One of Jim McCrea's email threads recently linked this article, by Thomas Reese, SJ, discussing people's understanding of what the Real Presence means. He makes the point that medieval Scholasticism isn't really a good starting place for teaching understanding of the Eucharist, which is a mystery.
There was also this article on the NCR site, by Heidi Schlumpf, which makes the point that how question is worded makes a great deal of difference.
From the NCR article:
"...Barron used the phrase "only a nice symbol" to describe the choice of the majority of respondents. That, however, was not the wording in the Pew survey, which said simply "symbols."
In fact, Barron's wording more closely resembles the phrasing used by three sociologists of religion in a 2011 study: "The bread and wine are only symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ" (emphasis NCR's). Phrased that way, only 37% chose "only symbol" — almost half as many in the Pew study.
That discrepancy caught the attention of Mark Gray, senior research associate for the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA). He called the Pew question "poorly phrased" for failing to capture the "nuance and complexity" of church teaching — admittedly difficult to do in a brief survey question.
Gray also noted that a 2008 study found similar results to the 2011 one, with 74% of Catholics (and even a majority of other Christians) expressing belief in Real Presence when asked the yes-or-no question: "Do you believe that when people take Holy Communion, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ, or do you believe that does not happen?"
I thought both articles made some good points, however the article which most described (to me) the essence of what Eucharist is supposed to be was this article A Deadly Crash on the Feast of the Assumption, by Fr. Joe Laramie, SJ, concerning an auto accident in which his grandfather was killed, and in which he was a survivor:
"How can we find healing amid the trauma and loss? “Whoever believes in me, streams of living water will flow from within him” (Jn 7:38). The soldier pierced his heart with a lance as he hung on the cross. Out flowed blood and water, the sacraments of the church. Later, the risen Jesus invited Thomas to touch the wounds.
His wound heals us; grace and mercy pour out of his heart and into mine. Jesus has a hole in his heart. So do I. Maybe you do, too. His love can flow into my heart, and mine into his if I let it. He is the bread from heaven. But it is bread won by his blood. This is communion, life in Christ: letting others share in my pain, that I may share in his redemption. Then, somehow, we become eucharistic, a little bit at a time. I receive his body and blood into my body and blood. Then I can walk with others in their pain so they can walk with him, too."
The whole article is worth reading, both for Fr. Laramie's comments on Communion, and his moving account of grief and healing.
A side note to the discussion; one of the articles said something about the Eucharist being meant to be received, not adored. I have shared before that our parish has perpetual adoration. Of course the Mass takes precedence, which is why we don't schedule adoration during Mass times. But one can both receive and adore the Lord in the Eucharist, they aren't mutually exclusive.
A side note to the discussion; one of the articles said something about the Eucharist being meant to be received, not adored. I have shared before that our parish has perpetual adoration. Of course the Mass takes precedence, which is why we don't schedule adoration during Mass times. But one can both receive and adore the Lord in the Eucharist, they aren't mutually exclusive.
I have been seeing this. And I have been seeing calls that we should "strengthen our belief" in the Real Presence. How does one do this? It sort of reminds me of arguments that say that people should be required to believe in God.
ReplyDeleteThey thought they were asking a simple question on the survey. It's not a simple question. You are right that you can't force belief. At heart it is a relationship problem.
Delete"How does one do this?"
DeleteI don't think we do anything about it, at least not directly. My line of thought is: the Eucharist is for the already-initiated. The church's great task right now should be to invite the un-initiated and the never-initiated (back) into communion. The dogmatic definitions and theological speculations can come later.
In short - let's get past baptism before we deal with Eucharist. Just my view.
"...let's get past baptism before we deal with Eucharist."
DeleteI think you are right, Jim, all the hand-wringing notwithstanding. I think there are those in the church who are using this to push an agenda, i.e. "reforming the reform", which I don't feel is helpful at all.
They also got worked up over the poll at Pray Tell: https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2019/08/09/eucharist-polls-and-symbols/
ReplyDeleteBut I think Fr. Laramie gets closest to a useful response to the Pew study. This is a recurring subject in our Wednesday men's group, so I am loaded with thoughts. But, for openers, let me just say this:
Fr. Reese is right that "transubstantiation" is a non-starter in this era. "Substance" is what you feel -- Eeuw -- under the seat in the movie theater. I took philosophy courses when Aquinas was still the last word, and I know what it means, but people tossing it around -- with the mispronounced Latin that makes them holier than thou -- haven't a clue.
