Decline in belief in the Eucharist: Part 2

As I mentioned in my last blog, I gave a homily on the feast of Corpus Christi about the decline in the belief in the Real Presence. In that blog entry, I listed my three primary reasons that I feel have led to this decline. I received an email after that homily challenging my reasons and listing the 'real' reasons in the decline in the Eucharist. In my last entry, I stated the reasons I gave in my homily. In this entry, I want to state the reasons given in the email I received. I'd like your thoughts and opinions on both sets of reasons.

In the email I received, the primary focus was on how Vatican II is the cause of the decline in belief in the Real Presence. This person listed three things that, in their mind, are the reason for the decline. The emailer stated that I 'didn't have a clue what I was talking about' with regard to my reasons so it is fair to say that the emailer rejects any other opinions that don't relate to their reasons. So, here are the reasons for the decline as stated by the emailer:

1. The change to celebrating Mass in English: The emailer believes that celebrating Mass in English removes the mystery and reverence from the Mass. In their opinion, people have lost their sense of reverence and awe for Mass and subsequently the Eucharist.
2. Celebrating Mass with the priest facing the people: Again, the reasoning behind this was that is removed the mysterious and made the priest seem more like the parishioners rather than mediator between the people and Christ in the Eucharist. It also 'revealed' the Mass to the people and it lost its aweness.
3. Reception of Communion in the hand & Eucharistic ministers: These two go hand-in-hand because the reasoning was that now that people could touch the Body and Christ and receive the Blood of Christ they no longer had any reverence for the Blessed Sacrament and Precious Blood. Eucharistic ministers were the most guilty because they were actually allowed to distribute Communion - something ONLY the priest could do before Vatican II.

According to the emailer, it was the liturgical changes of Vatican II that are the true cause of the decline in the belief in the Real Presence. The emailer closed by stating that the bishops at Vatican II made a huge mistake and had no consideration for the consequences of their actions.

I find these reasons very weak. First, I'll deal with the false belief that Vatican II is the cause. A CARA study of those who attended Mass once a month or more showed that 86% of the Pre-Vatican II generation (those born before 1943) believed in the Real Presence. However, it also showed that 85% of the Millennial generation (those born after 1981) believed in the Real Presence. The Vatican II generation (those born between 1943 and 1960) actually had the lowest percentage of only 75% followed by the Post-Vatican II generation (those born after 1960 to 1981) of which 76% believed in the Real Presence. Based on these numbers, it seems that the persons who grew up attending the pre-Vatican Mass as young persons are the same people who are less likely to believe in the Real Presence. Even more convincing, however, is that those who have had NO experience of the pre-Vatican Mass are now the persons who have the highest belief in the Real Presence. How could Vatican II be the cause of the decline in the belief in the Real Presence if the highest number of people who believe were born 20 years AFTER Vatican II??? I think not.

My second quarrel with this reasoning is the mindset that the bishops 'screwed up' and had no clue what they were getting into when they approved the changes in liturgy at Vatican II. I find this silly for a couple of reasons. First, I highly doubt that so many bishops could be 'misled' that they went against the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the changes to the liturgy. Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) which was the document establishing the liturgical changes was approved by the bishops at Vatican II by a vote of 2,147 to 4. It doesn't seem possible that Satan could have influenced 2,147 bishops from all over the world and then influence Pope Paul VI to promulgate the document. Secondly, its not as if the bishops suddenly came up with these liturgical changes overnight. Popes from as early as Pius X recognized the need for liturgical reform. Pope Pius XII wrote on it as early as 1947 in Mediator Dei. Bishops throughout the world recognized the need to make changes to the liturgy for the benefit of the people.

I know that my objections to the emailer's reasons are generalized. I do think that they overwhelmingly disprove these statements, however, especially that they are all based on the 'errors' of the Second Vatican Council. I am not totally discounting the fact that the liturgical changes of Vatican II may have had some negative impact but I don't see this impact as being the source of decline in the belief of the Real Presence. I welcome any comments or opinions including those that might seem to support the reasons of the emailer. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 07:23 | link | comments (3) |
blog

Comments:

#1  11 June 2008 - 16:31

 

I actually agree with #2 & #3 of both Part 1 & 2.

Part 2
Emailer #2. As a post VII Catholic born in 1973 I know when I was a kid I paid attention to the Priest not the Eucharist because the Priest was the one talking. Had he been facing the other way I would have been focused on what he was focused on.

Emailer#3 Extrodinary Ministers who come out of the pew during Mass has a cheapening effect on the Eucharist for sure. But this post VII Catholic was taught hands are for praying not for receiving communion. I'm all for communion rails making a come back. You only need 1 or 2 Priests then.

Part 1
#2 Lack of teaching and lack of homilies on the Eucharist. Priests need to hammer home what the Eucharist is and why you don't receive it whilly nilley. The Eucharist is the source & summit of our faith. I'd say a proper percentage of Eucharistic homilies would be 1 in 8 Sunday homilies.

#3 I think more Eucharist Processions would help in having society see our faith and would cause conversation in society.

Anonymous

#2  12 June 2008 - 14:31

 

The email comments have some place in the argument. Although I was born post-V2, I've also attended Mass in the extraordinary form. There is certainly something to be said about the reverence and silence of Mass in the extraordinary form. Having said that, however, I would argue that these are only secondary to the lack of belief in the True Presence. Belief, above all, must be an intellectual assent to a particular Truth, regardless of how one "feels" at the moment. Regardless of whether the priest is saying Mass in the extrordinary or ordinary form, or whether the priest is saying Mass reverently or (God forbid) sloppily, my belief remains the same. That a priest or congregants believe in the Real Presence ought to reflect in their demeanor & actions during the Sacred Liturgy, but belief ultimately does not rely on these external actions.

--S

Anonymous

#3  13 June 2008 - 05:09

 

While I understand your argument regarding receiving in the hand, again I must point out that it is not actions, such as how the Eucharist is received, that primarily effects the reverence of the person. I cannot nor should I judge each person's reverence of the Eucharist when they approach to receive Communion simply by how they receive it.

crossman

Comments: