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.
Posted by: Tim J. | January 14, 2008 at 07:48 AM
JIMMY LIVES!!
Posted by: frodo | January 14, 2008 at 07:51 AM
So, what was the poorly worded question?
Posted by: Jeffrey G | January 14, 2008 at 08:01 AM
Frodo lives!
Posted by: Tim J. | January 14, 2008 at 08:05 AM
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.
Posted by: Monica | January 14, 2008 at 08:07 AM
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."
Posted by: Sacra Doctrina | January 14, 2008 at 08:20 AM
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?
Posted by: John E | January 14, 2008 at 08:23 AM
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.
Posted by: Brian Day | January 14, 2008 at 08:23 AM
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!
Posted by: Vesa | January 14, 2008 at 08:42 AM
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.
Posted by: | January 14, 2008 at 09:01 AM
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.
Posted by: | January 14, 2008 at 09:09 AM
Welcome back to your own blog, Jimmy.
Posted by: Jamie Beu | January 14, 2008 at 09:26 AM
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)?
Posted by: Russ 72 | January 14, 2008 at 10:15 AM
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.
Posted by: Martin | January 14, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Indifference is THE answer.
CORRECTION -- It is not THE answer -- IT IS *THE PROBLEM*!
Posted by: Vesa | January 14, 2008 at 10:23 AM
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.
Posted by: deusdonat | January 14, 2008 at 10:40 AM
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.
Posted by: Ed Peters | January 14, 2008 at 10:40 AM
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.
Posted by: Ed Peters | January 14, 2008 at 10:45 AM
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.
Posted by: Ed Peters | January 14, 2008 at 10:47 AM
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.
Posted by: deusdonat | January 14, 2008 at 11:13 AM
"Other" sounds like "Deaf & Blind" from another thread. Have they ever been spotted together?
Posted by: Esquire | January 14, 2008 at 11:13 AM
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
Posted by: Terence M. Stanton | January 14, 2008 at 11:32 AM
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?
Posted by: California Star | January 14, 2008 at 11:35 AM
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.
Posted by: Matt | January 14, 2008 at 11:39 AM
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.
Posted by: deusdonat | January 14, 2008 at 11:44 AM
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.
Posted by: John E | January 14, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Hello John E. For more information on your comments, please see this http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur85.HTM>Article.
Posted by: deusdonat | January 14, 2008 at 12:13 PM
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?
Posted by: Kevin Jones | January 14, 2008 at 12:57 PM
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.
Posted by: Memphis Aggie | January 14, 2008 at 12:57 PM
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, http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/eucha3.htm>"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.
Posted by: deusdonat | January 14, 2008 at 01:17 PM
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."
Posted by: John E | January 14, 2008 at 01:38 PM
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.
Posted by: deusdonat | January 14, 2008 at 01:54 PM
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.
Posted by: Ed Peters | January 14, 2008 at 02:08 PM
ps: any suggestion that angels are responsible in any way for the confection of the Eucharist at Mass is totally, totally, wrong.
Posted by: Ed Peters | January 14, 2008 at 02:11 PM
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.
Posted by: Phil W. | January 14, 2008 at 02:28 PM
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.
Posted by: Ed Peters | January 14, 2008 at 02:32 PM
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.
Posted by: deusdonat | January 14, 2008 at 02:33 PM
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.
Posted by: Vesa | January 14, 2008 at 02:37 PM
Scott Hahn, in his book, "The Lamb's Supper", posits that the Book of Revelation describes the eternal mass that occurs in Heaven.
Posted by: bill912 | January 14, 2008 at 02:40 PM
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.
Posted by: Vesa | January 14, 2008 at 02:43 PM
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.
Posted by: deusdonat | January 14, 2008 at 02:50 PM
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
Posted by: The Masked Chicken | January 14, 2008 at 02:50 PM
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!
Posted by: Vesa | January 14, 2008 at 03:02 PM
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.
Posted by: deusdonat | January 14, 2008 at 03:05 PM
Another take here on whether you will find the Eucharist or Mass celebrated in heaven.
Posted by: Anon | January 14, 2008 at 03:06 PM
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
Posted by: Vesa | January 14, 2008 at 03:09 PM
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: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/06/podcazt-34-st-thomas-aquinas-on-the-eucharist-mass-in-heaven-no/>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.
Posted by: deusdonat | January 14, 2008 at 03:20 PM
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?
Posted by: John E | January 14, 2008 at 03:26 PM
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.
Posted by: Vesa | January 14, 2008 at 03:28 PM
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, "http://www.amazon.com/American-Catholics-Today-Realities-Church/dp/0742552152>American Catholics Today presents trends in American Catholic opinion from 1987 to 2005, using four identical surveys."
According to http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-137455735.html>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."
