Christ's presence in the Holy Eucharist: Two Competing schools of thought
(Part 1)
By The Contemplative Bard
August 21, 2024

The new study on Catholics done by Vinea Research, as reported by the Catholic News Agency found that 2/3 of Mass-going Catholics do believe in trans-substantiation or the belief that there is real presence of The Christ in the Holy Eucharist. This recent study appeared to be refuting the findings of the Pew Research Center in a 2019 study that reported that only 1/3 of US Catholics believe in the Christ presence in the consecrated sacramental bread. And those same percentage have no knowledge of the Church's teachings on the Eucharist. The dismay over our poorly-catechized generation triggered the Eucharistic Congress and Revival in the USA for 2024.

My take on this is that this is simply a funny play of numbers to mindset readers who are too lazy to read the contents of news articles. The Pew research surveyed a sample of the whole population of USA Catholics, while that of Vinea, which appeared to have surveyed a sample of CHURCH-GOING CATHOLICS only! In short, both studies confirm, and not refute each other. If only 1/3 of US Catholics believe in the Christ presence in the Eucharist, then probably only that 1/3 (or lesser) go to Mass every Sunday. While the recent survey covered only those who are already attending Mass, so definitely most of them will hold that belief that's why they keep on attending the service. But it is still troubling because out of the 1/3 who go to Mass, only 2/3 of them believe in the Christ presence in the Eucharist!

Nature of the Sacraments

I have particular interest in this issue because even though my world-view is very eclectic and not defined by a single spiritual tradition, I had powerful personal experiences with the Holy Sacraments. I'm not a fan of "churchianity" or the ecclesiological stuff, but I chose to remain part of a sacramental church because in them can be found the greatest gifts given by the Lord Christ to humanity, aside from His redemptive act. Through the Holy Sacraments or visible physical signs or rituals, Divine Grace can flow to the recipient that can help in her sanctification process towards Theosis (or Divine at-one-ment).

As a backgrounder, there are 7 of them divided into 3 groups:

Sacraments of initiation (Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Eucharist),
Sacrament of Healing (Reconciliation and Anointing of the Sick/Last Rite), and
Sacrament of Service (Matrimony and Holy Orders).


Three mainline Christian traditions use the 7 Sacraments: The Roman Church, Eastern Orthodox, and the Anglicans. Most mainline Protestant churches use two (Baptism and Eucharist only). But the one that is most potent, accessible, and useful is the Holy Eucharist due to the presence of Christ himself in this Sacrament. It can be received daily or weekly and is a great boost in our spiritual journey (more on this on the discussion part). The "7 sacraments" as a whole is an inter-connected complex system that complements and empowers each other. This convinced me this is not something man-made.

Poorly catechized V. badly catechized?

In spite of all things said, why does it fail to convince people to believe in trans-substantiation or the Christ presence in the Holy Eucharist?

Many prelates attribute it to a poorly catechized laity. I agree that this can be true but this is probably not the entire story. This is true for instance, like in the Philippines or in Latin America, religion has been closely tied with culture so everyone are baptized as Catholic, even against their wishes. It resulted to nominalism; it is like the church becoming a Baptism diploma mill. What matters to them (especially during the colonial era) is the number - the warm bodies that show up in the Sunday services- but not the quality. People just follow what everybody do and don't care about the meaning of what their practices mean. And due to the sheer number of the population, no clergy will ever be enough to catechize everyone. Maybe this may be true too in other nations where the dominant culture is tied to Anglicanism or the Orthodox tradition. (Indeed, doctrinal rigidity is a problem but doctrinal ignorance can have the worst outcome. This is the reason why I have reservation to Pope Francis' vision of a Synodal Church. Lots of hard work should be done first to properly catechize its laity into matters of faith before they can be competent in voting about issues concerning the Church; otherwise, forcing it without an educated laity will be like running a nation using a democratic system with an uneducated electorate. The senate and congress will be filled by elected clowns who will pass comedic legislation. And worst, they can easily be manipulated by lobbyist with suspicious agendas)

I think the other side of the story is some of those who received catechism maybe "badly catechized" or received "bad" catechism on the sacraments. This maybe due to the 2 competing camps or schools of thought within the entire Christian tradition that bring confusion in the catechism process:

1. Camp empiricism or team "trans-symbolism" Theologians in this camp assert that what is true are only those that can be perceived by the 5 senses. They dismiss anything mystical or supernatural in religion. Modern biblical exegesis uses this approach. G-d, good and evil, the "10 commandments" or anything divine are mere socio-cultural constructs based on the personal experiences of the Scripture writer. Same with the Sacraments and the Eucharist. They are mere sociological and psychological phenomena. There is no such thing as "trans-substantiation"; it is magical and therefore in the realm of superstition. The breaking of the bread is merely symbolic and a sociological phenomenon that was started by the Hebrew people and its meaning as "sacred" was developed due to a social consensus of a group of people. If getting drunk on New Year's Eve is agreed as sacred by a culture, then it can become a sacrament! It is a psychological phenomenon too if you attribute a meaning to it based on your experience. If due to the "breaking of the bread" tradition, your family became closer and more cohesive, then that is your truth. However, it is not another person's truth. Each one has a version of truth. There is no absolute universal truth. Empiricism is the philosophical basis of the secularist-consumerist movement within the churches.

2. Camp dogmatism or team "trans-substantiation" Theologians in this camp would believe anything as true, as long as it was said to be true by the Magisterium, by tradition, or by some saints or popes in the past. Dogma is important to them and we have to believe them as incontrovertible truth. This is somewhat akin to Scriptural fundamentalism. Even this blog post might be considered as a "diabolical" heresy even if I belong to team "trans-substantiation" since I don't use the exact language of tradition that can be read in ecclesiastical documents.

For me, these 2 camps appear to be the problem. It is also the reason why the “not religious, but spiritual camp” is increasing. 85% of the world’s population follow some form of religious tradition. Either the 7 billion people are brainwashed superstitious idi*ts, or they follow a religion because they feel deep within themselves that they are spiritual beings. They respect the mystical and the supernatural. To remove them, and secularize their faith or give empirical explanations to an obviously mystical experience is removing that magical something from their lives.

On the extreme end, telling people to have unquestioning belief that ordinary wafers and wines are transformed and its substance is changed into the actual Body and Blood of the Christ after a ritual will put off rational people when they see the bread and wine as is. They respect the supernatural but they deserve an explanation than merely it is a “mystery” and have “faith” in it or because the Church said it so we must believe.