A New York Times/CBS poll some years ago found that two out of three adult American Catholics didn’t believe that at Mass the consecrated bread and wine truly became Jesus’ body and blood. Instead they supposed these were merely “symbolic reminders” of Christ. The Times headlined its story “Future of Faith Worries Catholic Leaders.”
And so it did. There was much hand-wring and crying of woe in response to this disturbing finding. But time passed, as it will do, hand-wringing and woe-crying ceased, as they will, and nothing was done about the problem.
A couple of years ago another widely noted poll produced nearly the same result—according to the Pew Research Center, only 31% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence. Nothing had changed since the earlier poll—except that then 26% of American Catholics attended Mass every Sunday, whereas by now the figure was 17%. Weekly attendance is of course the norm set by the Church.
Fresh hand-wringing ensued, but now with a difference. The American bishops launched an ambitious program called the Eucharistic Revival to face up to the problem and bolster faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament—body and blood, soul and divinity, as an old formula has it.
Already the Revival can point to some success—8,000 volunteer “parish point persons” committed to promoting the program, over 12,000 guides to steps to take distributed. The national program will culminate at a National Eucharistic Congress next July 17-21 in Indianapolis. Its program will feature presentations and liturgical events meant to motivate and train attendees who, planners hope, will return home full of zeal and know-how to spread the message of Eucharistic faith in their parishes.
While the planners say hopefully that as many as 80,000 people be there for some or all of the program, the level of commitment is clearly more important than the numbers. The Eucharistic Congress will be followed by a “Year of Going Out on Mission” continuing to Pentecost, 2025.
Headed by Bishop Andrew Cozzens of Crookston, Minn., the Revival folks maintain a resolutely positive approach to messaging. Rather than directly refuting erroneous thinking, they focus on the beauties and joys of Eucharistic faith. The Revival website says, “We all need healing, yet many of us are separated from the very source of our strength. Jesus Christ invites us to return to the source and summit of our faith—his real presence in the holy Eucharist.”
But even so, the problems are substantial, as pointed out by Mark Gray of the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. Summing up findings of CARA’s own survey of adult Catholics, Gray reports that 38% know what the Church teaches and believe in the Real Presence, while 5% believe without recognizing this as Church teaching. Another 48% don’t know what the Church teaches and consider the bread and wine symbols only, while 9% do know the teaching but don’t believe.
Plainly, then, a good deal of non-belief in the Real Presence has its origin in simple ignorance. Seen in this light, the Revival’s positive approach makes excellent sense.
Responding years ago to the bad news in that New York Times/CBS poll, the distinguished theologian Germain Grisez and I coauthored an article pointing to “the pervasive secularization of Western culture” as a central cause of the dropoff in faith in the Real Presence. The Eucharistic Revival is tackling a fearsome opponent in seeking to turn things around. One can only hope—and pray—for its success.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
So long as a priest stands at the Cramner Table with his back to God and our Eucharistic Lord is handed out like a kids carnival ride ticket by purple and blue haired dinosaurs from the Woodstock Era to less than modestly dressed, half-sleeping Catholics, in church structures that resemble 1970’s velvet adorned lounges, who take Him with a finger and thumb then saunter off to their pew without due regard for the well-being of Our Lord, NO; NOTHING RELEVANT WILL CHANGE. The Novus Ordo IS the problem. It’s the most ANTI-CATHOLIC “catholic” mass ever contrived. The sooner it goes away, the quicker we heal the church and our world. Pax Domini.
Who are you to judge?
“Who am I to judge?” My credentials are beyond experiential. I am one who had given the Novus Ordo 55-years of faithful attendance. One now who regularly assists at the Latin Mass. I “judge”, no. I discern differences and the matter they make. In this case, it matters. The Latin Mass far excels the NO “mass” in every relevant metric and its parishioners are well formed. While 98% of those that attend the TLM believe in the real presence, a measly 20% do at the NO (and I’ll bet that those who do believe are scandalized by how Our Lord is treated. I know I was.) While 1% of those that attend the TLM think gay marriage is OK, 51% of those at the NO have no problem with it. 2% of those that attend the TLM think contraception is OK; 96% of those that attend the NO “mass” do. So, if you’re asking me “who am I to judge”? Simply based on those statistics alone, the TLM excels what occurs at the NO in spades. I have no idea why anyone who takes seriously their faith and understands the Truths of Catholicism would ever set foot in a NO. I only wished there had been someone in my life willing to point these things out to me about 55-years ago.