It would be nice if dogmatic theologians would not take, as their first professional action, a vow to forget that the immortal soul is contained in a body of flesh and blood. With so much "helpful" theology since the 13th Century, it is astonishing that anyone believes anything.
Transubstantiation sounds like alchemy. Maybe it gave philosophical impetus to all those folks who tried to turn lead into gold including Isaac Newton. I believe in the Real Presence but not clever explanations of it. But I do like substances. Fe, Al, Au, Na, Cl. Love 'em all.
DeleteI read the post from Pray Tell that you linked, and was surprised in a good way. I had never checked it out before; for some reason I thought it was an uber-trad site akin to Fr. Z's blog.
ReplyDeleteIt occurs to me that in addition to not understanding what transubstantiation means in the Scholastic sense, people may not understand what "mystery" means in a theological sense. If it's something they are expecting to " solve", they're going to be disappointed. Could better catechesis help? Maybe, but I actually don't think the state of catechesis is that bad. It's just that you can't pour faith into someone's ear with a funnel.
So what did the guys in your men's group think was a solution? Personally, the older I get, the more I am fine with mystery; I realize how much I am incapable of understanding.
PS, my previous comment was a reply to Tom B's comment @ 8:54 AM.
DeleteWe guys haven't solved the problem. I guess that won't surprise you. They all, to a man, say the Real Presence is why they stay, or one of the main reasons why. But not many of the guys understand it as transubstantiation or care what it means. Their faith is only in the RP. Which is good enough for them. They say.
DeleteOne topic a lot of them bring up is, Why don't we publicize the many "Eucharistic miracles?" There are examples all over YouTube, as one involving Archbishop Bergoglio when he was in Argentina, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDFEOqMOhVo
and Googleable, as here: https://magiscenter.com/the-eucharistic-miracle-overseen-by-archbishop-bergoglio-now-pope-francis/
I am not an enthusiast for miracles because a) if you have faith, you shouldn't need them, b) if you don't have faith, you won't believe them, and c) who knows what we will discover tomorrow? But millions of people believe in UFOs with a lot less evidence, and maybe we intellectuals underrate them.
People do find it hard to relate to mystery as well as to miracles. That's why there is so little love, of which there are no concrete, tangible examples.
Wow, I had not heard of that miracle involving then-Archbishop Bergoglio. There was an exhibit of pictures which traveled around awhile back of Eucharistic miracles. It was well attended, we ran into bunches of our fellow local Catholics there. Pretty sure most of us were already convinced, but maybe it served to nolster someone's faith. I agree with your reasons a and b why it's not going to move the needle for a lot of people.
Delete"nolster", should be "bolster".
DeleteI believe that transubstantiation--and the other sacraments--occurs wherever God wants it to occur. In the Hereafter, we may all be surprised by the places, in what forms, and for whose benefit God has become Really Present--and perhaps where God has not. God has a habit of showing up unexpectedly.
ReplyDeleteI dislike the spectacle of "trapping" consecrated hosts in boxes and monstrances, though I appreciate that most Catholics see these things in a much different light.
Jean, I am with you.
DeleteWay, way too often, the terms "Real Presence" and "Transubstantiation" are wielded, not to describe a sacramental mystery, but to distinguish Us from Everyone Else. (Which isn't actually even true.)
Jim, yes, many Protestant churches do have a belief in the Real Presence. Recall that a couple of weeks ago we were discussing a (private) Communion service on the moon by Buzz Aldrin, who is a Presbyterian. I find that the worst people for misunderstanding other denominations' belief on that, and being dismissive of it, are Catholic priests. I get that it is part of our "brand". But I don't think Jesus intended for our belief to be a thing that divides us.
DeleteThanks, Jim! That makes me feel less disconnected.
DeleteParsing the Eucharist;.
ReplyDelete“But one can both receive and adore the Lord in the Eucharist, they aren't mutually exclusive.”
Eucharist is about more than adoring, and more than receiving. Eucharist (The Thanksgiving, The Offering ) is about the sacramental presence of the Incarnation, Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus and sending of the Spirit. It is the foretaste of the heavenly banquet. The Byzantine Divine Liturgy begins with “Blessed is the Kingdom” and soon sings the Beatitudes.
