” simply because this is NOT church teaching. Never has been. I wanted to understand the SOURCE of this teaching, which could have come from apocrypha, an old-wives tale, or someone’s own opinion, which is why I have consistently been asking for sources. In the future, if you cannot provide any substantive or meaningful support or evidence for what you are saying, I would suggest you “would do well” to find some, in your phraseology.
VESA, Where in my posts did I even utter Mass in Heaven?
I guess you can add “short memory” among your issues. You wrote: I, myself, would argue that there is an eternal Mass taking place with Jesus being the High Priest.
Posted by: Vesa | Jan 14, 2008 2:37:07 PM
For some reason, I cannot find where “Mass in Heaven” is specified here.
I guess one of us has a reading issue among other things.
Well, argue what you want, but it is contrary to Catholicism. As Aquinas states, there is no eucharistic sacrifice in heaven, which means there is no liturgy. Case closed.
Again, see the previous.
By the way, how remarkable you are in your insinuations, defamation and name-calling.
I guess so long as it is you doing all these things, it is okay.
Might be one of the defining characteristics of your catholicism.
deusodonat,
ESQUIRE, neither Arinze or Aquinas has mentioned the concept or said the words “Heavenly Liturgy”. You did.
Cardinal Arinze certainly speaks of the “heavenly liturgy” in the article I linked (fourth paragraph contains one such reference), as do countless magisterial documents. I’m not sure what your point is.
(Perhaps you should re-read my post; I thought I was agreeing with you. But if you are denying that there is a heavenly liturgy, then I most certainly am not.)
From
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, for example:
VESa, your post was in response to the one you quoted, which specifically mentioned mass in heaven, so it was of course implied. LOL! You must have a circus background, because you sure know how to back-peddle. And you also said very clearly to me “If so, you are not Catholic in the least!” Tell me this is not a vitriolic insinuation on your part. Your words do not inspire charity or virtue, so I’m going to exercise enough for both of us by making this my last post to you.
Esquire my apologies as I wrote too quickly and my comment meant to be more like “You said it!” as in “Amen!” since YOU were the one quoted/summarizing the point as I was agreeing with YOU : )
And once again, and I’m going to make this the last time, since the point has already been made, there is no eternal mass in heaven. the “liturgy” being described, is NOT the eucharistic liturgy/mass we experience here on earth. St Thomas said it, Arinze said it, you know it, I know it, and hopefully now everyone here knows it. So, once again, thank you for posting the links.
Catholics aren’t the only ones who believe in the “Heavenly Liturgy”, Esquire.
The Eastern Orthodox do as well:
For some details of two polls which supported the alleged “only a third of Catholics believe in the Real Presence” “myth” may read this article from 2001, which describes a 1992 Gallup poll “commissioned by the Reverend Peter Stravinskas, a well-known Catholic apologist and [then] editor of The Catholic Answer” (not to be confused with Catholic Answers) and another poll by Times/CBS in 1994. Also described are other studies done in 1994, 1995, 1997, etc. which, like the present study, seemingly indicate the opposite.
And you also said very clearly to me “If so, you are not Catholic in the least!” Tell me this is not a vitriolic insinuation on your part.
The only difference between my post and yours is that I made mine explicit while yours insinuated such hostile accusations.
… of course, your hostility was ultimately revealed by your subsequent comments, no less.
In John 14:6, Our Lord states, “In my father’s house there are many mansions”. And I would challenge you to find any priest alive who would say this is to be taken as a literal substantive structure residing in some very large zip-code in heaven. It does however convey a meaning through physical realities that we humans can best understand.
Agreed.
The same holds true with the altar in heaven.
Please continue. What is the allegorical meaning of the altar in heaven?
While I would say that many who go to Church do believe in transubstantiation they fail to understand the dynamic and consequence. If most did, the confession lines would be a lot longer and religious and priestly vocations would be flooding the church. Knowing that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ is only the beginning not an end in and of itself.
If we were to fully undertand the dynamic of what it is we receive, we would be much more attentive to how we receive and state of our souls upon reception. The words of I Cor 11:21-30 would be etched into our minds and give us pause in how we live. The more we understood the dynamic of what is happening, the more the transcendant aspect of liturgy would dawn on us and the subsequent respect and awe that would descend. The more we understood, the greater we would see the need for access to the Eucharist, affecting, thus, both our sight on Eucharistic Adoration and the necessity for men to be set aside so that that sacramental presence might be as constant and broad as the seas.
Knowledge of what the Blessed Sacrament is and adhering to the obedience of faith and action it entails must go hand in hand.
John, same as the previous statement. It could be some physical structure in heaven made of gold and precious stones by which Jesus is all dressed up in high-priests’ clothes saying words in an audible language while angels and cherubs flutter in and out carrying incense, OR it could mean the most “holy of holies”, i.e. the most divine “place” one can be to worship God in His presence once we are in heaven.
Either way, we won’t really know until we get there…
Dear Little Bird,
Thanks for providing the information. The article cited in Jimmy’s post alluded to the American Catholics Today book, but I did not examine it. My point was not to criticize the work of sociologist (okay, I may have sounded critical and I did overreach in my statements) — as I mentioned, I did cede the work to their hands, so I do realize that sociologists do good work — but I was not aware of how much they had already done. I do not mean to criticize people who do the work. If I were critical, I am sorry.