We read: “…the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament—body and blood, soul and divinity, as an old formula has it.” AND earlier: “The American bishops launched an ambitious program called the Eucharistic Revival.”
“Old formula”? “Ambitious program”? Only the “American bishops”??? Four points and a summary:
FIRST, the “old formula” is the revealed, timeless, and received dogmatic truth of the Mass and of the moment of consecration (transubstantiation), as later articulated at the Council of Trent to clarify the pandemic errors of Luther (impanation) and Zwingli (“symbol”).
SECOND, “ambitious” falls short of the original proposal for “Eucharistic coherence,” meaning that one’s moral life (even for a President!) must be consistent with reception of the sacramental and Eucharistic Presence. The dogmatic Reality from the hands of Christ, and as articulated in the “formula” of Trent….the words of the ordained priest relive the living and spoken Word: “THIS is…” And not “this bread is…”, but rather the renewal and extension of the once-only sacrifice on Calvary, in an unbloody manner.
We are to be sacramentally incorporated into Christ.
THIRD, if yours truly were even remotely qualified to expose the fault-line between the divine Reality conferred through the Church (the Mystical Body of Christ) and our flat-earth grasp of the self-disclosing and Triune One, the word-count would not permit.
But we can at least clarify that the Eucharistic Revival is not to be confused with the Protestant Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th Centuries. Instead, we can ponder what Saint Augustine said it in one sentence: “You will not change me into yourselves, as you change food into your flesh, but you will be changed into me” (Confessions, Bk. 7, Ch. 10:16).
FOURTH, in recalling the words and deeds of the incarnate Christ, as recounted in eye witness St. John’s Gospel (6:53-60)….we find that many find all this a hard saying and walked away, perhaps muttering something about symbols (6:61). To these, Christ did NOT say: “hey, guys and gals, or whatever, I just meant this stuff symbolically; so why not just hang with each other, if only for the sake of “welcoming” or fraternity?”
SUMMARY, as a salacious and recent President pontificated so succinctly, “It all depends on what the meaning of is, is!” Thinking globally about “is,” perhaps Cardinal Sarah should be invited to tell it like it is?
Although we may have the knowledge and realize the significance, it seems likely that it isn’t until we experience the faith of others who demonstrate a palpable love of the holy eucharist that we follow suit. There’s a transference from what the person perceives in another to the person perceiving.
Psychology and Sociology identify transference in forms related to their field. Apparently humans are disposed by nature to inwardly experience, empathetically what another may. This became a reality for me when invited to live at a dorm of student priests in Rome, and a community within that community that focused on the spiritual treasure of the Eucharistic sacrifice, whereas I from a more secular setting lacked. Their demeanor in daily offering of private Mass rubbed off. It soon reshaped my own vision of the Eucharistic sacrifice. Were all we priests as inwardly disposed to love Christ in the Eucharist as those at that dormitory the pews would be filled on Sunday.
You’re pointing to the simply difference between Lex Credendi / Lex Orandi, Father. It’s one think to know that the consecrated host in the tabernacle is Our Lord. It’s totally another thing all together to ACT that reality. That’s why I used to just sit in the pew and cringe whenever the priest at the Novus Ordo would pray to God while having his BACK to him! Then, double the cringe when laity (inevitably purple and blue haired parishioners) would meander up onto the bema to help dole out Our Lord to badly formed Catholics who took His precious body in their hands as if He were a kids carnival ride ticket. The Novus Ordo says/teaches one thing and does another. It’s broken. Until we go back to a Mass the exemplifies the truths of the faith, we’re perpetuating the sickness.