Posted by: Little Bird | January 14, 2008 at 03:33 PM
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.
Posted by: Ed Peters | January 14, 2008 at 03:34 PM
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.
Posted by: deusdonat | January 14, 2008 at 03:36 PM
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.
Posted by: Esquire | January 14, 2008 at 03:39 PM
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.
Posted by: Vesa | January 14, 2008 at 03:42 PM
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.
Posted by: deusdonat | January 14, 2008 at 03:58 PM
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.
Posted by: Vesa | January 14, 2008 at 04:06 PM
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.)
Posted by: Esquire | January 14, 2008 at 04:06 PM
From
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, for example:
Posted by: Esquire | January 14, 2008 at 04:16 PM
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.
Posted by: deusdonat | January 14, 2008 at 04:20 PM
Catholics aren't the only ones who believe in the "Heavenly Liturgy", Esquire.
The Eastern Orthodox do as well:
Posted by: Vesa | January 14, 2008 at 04:21 PM
For some details of two polls which supported the alleged "only a third of Catholics believe in the Real Presence" "myth" may read http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_17_128/ai_79305248/pg_1>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.
Posted by: Little Bird | January 14, 2008 at 04:22 PM
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.
Posted by: Vesa | January 14, 2008 at 04:24 PM
... of course, your hostility was ultimately revealed by your subsequent comments, no less.
Posted by: Vesa | January 14, 2008 at 04:27 PM
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?
Posted by: John E | January 14, 2008 at 04:36 PM
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.
Posted by: Fr Bill P | January 14, 2008 at 04:37 PM
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...
Posted by: deusdonat | January 14, 2008 at 04:45 PM
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
Posted by: The Masked Chicken | January 14, 2008 at 04:45 PM
Good grief: replace(their, there).
This correction brought to you by the Grammar Impaired Mask Chicken.
The Chicken
Posted by: The Masked Chicken | January 14, 2008 at 04:51 PM
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
Posted by: Little Bird | January 14, 2008 at 04:56 PM
Well put, Fr Bill P.
"Even the demons believe [in Transubstantiation] — and shudder" James 2:19.
Posted by: Leo | January 14, 2008 at 05:06 PM
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
Posted by: The Masked Chicken | January 14, 2008 at 05:49 PM
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.
Posted by: francis 03 | January 14, 2008 at 05:52 PM
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."
Posted by: francis 03 | January 14, 2008 at 06:06 PM
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.
Posted by: Sonetka | January 14, 2008 at 06:30 PM
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
Posted by: Brian Day | January 14, 2008 at 06:58 PM
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."
Posted by: Elijah | January 14, 2008 at 07:02 PM
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:
Posted by: Esquire | January 14, 2008 at 07:24 PM
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
Posted by: The Masked Chicken | January 14, 2008 at 07:44 PM
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.
Posted by: deusdonat | January 14, 2008 at 08:26 PM
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
Posted by: The Masked Chicken | January 14, 2008 at 08:27 PM
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
Posted by: The Masked Chicken | January 14, 2008 at 08:31 PM
Chicken LOL. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa. \_0_/
(that's me in supplication to you). So solly.
Posted by: deusdonat | January 14, 2008 at 08:38 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 [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."
Posted by: Vesa | January 14, 2008 at 08:54 PM
Who let the harpies out?
Posted by: deusdonat | January 14, 2008 at 09:06 PM
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."
Posted by: Vesa | January 14, 2008 at 09:20 PM
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.
Posted by: deusdonat | January 14, 2008 at 09:28 PM
Esquire,
You are gentleman and a scholar.
Take care and God bless,
Inoocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | January 14, 2008 at 09:51 PM
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
Posted by: james mittelstadt | January 15, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Is Jimmy Akin really present in his blog?
Posted by: Francis DS | January 15, 2008 at 02:47 AM
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.
Posted by: | January 15, 2008 at 04:52 AM
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?
Posted by: Francis DS | January 15, 2008 at 05:32 AM
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
Posted by: Memphis Aggie | January 15, 2008 at 06:02 AM
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?
Posted by: deusdonat | January 15, 2008 at 08:11 AM
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.
Posted by: Fr Bill P | January 15, 2008 at 08:25 AM
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.
Posted by: Fr Bill P | January 15, 2008 at 08:29 AM
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?
Posted by: deusdonat | January 15, 2008 at 08:44 AM
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
Posted by: Inocencio | January 15, 2008 at 08:46 AM
Thank you Father that was very helpful.
Posted by: Memphis Aggie | January 15, 2008 at 08:54 AM
Father Bill,
Thank you for the very clear, careful and lucid presentation.
Posted by: Esquire | January 15, 2008 at 09:05 AM
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.
Posted by: Vesa | January 15, 2008 at 09:06 AM