If you have had time to scan the contents of the various studies, are their any trends or is the data all over the place ? I wish I could get access to the raw data so that I could so some work on it.
By the way, are you, perhaps, my long lost son/daughter, Little Bird 🙂
The Chicken
Good grief: replace(their, there).
This correction brought to you by the Grammar Impaired Mask Chicken.
The Chicken
Little Bird brings you some of the information online here (note the figures and tables at the bottom of the page): http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005c/093005/093005m.php
Well put, Fr Bill P.
“Even the demons believe [in Transubstantiation] — and shudder” James 2:19.
I encourage everyone to look at the page Little Bird linked to above, especially the charts, as he/she mentioned (sorry LB, don’t know your gender). I fixed the link for clickability.
The article is frightening, whene I read statements like this”
“The most interesting feature in the next two items about being a “good Catholic” is that there is a similar upward slope of the response patterns among all the generations. Now even the pre-Vatican II Catholics say you can be a good Catholic without getting married in the church, and 70 percent say you can be a good Catholic without going to Mass every week. At least three out of four Catholics in the other cohorts agree.”
The Chicken
I agree, Fr. Bill. I would bet that far fewer than 81 percent of Catholics believe that there’s any significant likelihood they will go to Hell (or perhaps event that Hell exists at all). And although a poll could never measure this, they probably have less of an understanding of the glories of Heaven than they could, or than previous generations did. If those perceptions would change, then belief in the Real Presence would become much more important to people.
Just looked at the info posted by Little Bird. And speaking of poorly worded questions: did the researchers really give respondents an either/or choice between individuals and the Church authorities as “having the final say” on abortion and contraception? Honestly, I’m not sure what I’d say if given that choice; it makes it sound as if the Church authorities could just decide tomorrow that either of those things were okay. I thought God had the final say. If the question was really asked the way it’s being reported, you can mark me down for “none of the above.”
I have to agree with francis03; those are some miserably worded questions. Personally, I’d agree that it’s possible to be a good Catholic without getting married in the church, because otherwise you’re kind of short shrifting the people who aren’t married AT ALL, aren’t you? I doubt it’s what the pollster meant, of course, but still it’s badly worded. Now if only we could have a clearly-worded poll to update on the often-cited but never satisfactorily explained “Only 4% of Catholics use licit methods for not conceiving.” Because I don’t believe in that one for a second.
As promised, here are the questions to the 1992 Gallup poll. Actually, there were only three questions in the poll. I’ll list the questions only. If anyone is interested in a Word document of the survey and the summary, then please email me. My email address is accessible by clicking on my name.
I won’t post the whole thing as formatting it for the combox is more trouble than it’s worth.
1. How often do you receive Holy Communion–daily. weekly. monthly. annually or less often than that?
1 Daily
2 Weekly
3 Monthly
4 Annually
5 Less often
6 NEVER (VOLUNTEERED)
7 DON’T KNOW
8 REFUSED
2. Do you generally receive Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand?
1 On the tongue
2 In the hand
3 DON’T KNOW
4 REFUSED
3. Which one of the following statements about Holy Communion, do you think best reflects your belief. [READ]
1 When receiving Holy Communion, you are really and truly receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine. OR
2 When receiving Holy Communion, you are receiving bread and wine, which symbolize the spirit and teachings of Jesus and in so doing are expressing your attachment to His Person and words. OR
3 When receiving Holy Communion, you are receiving bread and wine, in which Jesus is really and truly present. OR
4 When receiving Holy Communion, you are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, which has become that because of your personal belief
5 NONE OF THE ABOVE (VOLUNTEERED)
6 DON’T KNOW
7 REFUSED
First this from Deusdonat:
“VESA I guess you don’t understand the concept between the mass/liturgy and sacrifice of the eucharist. The sacrifice, which is eternal, and NO ONE IS DISPUTING THIS, is only one aspect (although the main one) of the liturgy, which is also comprised of supplication, scripture, thanksgiving etc.”
Then later this:
“Well, argue what you want, but it is contrary to Catholicism. As Aquinas states, there is no eucharistic sacrifice in heaven, which means there is no liturgy. Case closed.”
From Abott Vonier’s A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist, which comes highly recommended by Cardinal Dulles, Aidan Nichols, O.P., Peter Kreeft and Richard John Neuhaus, among others:
And he has this to add with respect to the heavenly altar:
I’m still trying to understand the statistics from the ACT polls. Some of the questions reveal very poor wording, but some of them also show poor design. Consider the following results (first number = pre-VII, second VII, third Post VII (Gen X), fourth Millenial (Gen Y):
Sacraments such as Eucharist are “very important” 82 75 74 77
Sacraments are essential 63 52 51 38
Have married in the Church 90 70 66 75
Attend Mass weekly or more 60 35 26 12
Now, this is just loony. No one asks if sacraments are very important and then immediately asks an intensified version of the same question. This primes the answer to be polarized, higher or lower.