I read some materials about the actual Vatican II actual liturgical prescriptions. I discovered that ad orientem and Gregorian chant were the prescribed rule; ad populum and other music were rendered as exclusions when necessary (like ethnic African music in places etc.).
As I see it, Vatican II changes were ceases and perversely used by people who like to worship themselves. There is no reason whatsoever why NO cannot be conducted ad orientem and with the music which fosters contemplation. Honestly, how can one grow in faith re: the Real presence if that Real Presence is surrounded by people-worshiping and vulgarity and ugliness? If there is no awe in the service the conclusion is that there is no God in the Host. If a family treats their elder with vulgar condescension and patronizing, the observer would rightly conclude that they do not respect him.
My experience when at times we had “Vatican II spirit priest” (i.e. self-worshiping, fun-making at the expense of God and so on was that I had to shut my ears so to speak and receive despite what was going on. Here, unfortunately, much depends on a priest. If he conducts himself during Mass without awe and respect then he corrupts a congregation quite fast. One cannot run after such a priest with corrections non-stop – and such priests rarely listen to a lay person.
I recall a story of some Eastern Orthodox priest (now a canonized saint) in Moscow in the end of 19c. He was given a very bad parish in some criminal area with practically no attendance. However, he celebrated the Liturgy with his wife as a singer and some subdeacon in the empty Church for a long time. Eventually, people began coming attracted by the way he celebrated the Liturgy i.e. with great dedication. Eventually his parish became one of the hugest; he was a good confessor two. Later on people from all Russia would come to seek his spiritual advice.
Mark. The song of Christ, his way of life, was sung by the Apostles conveyed to the world by word and example, finally set into lyrical music.
Mark. Do not make the Liturgy an object of worship. Remember dear friend. The first and ultimate source of all truth and Law is Jesus Christ. Who alone is the object of worship.
Prosper of Aquitaine’s Lex orandi Lex credendi, Law that is prayed is Law that is believed, was recommended [Prosper was a layman] to the Church so that the law of praying might establish the law of believing. A good intent. However, not all that is well intended ends well.
“46. On this subject We judge it Our duty to rectify an attitude with which you are doubtless familiar, Venerable Brethren. We refer to the error and fallacious reasoning of those who have claimed that the sacred liturgy is a kind of proving ground for the truths to be held of faith, meaning by this that the Church is obliged to declare such a doctrine sound when it is found to have produced fruits of piety and sanctity through the sacred rites of the liturgy, and to reject it otherwise. Hence the epigram, ‘Lex orandi, lex credendi’ – the law for prayer is the law for faith” (Pius XII Encyclical on the Sacred Liturgy, Mediator Dei).
Furthermore Benedict XVI, when Vat II periti affirmed that the ultimate source of revealed truth is the person Jesus Christ.
“Actually, Scripture and tradition are not the sources of revelation but, instead, God’s speaking and manifesting of himself, is the unus fons [one source], from which then the two streams, Scripture and tradition, flow out” [21] (Jared Wicks, ‘Six texts by Joseph Ratzinger as peritus before and during the Vatican Council.’ Gregorianum 89, 2 [2008] 233-311 – text 3 – Evaluation of the First Draft-Texts for Vatican II, prepared for Cardinal Frings and submitted by him to the Cardinal Secretary of State September 1962, 270).
I stand by my statement, Father. I appreciate your sincerity, but the NO “mass” is fundamentally at odds with the most cherished Catholic Teaching, that is, of the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the consecrated Host and Tabernacle. Until the Priest and laity, through their ACTS in and around the consecrated Host of Our Lord, act with the proper respect concomitant with the teaching, the NO “mass” will continue to hemorrhage adherents and God’s graces.
Mark, I agree. Just as Jesus is our mediator-intercessor-instrument-means to God the Father, so are the apostles, scripture, the Church with her teachings, traditions, deposit of faith, sacraments and the liturgy are our paths to Jesus and the Holy Trinity.