The Byzantine Liturgy keeps the Divine Mysteries together; the Roman and Western traditions tend to break them apart. Westerners tend to focus either upon the passion (e.g. the words of consecration), or more recently the Resurrection or Pentecost. We tend to celebrate Advent as if Christmas had not happened, or Lent as if Easter had not happened. Or we focus upon communion, or upon adoration of the reserved Sacrament in disproportion.
In my local Orthodox Church the walls on all sides are adorned with icons of the Nativity, Baptism, etc. as well as crowded with saints. All liturgy, the hours as well as the Divine Liturgy) takes place within this temple which not just a building but us as the People of God. The heavenly liturgy of salvation history is present among us both in the communal earthly liturgy and also in the interior liturgy of our own lives as we too are transformed in Christ. Lent is celebrated in light of the Resurrection; there is no suppression of the Alleluia. At the Council when the Orthodox were asked what they would have written about the Church, they answered a treatise about the Holy Spirit with an appendix about anthropology.
We must recognize that in the history of Catholicism the sacraments were done differently at different times and places. Penance was public for the first millennium then became private in the second. In the first several centuries there was no daily Mass in most places. People took home the Eucharistic elements; they communicated themselves during the week. Sometimes the elements were also used in healing. Some of this was extreme so practices changed. During the Middle Ages people went from Mass to Mass just to see the elevation. For many recent centuries adoration was extensive, however communion was rare. So there have been many aberrations in understanding the Eucharist. There are no simply ways to avoid misunderstandings and malpractices unless we keep in mind the big picture of salvation history.
"There are no simple ways to avoid misunderstandings and malpractices unless we keep in mind the big picture of salvation history." I agree; but that is exactly what most of us don't do.
DeleteJack - your comment is a tour de force. Bravo.
DeleteI would note, too, that the elements for a more integrated spirituality are there within Roman Catholicism. How to develop that more integrated approach is the question.
Your point about suppressing the "Alleluia" during Lent is brilliant.
Another symptom I see is the line of thought, frequently expressed, that the faithful are a pack of idiots because they go Christmas shopping and decorate their houses during Advent. Maybe they have a more holistic view of the mystery of the Incarnation than the carpers.
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."
ReplyDeleteAs I interpret the Catechism paragraph above, it affirms not just the notion of the "real presence" but the philosophical explanation in terms of substance and accidents (and of course the word transubstantiation itself).
David, yes, I think you're right. Episcopalians believe in the Real Presence, which may or may not include transubstantiation.
DeleteThe RCIA ladies were quite nervous and strident about the difference between transubstantiation and Real Presence. Looking back on it, maybe they thought that I might try to try to get Raber, who was still an Episcopalian, allowed to take communion on the strength of the Real Presence teaching.
That never occurred to me, but I guess some parishes were/are giving communion to Protestant spouses, and they were intent on not becoming one of those parishes.
When I asked Father a few years later if I could bring my brother, who was visiting, forward for a blessing at the Eucharist (something Episcopalians do), he was very uncomfortable and said he would have to talk to my brother beforehand and it was quite short notice.
I ended up skipping Mass and took my brother to brunch instead because the whole "Protestants in church" issue seemed to be a problem.
David, you are right. That last sentence is philosophy, not theology, and it can't be doctrine if it is "heard" as mumbo jumbo. Holy Mother is still stuck with an over-the-top seminary reform by Pope Leo XIII. The tangled web of unintended consequences.
DeleteNot having yet been (nor ever having any prospect of being) promoted to bishop, I'll demur on any doctrinal pronouncements. But I do think it's fair to say that Transubstantiation has been taught authoritatively. It would take some theological work to declare it passe (which is not to say that it's not possible; just that it would require some work).
DeleteIf one is willing to think about reality according to the framework that Aristotle developed, Transubstantiation a pretty ingenious explanation for what we observe, not only with our senses but also with our hearts: the physical traits of the sacramental elements still resemble those of bread and wine (including, to mention two practical concerns in the physical realm, gluten and alcohol), and yet somehow it is something different.
The other work that the term "transubstantiation" does is that it distinguishes it from other understandings of Eucharistic theology like consubstantiation. For good or ill, those are points of disagreement with other Christian denominations, and need to be worked through as part of the project of ecumenism.