Also, how does one reconcile the fact that the Eucharist is very important with the fact that Church attendance is so low? Where else do people think that they are going to get the, “very important,” Eucharist? When I start seeing inconsistencies in answers like this, it would seem that either the poll is badly designed, as this question (the money question for this post) certainly is, or people are really so totally screwed up with knowing the faith or so illogical as to not see the contradiction in their answers.
The pollsters also notice that the percentages change with time for the pre-VII segment without looking into changing demographics. The population is getting smaller and finding a representative homogeneous population might also be less possible.
There is no cross-correlation with family size and pro-life issues, etc.
These are interesting questions and they deserve a better study.
Basically, I have to disagree with Fr. Neuhaus, this study proves nothing. It is more subtly poorly designed than the earlier one, perhaps, but I think that if Brian’s information is correct, then it would seem that the questions from 1992 were much clearer (and theologically subtle) than the ones from the ACT studies.
The Chicken
ELIJAH, as you are just joining the conversation, you may not have seen the other posts. So, to get you up to speed, we (anon, myself and Esquire) have already shown in church teaching that there is no “Eucharistic Sacrifice” in heaven. Therefore, there is no “mass” or “eternal mass”, which was the point. Liturgy comes from Latin “litūrgia” which simply means “public worship”. We WILL spend eternity in liturgy with God, so there will be liturgy in heaven. Although we have already stated this several times, I will qualify my earlier statement to the other poster you quoted from such that you will be up to speed:
“Well, argue what you want, but it is contrary to Catholicism. As Aquinas states, there is no eucharistic sacrifice in heaven, which means there is no [eucharistic]liturgy. Case closed.”
I hope this makes sense to you now.
It’s late and I need to get to bed, but this whole issue really gets me angry. I do highly interdisciplinary research in some foundational areas and I sit on panels with sociologists, psychologists, computer scientists, etc. These sorts of survey questionnaires are used all of the time by these people (I do other sorts of work) and the quality of their questionnaires varies. We spend a lot of time trying to understand what the data means.
This study is not a very good one, in my opinion. What does a question like:
For instance, 81 percent say that “belief that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist” is essential in their understanding of the Catholic faith.
really mean? What does “their Catholic faith” mean? Do they own the Faith? Is it essential to THE Faith or only their understanding of it? Do they mean that they understand that it is a part of the Faith?
More than that, what test designer who is an orthodox Catholic would ask such an ambiguously worded question? Jesus is not present in the Eucharist; Jesus is the Eucharist. Heck, any Lutheran (and perhaps the same percentage) would answer that, ““belief that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist” is essential in their understanding of the Lutheran faith.
The question really does mean that people have only a fuzzy notion of what the Eucharist is. I would guess that if they had asked the same question in two different parts of the questionnaire and the first time used the word Eucharist and the second time used the term, Real Presence, they would get radically different percents. This would be a good way to find out if people really believe in the Real Presence or whether they are responding to a familiar term.
I’m afraid that the test design is so flawed that the data is useless.
I realize that Dr. D’Antonio is a noted sociologist, but he is not the only one who does research. Science is science and it must be consistent and logical. I do not see good research design, here. This is my opinion, based on the limited data I have, but the article posted by Little Bird was written by the same man and one assumes he incorporated his data.
This is my last post on this topic, except to apologize, in advance, if I have said something wrong or judgmental (I probably have). It is just that this is supposed to be science of some sort, but to frame the questions in the way he has and come to the conclusions that he does demands a response. I wish I had access to more of the data, but I would not have designed the questionnaire like this, anyway, so it is just as well.
Can you tell that this issue has me worked up?
The Chicken
Dear Deusdonat,
Don’t forget to close the bold. There, that should do it. My post above shows up in bold on my computer. I was not that angry.
The Chicken
Chicken LOL. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa. \_0_/
(that’s me in supplication to you). So solly.
“Well, argue what you want, but it is contrary to Catholicism. As Aquinas states, there is no eucharistic sacrifice in heaven, which means there is no [eucharistic]liturgy. Case closed.”
Deosdonat,
Please proceed in contradicting Catholic Doctrine.
Here is a Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture for Hebrews VIII:
“Christ could not be a priest without a victim to offer. Christ must have offered a sacrifice bleonging to and bringing him into that celestial sphere. Sacrifice is the correlative of priesthood, for every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices (i.e., oblations of all kinds as in 5:1).
Christ could not be a priest without without having a victim to offer. ‘Yea rather, if he were on earth, he would not be a priest, because the legal victims were being offered by priests of a tribe to which he did not belong’.
His sacrifice had therefore to be offered a consummated outside of the terratrial sphere of Mosaism. The Levitical priests do not belong to the heavenly sphere, for they serve a sanctuary which is only an image and shadow of the heavenly realities. This is intimated in the history of the institution of the tabernacle itself, Ex 40, for the oracle addressed to Moses said: ‘See that thou make all things according to the pattern shown to thee on the mount’.
The rabbis imagined a design in fire or light shown to Moses in vision and visually representing the tabernacle as it was to be set up. The Epistle, however, indicates that Moses received some revelation of the Messianic and heavenly realities which his Hebrew tabernacle was to foreshadow.”