If we find Jesus more fully or readily under certain conditions or through certain rites, if we find devotion and worship to be more full and fruitful in certain rites, where is there wrong in that? Particularly when that same rite was the precept and the sanction for the multitude of Catholic saints, priests, and popes for some 1500 years, how is it good for the Church to now say that He is not found or ought not be sought in that way?
Is the Eucharist invalid when confected at the TLM? Is the Eucharist invalid if confected by a priest of the SSPX order? If not, then how can one with any moral authority claim that worship and receipt of the sacrament in that rite is either verboten, false, flawed, or inferior?
Mark. It isn’t specifically whether the TLM is valid or not, since it is valid by its very nature as a long standing mode of Catholic worship. The TLM is a beautiful, theologically exacting rite that should never have been disallowed by this pontificate. Rather it’s the conative, prejudicial error of diminishing the real presence and the capacity to offer true worship with the Novus Ordo. Take for example the Novus Ordo Mass as offered by the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word on EWTN. There are some who will impute what is good for sake of satisfying some interior spiritual defect, usually pride. That attitude is visibly present among some SSPX members. So it’s not at all the magnificent TLM that’s at issue, rather the divisive, self serving attitude of those who portray themselves as intellectually and spiritually superior.
As an addendum my comment is not to diminish the importance of Eucharistic education rather to bolster its end.
I am genuinely hopeful that, during the Eucharistic Revival, the Church achieves the results for which they are hoping. I even contacted Bishop Cozzen’s office to offer my help to achieve the goals he set for the endeavor. I offered to provide the results of over twenty years of research in the relationship of biological sciences (hidden as Applied Sciences) in the Bible.
In addition to the disappointing stats relative to belief in the Real Presence, a Barna study[1] conducted from 2007-2011 showed approximately 30% of all Christians believed the Bible was out of step with science. Twenty-five percent believe the Bible is outright anti-science. The Church teaches, “It is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man [both spiritually and biologically] truly becomes clear.”[2] Thus, we can not understand Jesus, ourselves, and the Eucharist without the biological mysteries hidden in Scripture. I believe St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body is built upon that understanding.
We are increasingly living in a pagan world. As a Church, we must meet people where they are. The biological sciences is one of the places we can meet them. Most are centered around phenomenology, i.e., what can be visibly seen. When one sees the consecrated host, they see and taste only bread. When they see the blood, they see and taste only wine. Thus, I believe this is the time in Church history when God knew the biological mysteries in Scripture would be very beneficial for evangelizing the pagans in our world, for understanding the Sanctifying and Actual graces we receive when we receive the consecrated host.
A prominent Catholic University invited me to submit a paper for peer review and publishing. This paper will employ the aforementioned hidden biological mysteries to unravel how Adam and Eve were created, how Lot’s wife was not turned into a **geological** pillar of salt, and how clay in Scripture directly points to epigenetic plasticity. Furthermore, there is a scientifically testable means to prove the Holy Spirit uses the instrumentality of the body – especially employing the Eucharist – in preserving incorrupt saints.
[1] https://www.barna.com/research/six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church/
[2] Catholic Church, “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium Et Spes,” in Vatican II Documents (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011), n. 22.
Have you seen the many young adults that assist at the Latin Mass? Full stop.
If one believes in the real presence, it follows that the belief would be made evident in not only the behavior of the Priest, but of the behavior expected of the people. So start with the simple expectations: be on time for Mass, participate, sing, do NOT leave the church immediately after receiving communion. As for communion, do NOT receive if you are not in the proper spiritual state, handle the host with reverence and pray once returned to your seat. This can only be accomplished with lectures from the pulpit during Mass. Explain why these things are important. Accept that many people never learned the basics. And they desperately need to learn. Without these basics which demonstrate both belief and respect , nothing can move forward . Some congregants know these things of course. They are already in the choir and do not need to be preached to. As for the priest, a Mass which is rushed or rote does not demonstrate the immense mystery being carried out on the altar. Once the basics are running smoothly, things like increased hours of eucharistic adoration would be a logical next step. .
Maybe they can also stop wearing cargo shorts and sweat shirts/hoodies.
