Most U.S. Catholics Reject the Idea That Eucharist is the Literal Body of Christ

[Skwim]

.

Whaaaaaa . . . . . .

​

"When it comes to religion, it’s pretty obvious Americans don’t know much about faith. The Pew Research Center revealed last week that Jews and atheists scored higher than any other group on a 32-question quiz about basic religious beliefs… and even they scored 18.7 and 17.9, respectively.

But even if Americans didn’t know much about other religions, you would think they’d understand the basic tenets of their own religion.

Not so when it comes to Catholics.

In a follow-up report, Pew found that fewer than a third of self-proclaimed Catholics accept the Church’s fundamental belief that a consecrated communion wafer is literally the body of Christ.

It’s not a symbol, like Protestants believe. Catholics say those wafers are actually God. They are biting into Jesus. That’s what transubstantiation is. It’s not a random belief; it’s a big deal. Hell, the Eucharist is one of the sacraments.

How could you be Catholic while rejecting a main belief of the Catholic Church?

(Maybe that’s somewhat rhetorical, given how many Catholics reject the Church’s positions on abortion and marriage equality.)

The numbers show only 28% of Catholics accept the Church’s teachings on the matter while 69% say the bread and wine are symbols… regardless of what the Church teaches.

Maybe the strangest thing about these results is that 50% of Catholics know what the Church says about transubstantiation… but nearly half of them don’t buy it.

I guess that means there’s hope for them. Maybe they cling to the Catholic label for cultural reasons or because of family pressure, but even they know the Church’s beliefs are absurd. Those 22% of Catholics in the middle, I would suspect, are made up of a lot of future atheists.
source

​

What I find most interesting is that 22% know the church teaches transubstantiation, but reject it. That and fact that 43% don't even know about it. Talk about a failure to communicate and convince!

.​

 

[Altfish]

Catholics are not all cannibals - shock horror!

 

[Glaurung]

Spoiler: Matthew 7:13

It does not surprise me at all that the bulk of nominal Catholics have little to no understanding of the faith and what it requires of them.

Nevertheless, the laity are culpable inasmuch as they have failed to study the faith they claim to hold. Basic due diligence is incumbent on all Catholics. In our days of near universal literacy and unprecedented access to information I shudder to imagine what futile excuses will emerge at judgement.

Regardless, whether or not the majority of so called Catholics accept or even understand the faith is ultimately immaterial to its truth. Christ promised that the Church will last until the end of time. Those truths necessary for salvation will always be available to those who want them. Even if those people turn out to be a minority. (Which as per the spoiler is what Scripture teaches).

 

[pearl]

I clearly remember the priest, a young priest enthusiastic, bringing us up to speed on what the significance of Vat II for our faith, Stating to believe that Jesus physical body was in the Eucharist host, 'we would be cannibals'.
There were various options for Transubstantiation offered by Vat II theologians, transignification by
Edward Schillebeeckx, and transfinalization by another.

The view of Christ's presence in the Eucharist which holds that the meaning or significance of the bread and wine is changed by the words of consecration. the consecrated elements are said to signify all that Christians associate with the Last Supper; they have a higher value than merely food for the body. The theory of transignification was condemned by Pope Paul VI in the encyclical Mysterium Fedei (1965), if it is understood as denying transubstantiation. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + significatio, meaning, sense: transignificatio.)

Transfinalization
The view of Christ's presence in the Eucharist that the purpose or finality of the bread and wine is changed by the words of consecration. They are said to serve a new function, as sacred elements that arouse the faith of the people in the mystery of Christ's redemptive love. Like transignification, this theory was condemned by Pope Paul VI in the encyclical Mysterium Fidei (1965) if transfinalization is taken to deny the substantial change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + finis, end; purpose.)

Then there is the argument that Transubstantiation is not the dogma but the explanation of the dogma of the Real Presence that is 'fitting'.
There is a difference between symbol and 'only symbol'. At Eucharist Jesus is consumed by us and we are consumed by him.