Who let the harpies out?
And from my friend, Ludwig Ott, A TRUE CATHOLIC — unlike the Protestant Likes of deusdonat:
“…a true heavenly sacrific of Christ in which the Transfigured Christ perpetually offers Himself to the heavenly Father.
In the consecreation the celestial High Priest and with Him His sacrifice, enter earthly time and space. By the separate forms, the inward sacrificial act, which is identical with the Sacrifice of the Cross, is made visible, represented ad extra.”
VESA, by you calling my a Protestant you are bearing false witness and sinning against your immortal soul. If you’re comfortable with that, then so be it.
Esquire,
You are gentleman and a scholar.
Take care and God bless,
Inoocencio
J+M+J
After having read many of the posts above (from catholics?} it would seem as if a great deal of catechizing might be necessary among (educated???) catholics. The notion of “sacramentally” present– really present, but ssacramentally — does not seem to have been understood. Same goes with the sacramental reenactment of the one sacrifice of Christ which is once for all and eternal (see “Hebrews”. But what do I know? Not much. Not too many read the declarations of the Council of Trent anymore. Is that a blessing or a curse?
Jacobus
Is Jimmy Akin really present in his blog?
One thing is for sure about this issue. It is not a new one in the Church. We can take some comfort in that. In fact, a pretty influential Christian writer talked about these issues in a letter he wrote to a group of Christians in Corinth. His name is Paul. He mentioned something about being guilty of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ if we came to the meal (Eucharist) unworthily.
deusdonat,
I am intrigued by your remark that there is no eternal liturgy in heaven. i’ve never given it any thought before. i understand what you mean when you say there’s no one needing salvation in heaven. There’s also the problem of which gospel cycle they are using (year A, B, or C) but seriously, the liturgy is also how we worship God. If there’s no liturgy in heaven, how is God worshipped?
Wow I didn’t expect that comment about mass eternally said in heaven would generate such a buzz. I read it in a book with the very unimpressive title “The Seven Secrets of the Eucharist”, although it has an imprimatur. What can I say I often read the lighter stuff. That said, may I add that I’m happily corrected if some detail doesn’t fit in the teaching of the Church. I expect that the phrase eternal liturgy might have been more accurate. The authors intent and mine was to point out that our mass today is part of a world wide Mass unified through time and space made possible by heavenly grace.
Obviously my understanding of the technical details may be flawed, but I don’t expect to ever comprehend every detail in this life. I don’t expect Christ will administer a theological pop quiz on the last day either. I hope to develop the faith of a child instead (if it is His will, of course).
By the way this site has a great story on the real presence:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
Francis : ) I understand it’s hard to follow all these posts, but I’ve said it like 6 times now: No eucharist in heaven, no eternal mass in heaven. There IS eternal liturgy (worship) in heaven, but it is not eucharistic liturgy, as Memphis points out above.
Alles klar?
Most of the questions here do show a lack of catechesis. I do not blame the writers for that.
So, I will try to expalin as best as I can in the words I use for my own parish.
First, remember when we talk of the things of heaven and God that we can only speak by anaolgy in that our minds are not capable of comprehending things not limited to time and space. God and the things of heaven (and hell for that matter) fit into the heading of things not limited to time nor space. Some of these analogies are a matter of divine revelation though, so we can trust the basic truth they wish to impart.
Second, liturgy, in the broad sense, is the activity of the Body of Christ in which God is gloriified and we are sanctified. It brings about a radical union for those who are both open to the union (not preventd because of mortal sin) and participate in the union. We, as Catholics, believe that this union transcends time and space. For example we speak of the Body of Christ being made up of the Church Militant, Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant. After the Last Judgement there will only be the Church Triumphant…all of the Body of Christ will be radically joined eternally to the TRiune God. Until then, the Church Militant (us) and the Church Suffering (the souls in purgatory) exist and the common bond we share is Christ. For us in the Church Militant, the bond is formed and strengthened through the sacramental life of the Church. The constant bond is forged by our participation in the Eucharist (which is far more than merely going to Mass…it is using the grace given through the Mass) and the effects of which can be extended to the Church Suffering as they are purified as gold so that they may enter before the presence of God for all eternity.
AS to the Eucahrist itself, it is a direct participation in the one sacrifice of Christ. Hebrews tells us that there can only be one sacrifice. WE need to be precise in what we refer to the Mass as: it is not a re-enactment. The problem is that our senses fail to pick up what is fully happening. IN the Eucharist, something called the Eternal Now…or zachar in Hebrew…happens; past, present and future collapse into one moment so that the saving effects of the Eucharist might be extended to us right here and right now. This is so, because we are still in constant need of the grace and union offered to us through the Sacrifical Meal of the Cross. When the end of time comes, the purpose of the Cross will have come to its ultimate fulfillment; but the union forged will be constant. Heaven is an ongoing liturgy in which we are constantly in complete union; God gives us his love continually and we return that love continually. This is why division, death, decay will be known no more.