.
I get it, elderly folks can hardly be expected to wear high heels or Oxfords (too hard on fragile, arthritic feet), but I’m not talking the elderly here–who dress fairly well all thing considered. There are professionals in my parish who show up as if dressed for Fall leaf raking. If they showed up to the office like that, they’d be sent home to change.
.
How a person dresses is a reflection of what they think about the task at hand.
Amen, Mrs. Hess – a particular sore point with me. When I played golf most public golf courses required a shirt with a collar, and no short shorts for women. One would think that we could have at least this minimal dress code at Mass.
It seems like kneeling to receive Our Lord would go a long way to demonstrate our belief in the Real Presence. If a church doesn’t have an altar rail kneelers work well. That’s what I’ve seen locally.
As Mr. Shaw says, “One can only hope–and pray–for its success.” I do hope and pray for its success, but my expectations are not high.
Surveys show that only 31% of Catholics (US) believe in the real presence, but only 17% of Catholics attend Mass weekly. So, a significant number of Catholics who say they believe still don’t think it worthwhile to receive.
The article states that a good deal of the disbelief is a result of ignorance. Who are the chief teachers in a diocese responsible for this ignorance? Given that studies have shown that a large percentage of Catholics receive their only continuing adult Catholic education from the Sunday homily, where does that leave us given the generalized nature of so many homilies.
As I have written on CWR previously, we have eliminated the signs and symbols that indicate the real presence.
I attended a funeral last week and while walking up to receive the Eucharist came alongside a pew with a boy holding the host in two pieces while sitting in the pew. I leaned over and told him to consume the host. Many of the protestant reformers in the 16th century, who retained some form of communion, distributed in the hand for the express purpose of eliminating belief in the real presence.
To solve a problem, the problem must be correctly identified.
If God who created all things can become man, a man with two natures divine and human, he can become bread and wine. Although not in the bread and wine, rather the bread and wine become the living Christ. This ‘is’ my body, this ‘is’ my blood. It’s essential to realize it’s not a dead body, rather the living Christ who is now really present to us in the likeness of bread and wine.
This mystery, a miracle of divine love, can only be realized as true through faith, not simply belief. Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit to which we assent. Or refuse. If given assent the Spirit reveals in us his sweetness, which is the interior sense of his unsurpassable love, a love revealed to us as a freely given gift. When we respond to that love with our love the rest falls into place. The willingness to be like him in that sense of holiness, our proper comportment when in the presence of the Eucharist. Our confidence that this love gives us in his promises. These are the simple basics that must be conveyed in simple language for education, however it requires to be complex in its expansion.
A complete revival is needed. The Eucharist is a great place to start. The Word of God Himself has taught us to eat His Sacred Flesh. But other pastoral heresies like enabling contraceptive use, concubinage, adultery, sodomy, etc. – these practices should also be addressed through preaching and witness. The obstinate post-baptismal denial of how Christ taught us to live in union with Him will destroy any seed of Faith planted by a Eucharistic revival. What good is it to preach Eucharistic union with God if we enable sin by blasphemous “blessings” or even offer pastoral encouragement to continue in grave sins?
I believe the bishops are doing the best they can in this Eucharistic revival. The Holy Spirit is at work also. The issue is the salvation of souls in a world of evil and satanic influences in the lives of many poor souls. I have no doubt that God will use this Eucharistic revival to help many Catholics to return to the faith.
This is a great way to proceed. We are surrounded by ugliness; a message of beauty and hope will naturally attract. Instead of arguing about faith we should be living it.
As long as we keep singing those insipid communion songs, like All Are Welcome, and other such nonsensical kum-by-ya frivolities, all about each other rather than the Lord we receive, …. the revival is doomed.
If Jesus is not in the center of the churches how can they expect Him to be in the center of our lives?
They can put out all the pamphlets they want but given that most of them seemingly don’t believe in the real presence how are they going to pass that awe and understanding on?
If a Eucharistic revival does happen it will NOT be because of anything our Bishops did or did not but by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.