IMO, the one thing the American bishops could and should do is to speak with one voice about the Eucharist.
ReplyDeleteEither it is a reward for those who have committed no grave sins (to be clearly defined, especially with regard to indirect complicity in sin) since their last Confession (to be made at least once a year no exceptions). Non-Catholics may not receive because they are heretics trying to recruit others to these false beliefs.
Or it is "medicine for the soul" for sinners in a fallen world who want to do better. All baptized Christians who believe that Christ is present in some real way in the elements are welcome to partake and ask for strength to devote their lives to the greater glory of God.
You absolutely cannot have bishops running around spewing both lines of thought without confusing the hell out of people.
"...to speak with one voice about the Eucharist..."
DeleteIn an ideal world that would happen. In the one we actually live in it is unlikely to. They can't agree because they don't agree (or is it the other way around?) For one thing we have very conservative bishops and Catholics, somewhat liberal ones, and everything in between in the US, not to mention the world. We have the various rites, such as the Uniate Eastern ones, the Anglican Ordinariate, ethnic ones such as Syro Malabar and Coptic. Then there are the various Orthodox churches which aren't a single entity and are not in union with Rome, but whose Mass and sacraments we recognize as valid, and who have a looser teaching on divorce and remarriage. Talk about trying to herd cats.
It isn't just the Eucharist that is described with a forked crozier; it's the whole Mass in which it is set. Is the Mass a re-enactment of Jesus' sacrifice at Calvary? Then hush, approach reverently, mindful of your sins, and remove your shoes; you are on holy ground. Or is it a re-enactment of the last/Seder supper, a family meal, where everyone is hugging and talking at once, and somebody is likely to break into song at any moment? If you don't choose one, you get what we have now: hugging and greeting loudly in the vestibule while people trying to recite the Anima Christi silently a few feet away are turning around and glaring.
DeleteYes, yes, I understand all that.
DeleteJust telling you that for converts trying to make an honest effort not to disrespect the sacrament, it can be a fraught topic. To be "safe," I follow the "rules" of the bishops who impose the strictest caveats. I figure if Dick Durbin, a politician I generally admire, can't take communion anywhere he wants, I've got not business doing so.
The Eucharist is often fetishized, used as a political bludgeon, and offered up in weird theological proofs. A Catholic lady at a retreat who congratulated me on my escape from the "fake church" of the Episcopalians, said that Episcopal communion is "fake" because there are no recorded instances of a host consecrated by Anglican priests having bled.
Crap like this is right out of the Middle Ages. Or Monty Python.
Tom, I have no idea what you are even saying.
DeleteJean, about the Eucharist being used as a political bludgeon, a biblical quote occurs to me: "Jesus wept". I hear you about how difficult this stuff makes it for converts. And some who aren't converts.
DeleteI think what Tom is saying (I hope he will correct me if I am wrong) is that the Mass is both a sacrifice rooted in the cross, and a meal wherein Jesus bids us to "take and eat". And that these two realities often find themselves in tension.
Thanks for bearing with me, but I'm just not connecting the dots on any of these points.
DeleteWhat happens in the Eucharist is a mystery, but who should receive it and to what end should not be.
However, I realize that this group is not a spiritual advisement service for the cognitively challenged, so I will shut up here and wait for some other topic to meddle with.
Cheers!
Jean said, "..."medicine for the soul" for sinners in a fallen world who want to do better. All baptized Christians who believe that Christ is present in some real way in the elements are welcome to partake and ask for strength to devote their lives to the greater glory of God."
DeleteI like that, and if it were up to me, that is how I would have it. But unfortunately the PTB didn't ask me.
One practical reason that regular churchgoers might have fared somewhat better in this quiz is that, if you sit in the pews Sunday after Sunday, you will here John 6 read over the course of several weeks, once every three years.
ReplyDeleteJim, John 6 does seem to be the basic document. Many of the hearers of "the bread of life" discourse went back to fishing or farming. They certainly heard the "my body"and "my blood" literally. Others heard it (how?) but decided there was no better place on offer. Jesus could have said to the former, "Wait! Wait! I am speaking in metaphors!" But he didn't. For sure, no one said, "Oh, the rabbi is talking about transubstantiation!" Nobody said that for 13 more centuries.
DeleteThat was the situation the original Christians had to deal with, and we still are dealing with it. Not well, in mho.