But the here and now becomes the proving ground as to our intent and desire to participate in this divine eternal liturgy. This is why, for example, we find it mortally sinful for a person who is able but choses not to go to Sunday Mass. It is also why we consider one who is in a state of mortal sin not eleigible to receive the Eucharist in that they have, of their own choice, have seperated themselves from the unoin; the reception then beomes an act of blasphemy and sacrilege in that the person is trying to fake the union or holds the union in contempt. They are refutations of the union and a supreme act of arrogance that denies that one is in need of God’s grace.
God makes sensible to us, through the elements of bread and wine, the great mystery they become as the Body and Blood of Christ. When I speak those words of consecration, it is not I who speak, for my words change nothing. My soul was changed at ordination so that Christ could speak those words through me. You’ll notice in the Eucharistic Prayer at the time of the Institution Narrative that both the tense (goes from past to present) and person (3rd person & 2nd Person to 1st person) change. (notice that when it comes to absolution during confession as well)Hence we are directly participating in the one Eucharist. Hence, in the Mass, the transcendant God becomes immenently present. But the one sacrifice resides with the one sacrificed and as is extended to us through our engaging in Mass time and time again.
The more we make this mystery present, the closer the union. That we must restrict the sacraments because of the lack of men coming foward in obedience to serve as priest is a great scandal of this age. It is the work of the devil. I cannot imagine it being the will of God to starve His flock. If we understood the full dynamic of what is going on, we could not fill up our seminaries fast enough with good solid Godly men.
Finally, as to what the liturgy ‘looks like’ in heaven. Again, we can only speak by analogy and based in divine revelation. Arguably, after the Last Judgement there will no longer a need for an ongoing sacrifice. The fulfillment of that object of that sacrifice…radical union…will have been accomplished for eternity. However, liturgy, as such, will far from cease in that the constant exchange of love will be eternal. How it looks we do not know, that it will be is obvious.
I have tried to word this carefully as possible. But in talking about such things it is so easy to slip into error.
One final thought, the word Eucharist comes from the greek word for thanksgiving. I would assume that thanksgiving will be present in the union. So techically to say it won’t be a ‘eucharistic liturgy’ is incorrect. But what that will mean…well, we don’t know.
FrBill, thank you so much for your clarifications!
I have tried to word this carefully as possible. But in talking about such things it is so easy to slip into error.
Yes! It is a very heady (and intangible) subject, specifically when so many words can be interchanged. Ligurgy is used in our verbage for worship or mass. Eucharist meaning the actual host, the sacrifice or thanksgiving as you state. And in my case, I should not have paraphrased at the last post saying “no eucharist in heaven” but kept in form with “no eucharistic sacrifice in heaven” specifically because there was room for misinterpretation there. Mea Culpa.
By the way, do you or are you planning on saying the Tridentine mass now that our Blessed Pope Benedict has by the grace of God facilitated its return?
Fr. Bill P,
Thank you for your wonderful explanation and tremendous example of humility and charity.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Thank you Father that was very helpful.
Father Bill,
Thank you for the very clear, careful and lucid presentation.
Thank-you, Fr. Bill P., for that excellent explanation.
I’m sure you can understand why I was against deusdonat’s statement that there is no such liturgy in heaven.
God bless you.
P.S. Please don’t feel you have to celebrate the Tridentine Mass because of deusdonat. I believe the Novus Ordo Missae is also a valid Mass unless there is no such successor of Peter these days or the Catholic Church itself is in heresy as some heretics would love folks to believe.
Actually I do plan to learn the 1962 Ritual this summer. But the norm, of course, will be the Novus Ordo. I see it as a both/and as opposed to an either/or….Two different ways of reaching the same end and celebrating the same reality. Then again, I have also toyed with the idea of being bi-ritual and learning one of the eastern rites.
Two different ways of reaching the same end and celebrating the same reality.
Indeed!
God Continue to Bless You for Your Lived Faith & Devotion to Our Lord!
FRBILL Gaudeamus in Domino! That’s WONDERFUL news! Yes, the Novus Ordo is I believe necessary at this point as it has become a cultural staple for the vast majority of Catholics, certainly of my generation.
Incidentally, there was rumour of an order awhile back that was going to form the priests to say both the Tridentine and St John Chrysostom liturgies. I don’t know how they faired or if they still exist. Either way, there have always been variations on the “Latin Liturgical Rite” (i.e. Mozarabic, Benedictine etc) so there is no reason the Novus Ordo and Tridentine liturgies cannot coexist comfortably.
Bless you for upholding the faith and sacred traditions of our church. And good luck with your studies this summer!!!!!
Fr. Bill P, your words are beautifully said.
My soul was changed at ordination so that Christ could speak those words through me.
I would like to underscore this to the back to the first Q&A about what constitutes valid Eucharist: Christ, and the rest are just trappings. I’d also like to push this line in the direction of sanctity of the Eucharist.
Post Scriptum:
This is also the reason why I won’t touch being a Eucharistic minister (or Lector) with a 10 foot pole, but will gadly be an acolyte even if I’m 5 years too old for it.
