Why do so many people disagree with the dogmas on the Eucharist?

[Bartolome Casas]

Originally Posted by Semper Zelare

I find it just a little arrogant for someone to be unphased by the words of 5 fellow Catholics all telling them that they are in the wrong.

I quoted an Ecumenical Council, the Second Vatican Council. I respect 5 or more of my fellow Catholics. But doesn't an Ecumenical Council deserve some respect too?

One year Pope John Paul II had a LUTHERAN lead the Good Friday Procession at the Vatican. I am wrong to take note of such events, and to consider what they signify and mean?

I am not encouraging anyone to disregard the true teaching on the Eucharist. We need it. I am only asking: Is it really such a dire thing that Protestants and some Catholics don't have a 100% orthodox view of it? Since the pope and bishops don't act or speak like it is such a dire thing, I wonder it if really is.

I do wish each bishop in each diocese had a "Catholics Answers"-type Internet forum which would allow anyone in the diocese to post a question that would receive an answer BY THE BISHOP. Think of how much confusion and arguing that would eliminate! Instead, we lay people answer other's questions, and though we all do the best we can, we are really not qualified! I know I am not. I am not qualified to teach at a Catholic seminary or university. So what am I doing answer questions on this forums? I am just trying to help. That's what we are all doing.

It's not a perfect world. Heaven is perfect. We are mere morals who "see through a glass darkly."

[Dejagirl]

Originally Posted by Bartolome Casas

Why does it matter?

If they love God and love neighbor, and are honest and decent in their business dealings, what does it really matter if their theology of the Eucharist is more Protestant than Catholic?

I mean, really, what does it matter? Is God some sort of Heresy Policeman?

Consider some of the main parables Jesus told:

--The Parable of the Good Samaritan
--The Parable of the Separation of the Goats and Sheep in the Last Judgment

Does it really seem that precise theological orthodoxy is really that important to Jesus?

It matters because Christ is the Eucharist.

[Semper Zelare]

Originally Posted by Bartolome Casas

I quoted an Ecumenical Council, the Second Vatican Council. I respect 5 or more of my fellow Catholics. But doesn't an Ecumenical Council deserve some respect too?

No, it doesn't deserve respect if it is misinterpreted. What you quoted bore nothing regarding Communion. As to all your editorizizing if this is "dire"... maybe you should visit the group that prays for the Crimes committed against the Eucharist.

Yes, this is of great import... because Catholics and non-Catholics every single day incur a MORTAL SIN by invalidly receiving the Eucharist. If the reason is that they don't have full knowledge... then we are obliged to teach them.

Originally Posted by Bartolome Casas

I am not encouraging anyone to disregard the true teaching on the Eucharist. We need it. I am only asking: Is it really such a dire thing that Protestants and some Catholics don't have a 100% orthodox view of it? Since the pope and bishops don't act or speak like it is such a dire thing, I wonder it if really is.

Not 100% Orthodox? Hmm... the world is filled with Protestants and Catholics who are heretics. As someone discerning a vocation to the Dominicans, I view this as DIRE. All heresy is dire.

You're not advocating people disregard the true teaching on the Eucharist? How are you not? You're saying you don't care if Catholics or non-Catholics have a heretical view of the Eucharist... and then you say that you are not an advocate for people to disregard the true teaching on the Eucharist!?!?!?!?

Originally Posted by Bartolome Casas

I do wish each bishop in each diocese had a "Catholics Answers"-type Internet forum which would allow anyone in the diocese to post a question that would receive an answer BY THE BISHOP. Think of how much confusion and arguing that would eliminate! Instead, we lay people answer other's questions, and though we all do the best we can, we are really not qualified! I know I am not. I am not qualified to teach at a Catholic seminary or university. So what am I doing answer questions on this forums? I am just trying to help. That's what we are all doing.

Looks like you can quote an Ecumenical Council and at the same time fail to appreciate what the Bishop does. The Bishop does not have time to answer questions on a Forum all day. If people want answers from the Bishop... why don't they send him letters? That's how it is done. There is no need for a "Bishop's Forum" that is completely impractical and will never happen.

And this also shows you didn't read my post. Before you demand that the Bishop makes a forum so you can post a question to him... Why don't you just get off your computer, go to your Church, and ask your priest. I assume you're going to Mass tomorrow, why don't you ask your priest if you are wrong or if 6 other Catholics on here are wrong?

And that's why your "Bishop's forum" makes no sense. The Church goes like this:
Laity--> Deacons--> Priests --> Bishops

you want it to go like this: Laity --> Bishops

You are advocating turning a blind eye to heresy. Therefore you, and your interpretation of an Ecumenical Council are wrong. And your 6 fellow Catholics are all right.

[Holly3278]

Originally Posted by Bartolome Casas

I quoted an Ecumenical Council, the Second Vatican Council. I respect 5 or more of my fellow Catholics. But doesn't an Ecumenical Council deserve some respect too?

One year Pope John Paul II had a LUTHERAN lead the Good Friday Procession at the Vatican. I am wrong to take note of such events, and to consider what they signify and mean?