I am traveling again. I am a cradle Catholic but agree with Jean. I would go beyond what she says. Our Episcopal church invites all who seek Christ to the table. Jesus didn't ask for baptismal certificates and they are following Jesus's example. Jesus gave bread and wine to Jewish people. He was a Jew. There was no such thing as a Roman Catholic Church then. No institution to wrest control away from those who shared bread and wine in memory of him without any need fo an ordained Catholic male to "confect" the Eucharist. Once the institution formed, men took control of what wasn't theirs to control. The power games began because of human weakness. Probably with Ignatius of Antioch declaring himself a bishop.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm afraid that I do read Jesus' words at the last supper as metaphor. So obviously metaphor that the the theological and philosophical contortions needed to try to explain otherwise seem almost sad.
If you read John 6, I don't see how you can say "obviously." If it was "obvious," John says a lot of people didn't get it, and Jesus let them go; he didn't try to dumb it down for them.
DeleteThis is irrelevant; just something I found funny. Last evening we were at the Praise and Worship Team meeting in the parish center. We opened the fridge where the P &W team keeps their bottles of water and pop. The drawer on the opposite side was labelled "Sodality Beer". Sodality are the group of mostly older ladies (older than me) who plan funeral luncheons, etc. Might have to start attending their meetings! (actually I don't like beer)
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to what type of beer they like. Can you take a peek when you get a chance? Have you ever tried Weiss bier with a lemon slice? It's gentler on the palate. Not so bitter.
DeleteI have never tried Weiss beer. My husband laughs at my "bitter beer face" when he gives me a taste. He might like Weiss. Will have to check out what kind the Sodality ladies like.
DeleteJust to clarify: I am not making a case for the Eucharist to be more or less open to certain people. Just feel the bishops need to start singing out of the same book on who it is for and to what end and to be generally consistent about it in their public pronouncements.
ReplyDeleteTom: "If you read John 6, I don't see how you can say "obviously." If it was "obvious," John says a lot of people didn't get it, and Jesus let them go; he didn't try to dumb it down for them."
ReplyDeleteI have been traveling, so just getting to this.
I can't "prove" that it is metaphor. For that matter, nobody "prove" that Jesus ever actually said those words, since whoever wrote that gospel (and the other three) was not an eyewitness to Jesus' life. (some believe that "John" the gospel author was Jesus' apostle, but it seems that the majority of scholars disagree with that).
Given what little I know of the bible, how and when the gospels were written and for whom, etc, it seems highly likely to be metaphor.
All of us believe what we believe. I did not believe in transubstantiation when I was a kid in parochial school in the 50s. I still didn't believe it when I took an entire course called "Thomistic Synthesis" in college (required of all students).
The Catholic church does not often interpret scriptures literally, unlike fundamentalist/evangelical protestants. So it is interesting that in the case of John 6, the "literalist" protestants interpret the passage as metaphor and the RCC is interpreting it literally (why? I have no idea).
I also wonder about the emphasis on "real presence" in the eucharist (a belief taught by several churches, but with different understandings) when Jesus said that "whereever two or three are gathered in my name, ...."
God is present everywhere, Jesus is God. God is not only "real" in a piece of bread and cup of wine, God's presence is "real" everywhere, at all times.
Augustine had a very different understanding of eucharist than the one that was adopted officially centuries later.
Perhaps a bit more ressourcement would help?
Anne, the Gospel of John (whoever he, or they, was/were) was the one of the last writings added to the canon. There were those, like you, who had a lot of problems with it, not only on the bread of life discourse but on the Advocate. I mean, they were having a big lift with a Father and a Son in a God Who is One, and John was forcing a Holy Spirit on them. I am not an expert on the early councils, but there was a lot of discussion of John there. And the people closest to the time of Christ ended up was with the bread and wine really, really, really become the Body and Blood of Christ. It's interesting that John does not have an Institution account (or an agony in the garden) in his/their Gospel. John is the only one with the washing of the feet. (He/they also has the Last Supper on the day of preparation, not as a Seder.) So it was not exactly a slam dunk when the early Fathers let John into the Testament. But, once he was there, they had to deal with him. And they came up with really, really, really.
ReplyDeleteI accept that. I accept it because all I could do is go through what they went through, and possibly -- if I went with metaphor -- wind up outvoted.