SKYGOR, I eccho your sentiments. I think most EM’s are well-meaning (and I’m not including the one’s who visit shut-ins, who are in fact doing God’s work, but rather those at mass). But I think they are far too often overused (see: misused) and may in fact be contributing to the phenomenon of what we have been reading here.
This last Christmas, I went to mass in Bellingham, WA since that’s where all my relatives living in the area went. I noticed that nearly everyone (probably 99%) took communion in the hand, from both the priest and the EM’s. There were maybe two people I saw on my way to the altar who took communion on the tongue…from the EM’S!!! I was thinking to myself, “Why did that person do that? Did they think the EM was somehow more “holy” or “worthy” to touch the host than them? Or was it maybe just instinctive?”
Regardless, it did bring me down a bit. But luckily I got a major carb high from all the Christmas food, so all was well : )
Eucharistic Prayer I
“Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing.”
In light of previous discussions and my own lack of catechesis, could someone please clarify what exactly is “this sacrifice” that the angel takes to the altar in heaven? These words occur after the words of consecration in Eucharistic Prayer I. I know in the end we receive Jesus, but I’m a little confused on the exchange going on.
It makes sense to me that the sacrifice of the Mass is not offered in heaven. That’s not really what I had in mind when it was mentioned that there is Mass in Heaven. Rather, I took it to mean whatever heavenly action is being done that we participate in whenever our temporal Mass is being offered. In the Mass, is there not a temporal participation in the eternal? Whatever that is on the eternal end was more what I for one was thinking.
Thanks for the Dr.Z podcast. I found it and the comments following it helpful, although I probably need to listen to it another time or two. Thank you also Fr. Bill for your post in the meantime.
John E.,
The sacrifice in question is the Eucharistic sacrifice. I don’t have Abbot Vonier’s book in front of me, but I think a relevant distinction he draws is between consummation and immolation. If I recall his precise wording correctly, the Eucharistic sacrifice is received and consummated in heaven, but it is not celebrated in heaven and there is no immolation in heaven.
quick skim through comments as computer down. In libes where one person thinks he’s in a video arcade, another is chatting away on cell phone, third also disruptive. Much more casual than when I was younger.
Be back when I can to be part of discussion.
There were maybe two people I saw on my way to the altar who took communion on the tongue…from the EM’S!!! I was thinking to myself, “Why did that person do that? Did they think the EM was somehow more “holy” or “worthy” to touch the host than them? Or was it maybe just instinctive?”
Why should people receiving communion not receive on the tongue when receiving from an EMHC? Better yet, why should anyone show less respect for the Eucharist in any way when receiving from an EMHC rather than an ordinary minister.
I personally prefer to show respect for the Eucharist by receiving on the tongue – it helps me to better understand and have faith in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Sacrament. Why should I deprive myself of the benefits of receiving on the tongue based on who is offering me communion?
By your logic, should a person who somehow knows that the priest saying Mass is an unrepentant sinner also not receive on the tongue? What about a host that is accidentally dropped on the floor. Surely the floor is not somehow more “holy” or “worthy” to touch the host than I am. Should I show the host less respect if it falls on the floor (hopefully I’ll never be in such a situation) than if it is offered to me by a priest or deacon.
If anything we should show the host more respect, not less, in situations where others are not respecting the Eucharist.
For the record, I would choose:
“3 When receiving Holy Communion, you are receiving bread and wine, in which Jesus is really and truly present”
What would the Catholic™ response be?
Jeffrey, I don’t think it’s 3. Transubstantiation means the substance of bread and wine no longer exist, although the accidents remain. I’d go with #1:
1 When receiving Holy Communion, you are really and truly receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine.
Brian, I fully understand your point, but the fact is, we are ALL sinners; me you the EM AND the priest, however holy or godly he may or may not be. I have taken the eucharist from some priests who I wouldn’t trust my dog with. But the fact is, regardless of whether the man in the cassoc is an unrepentant sinner, he has taken the sacrament of holy orders and annointed to validly perform the eucharistic prayer, preside over the eucharistic miracle and subsequently distribute the host. We cannot say this for the eucharistic ministers, which is why I will go all the way around the church to stand in the line where the priest is the one administering the eucharist.
As I said, I have met so many good and well-meaning EM’s. But there are really VERY FEW cases when they should be used at all. There presence is a direct consequence of two factors; a) too many people take the eucharist without being in a state of grace or even understanding what this is b) certain churches have deemphasized the sanctity of the eucharist, downgrading it to a “shared meal” that anyone can handle or partake in, so long as they call themselves Catholic (and hey, if you are the president of the US, then you even get a pass on that one). As our beloved St John Chrysostom said, “the road to hell is paved with the skulls of errant priests.” And speaking of the Eastern church (Catholic AND Orthodox), they still have a much better handle and control over distribution of the eucharist than the vast majority of Roman Catholic churches.
One of the most telling (and touching) quotes from their liturgy is, “I will not reveal Your mystery to Your enmies, nor will I give you a kiss as did Judas…”
…which is why I will go all the way around the church to stand in the line where the priest is the one administering the eucharist.
I believe with the dawn of B16’s return to Tradition, this has become more so the case.
Because of the Extraordinary Form being celebrated in our parish, there seems to be an influence of the Traditional Lating Rite that has extended onto the Novus Ordo there.