I am not encouraging anyone to disregard the true teaching on the Eucharist. We need it. I am only asking: Is it really such a dire thing that Protestants and some Catholics don't have a 100% orthodox view of it? Since the pope and bishops don't act or speak like it is such a dire thing, I wonder it if really is.

I do wish each bishop in each diocese had a "Catholics Answers"-type Internet forum which would allow anyone in the diocese to post a question that would receive an answer BY THE BISHOP. Think of how much confusion and arguing that would eliminate! Instead, we lay people answer other's questions, and though we all do the best we can, we are really not qualified! I know I am not. I am not qualified to teach at a Catholic seminary or university. So what am I doing answer questions on this forums? I am just trying to help. That's what we are all doing.

It's not a perfect world. Heaven is perfect. We are mere morals who "see through a glass darkly."

Yes, it is a dire thing that some Catholics do not believe the dogmas on the Eucharist. Their eternal salvation is at risk. Therefore it is most definitely a dire thing.

[Qoeleth]

In fact, the Church teaches 'the real presence' and 'transubstantiation' (i.e. a change of 'substance' occurs). The Church doesn't officially explain how these things work. In fact, the question of what is 'substance' remains largely unanswered, especially in the context of its separation from accidents (and remember, physical locality is an accident). Thus the dogma of the Church is less 'dogmatic' than one might think.

It would seem that as long as a person can genuinely say 'Amen' to 'the Body of Christ', then, in whatever sense they understand it, they are in accordance with the broad dogma of the Church.

[George Stegmeir]

Originally Posted by Bartolome Casas

Garry Wills, in his book Why I Am A Catholic, argues that the explanation for this sort of thing (which occurs on other issues too, such as women's ordination, birth control, etc.) is that lay Catholics got the idea from the Second Vatican Council that they were free to educate themselves about the doctrine of the Faith and then reach their own conclusions even if those conclusions different or dissent from what the pope and the bishops teach.

Garry Wills says that they got this idea because the Second Vatican Council speaks of the Church as being the "People of God," consisting of all the Catholics in the Church, not just those who are ordained. Garry Wills is not necessarily saying that this feeling of "democratic rights" that the laity got from the Second Vatican Council is necessarily a good thing.

He's just saying that this is what has happened, and what is still going on today. In other words, lay Catholic in the USA today are better educated about their Faith than at any prior time in history. But they also think that their own judgments matter as much as those of bishops and popes, especially when so many of their fellow lay Catholics agree, and especially when a significant number of theologians at Catholic universities agree with them.

You asked "Why do so many people disagree with the dogmas on the Eucharist?"

I think this is why. They find it easier and more acceptable to their reason to take a less supernatural view of what the Eucharist is all about. They prefer the Protestant view of seeing it as more symbolic, as opposed to the Catholic view of it as Real Presence. And, as I already said, they feel free to make their own judgment with a clear conscience, just as they do on things like birth control and women priests and married priests.

They don't see themselves as bad Catholics. They think that they are quite faithful and good. They raise their kids faithfully and lovingly, and take care of their aging parents faithfully and lovingly, and think that is enough. Right or wrong, that is how they see it. You asked "Why." I think that is it.

Your obstinate arguments are a classic example of the dangers of a lay person interpreting both Holy Writ and Canon Law to agree with their personal, erronious bias. This is exactly what Martin Luther did and see what it did to the Church and what it got him!
Prior to the liberalisms of V II which you and those like you misintrepret, you would have been considered heretical and would be excommunicated for publishing such drivel.
I do not know how sincere you are, but I suspect you are one of those people who come on this site to argue for arguments sake to show one and all how smart you are. (YAWN)

[PenitentGrace]

Originally Posted by George Stegmeir

Your obstinate arguments are a classic example of the dangers of a lay person interpreting both Holy Writ and Canon Law to agree with their personal, erronious bias. This is exactly what Martin Luther did and see what it did to the Church and what it got him!
Prior to the liberalisms of V II which you and those like you misintrepret, you would have been considered heretical and would be excommunicated for publishing such drivel.
I do not know how sincere you are, but I suspect you are one of those people who come on this site to argue for arguments sake to show one and all how smart you are. (YAWN)

Hey George, I think we should treat Bartolome Casas' questions and points with a bit more respect. If you have read his other posts he seems to be very sincere and actually very orthodox in his beliefs. I honestly don't see how you can accuse him of being "obstinate" as he clearly states he could be wrong:

"But maybe I'm wrong. I'm just trying to be logical, in light of official Church documents, with use of my fallible human reasoning."

His statement sounds humble to me. He was also one of the few posters to actually answer the original question- he basically said that some people were confused by Vatican II and that is why they may not have a 100% orthodox view of the Eucharist. He was answering the question of why some catholics think the way they think- not saying that they are right to think that way. He was explaining their reasoning from their point of view.

I just don't see how anything he said deserved threats of excommunication. I don't think he is trying to "appear smart" by posing questions that encourage people to think in deeper way about dogmas. I mean, his question, "why does it matter?" may have helped others to truly consider why is DOES matter so much. Can we all try just to be a bit more charitable? Thanks!