For example, as there was no Christmas Mass being said in the traditional rite, I went to attend the N.O. Christmas Mass.
A fascinating observation: it seemed virtually nobody was receiving Holy Communion from the eucharistic ministers — they were going straight to the priest — even in spite of the long line!
Could it be that reverence in the Novus Ordo will become restored and that finally the vision of Vatican II will become fulfilled wherein the N.O. Mass will finally be celebrated the way it was meant to be?
The USCCB voted on and approved a fabulous document on the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist back in 2001. It’s a great document in Q&A format. These are some of my favorites:
2. Why is the Eucharist not only a meal but also a sacrifice?
…His death was a sacrifice for our sins. Christ is “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”…
4. Does the bread cease to be bread and the wine cease to be wine?
Yes. In order for the whole Christ to be present—body, blood, soul, and divinity …
6. Are the consecrated bread and wine “merely symbols”?
… The transformed bread and wine that are the Body and Blood of Christ are not merely symbols because…
Find the document here:
http://www.usccb.org/dpp/realpresence.htm
Fr Bill,
Please concentrate on the word “sacramentally”. The Mass for me is certainly a re-presentation of the single eternal sacrifice of love by Jesus Christ. I believe I would be a heretic to believe otherwise. I am sorry if I am hurting your feelings.
Jacobus
I understand the importance of the Eucharist – at least I think I do – but I think the Church is really overemphasizing it in public displays, and even in our religious broadcasting. There is the concept of “familiarity breeds contempt”. I wish that not every time the public media report news relating to the Church would they be showing the distribution of communion. I wish that Church publications would not show almost exclusively images of the Cup & the Host. In the early days of the church there was something called the “discipline of the secret”. The Eucharist was not bandied about in the presence of unbelievers. I think that if the local TV news station goes down to the local parish to shoot some Catholic “stock footage”, they should be denied access during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Heck, even catechumens had to leave after the Liturgy of the Word. Why do we allow news reporters with video cameras? It profanes the Sacrifice.
I have to disagree Olaf. I would argue that we can not hide Christ and fulfill His mission. If we are ridiculed for it, well that’s part of the program isn’t it? Rather I think that our reverence for it should be more public and made so by denying communion to those who publicly promote grave sins such as abortion. Then those who have eyes will say: “look at the seriousness and courage of the Catholics” who defy worldly authority. It would create heightened interest in the Host and engender respect from the spiritually serious. Currently allowing the famous politician to receive despite well known abortion support creates scandal and confusion among others. Now they say: “If he can have it, do they really mean what they say about the Eucharist?”
I’m in good company here. It was pope John Paul II who displayed a Eucharistic during his travels and who declared a year of the Eucharist. Further your secrecy notion will only feed the sentiment of distrust among the non-Catholic world. Openness is welcoming while secrecy is in direct contradiction to the meaning on the term “catholic” (laid before all).
Also (I don’t mean to pick on you I know you offered this sincerely, but …) the idea that a video profaning the image really is Judaic and an absurd one for a Catholic. The reality of the Incarnation frees us to create icons of Him, crucifixes etc. St John of Damascus made the argument better than I can (maybe someone else can amplify). If video profanes then so does the Sistine Chapel because no worldly rendering can do justice to the glory of God.
Amen, Memphis Aggie.
Why should we hide the Eucharist?
Are we that ashamed of it?
deusdonat, I agree with you that EMHC’s are often used when they shouldn’t be. A typical parish should be able to quickly administer communion simply by having everyone line up parallel to the altar and have the priest go down the line like in the old days.
I still don’t understand why I should show less respect for the Eucharist when receiving from an EMHC than from a priest. The amount of respect we show has nothing to do with who is administering it. Maybe you thought people receiving on the tongue do so as a sign of respect to the person administering it, but I can’t imagine that’s why most people do it.
Do we have a right to receive communion from a priest as opposed to an EMHC, kind of like we have a right to receive communion kneeling? While I prefer to receive from a priest I’ve never changed lines or anything because I didn’t want to make a scene or cause trouble. If we have the right to receive from a priest that may factor into my decision.
BRIAN Maybe you thought people receiving on the tongue do so as a sign of respect to the person administering it
Nope nope nope nope nope. You missed the point.
Deusdonat, So what point were you trying to make in being appalled that people received communion on the tongue from EHMC’s. I’m not trying to make trouble, I agree with you that EHMC’s should be used at Mass only for truly extraordinary purposes. But like you said, I’ve completely missed your point. I have no idea what you were saying.
Were you wondering why people who choose to receive communion on the tongue would also receive from an EHMC? If that’s what you were saying, my reasoning for doing so is because even though I think my parish uses EHMC’s improperly I don’t deny the Church’s authority to give EHMC’s the ability to distribute communion. Or to put it another way – I don’t believe the position of EHMC itself is an abuse, just that the way its commonly used is an abuse.
Brian, bingo. You nailed it. And I understand your rationale. Of course I acknowledge the authority and ability of the church to allow EM’s to distribute communion. And like I said, in time of need all I can say is God bless them. But during a church service, unless there is a multitude of hundreds of people (i.e. the Pope saying mass at a stadium) clamoring for the altar, I really don’t see EM’s as necessary. And IMHO their presence at a “normal” mass is detrimental to the overall perception of the eucharistic sacrifice, especially by “Christmas and Easter” Catholics.
Maybe if people stopped going up to EM’s during communion the parish priests would take the hint?
But during a church service…
Maybe if folks started properly referred to the Mass for what it is — i.e., a MASS (AND NOT A SERVICE) — people would see the abuse of EMs that has become commonplace in many parishes.
In the early days of the church there was something called the “discipline of the secret”. The Eucharist was not bandied about in the presence of unbelievers.
That is because people valued living. Pagan Romans didn’t like the Christian “cannibals.”
“I work with Catholic youth and I am convinced that the problem of today is not simply belief and disbelief, but simply indifference.”
I think a part of this is being lulled into a sense of entitlement and instant gratification. How many kids do you know these days that don’t have cable TV/modem in their bedroom?
Add to the mix pop-porno culture and a decline in literary consumption and a true decline in critical thinking skills… Well I am reminded of a scene from “The Simpsons”:
Marge: (After something momentous about which the kids are not terribly outwardly enthused) Aren’t you kids excited?
Lisa & Bart:We’re part of the MTV generation, we experience neither highs no lows.
Marge: How does that feel?
Lisa & Bart: Eh…. So-so…
I am not sure what the answer is.
“While I prefer to receive from a priest I’ve never changed lines or anything because I didn’t want to make a scene or cause trouble.”
It has been over a decade since I have recieved from anyone but a priest or a deacon.
It isn’t all that difficult to casually switch lines without making a scene or a fuss.
I just looked at this site for the first time in a week and haven’t yet read all the comment. Therefore, if this has already been brought up, then I apologize.
I’ve got a pretty strong memory of when the that controversial poll came out in the early nineties. I was quite disgusted: not with the low level of belief in the Real Presence which the poll supposedly demonstrated, but by how deceptive the poll was.
The question posed was not whether a respondent agreed with the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Rather, it gave four different definitions of the Real Presence and asked the respondent to identify which one he agreed with. One definition was the textbook Catholic version: that Christ was present, body and blood, soul and divinity, under the appearance of bread and wine. The other definitions included those offered by Luther and Calvin some four hundred years ago; and all of them sounded quite plausible to someone who hadn’t grown up reading the Baltimore Catechism. What the poll measured, therefore, was not the degree of orthodox belief among Catholics, but how well educated they were in their beliefs.
Regarding how well educated Catholics were in their beliefs, I thought the poll seemed pretty accurate if not a little generous. My personal response was to get a copy of the Saint Joseph First Communion Catechism and start drilling my children on it.
Wow, what a long discussion. It has given me much food for thought. I’m disappointed that nobody commented on the quotes from Thomas Aquinas concerning the sacramental nature of the Eucharist, i.e. that the sacraments are for us to recieve the grace of God while we are on earth. (I’m sure someone will correct me if my paraphrase has missed the point.
MATER I think that’s a good paraphrase, and right on the money. The sacraments in one form or another allow us to commune with God, bringing us closer while here on Earth. I think this concept, plus “Faith without works is dead” seem totallly out of the grasp of Protestants.
Sorry to dredge this up from last month, but I recently noticed something in a paper by Father Robert Taft, SJ, that helps to explain something Memphis Aggie said that Deusdonat chastised Memphis Aggie for:
during a valid earthly rite an angel substitutes the earthly bread and wine for Our Lord’s body and blood, although it’s nature remains veiled.
Deusdonat had never heard of the idea that an angel is involved in the mystery of transubstantiation. I hadn’t heard anything like that before, though I figure it’s hardly impossible that an angel of God might be instrumental in this way.
Well, it turns out that this idea has been around in Catholicism for quite a long time. Here is a passage from Father Taft’s 2003 paper, “Mass Without the Consecration?”:
*****
Peter Lombard (ca. 1095-+1160), speaking of the Supplices . . . , says in his Sentences IV, 13: “It is called ‘Missa’ that the heavenly messenger might come to consecrate the life-giving body, according to the expression of the priest: ‘Almighty God, bid that this be borne by the hand of your holy angel to your altar on high . . .'”
Even more explicitly, shortly after AD 1215, John Teutonicus’ comment on the same prayer says: “‘Bid,’ that is: make. ‘Be borne,’ that is: be transubstantiated. Or: ‘be borne,’ that is be assumed, that is: be changed . . .” The inclusion of this text in the Glossa ordinaria ad Decretum Gratiani, shows how common and acceptable such a view must have been.
http://www.prounione.urbe.it/pdf/f_prounione_bulletin_n63_spring2003.pdf
*****
(“Such a view” in that last sentence means the view that the moment of consecration comes sometime after the Words of Institution. However, it would also be the case that the notion that an angel transubstantiates the oblation was common and acceptable, as that notion appears in the Glossa Ordinaria.)
So they say they do.
Either they are lying or they are the most irreverent generation ever, so bad that are capable of deicide all over again.