Are Novus Ordos Rediscovering Belief in the Real Presence, as a Recent Poll Claims? Not So Fast…

An important reality check…

Are Novus Ordos Rediscovering Belief in the Real Presence, as a Recent Poll Claims? Not So Fast…

Every now and then, a new poll or research study gets published showing that only a certain (low) percentage of people in the United States who identify as Roman Catholics (and even attend Mass the ‘Eucharistic celebration’ frequently) actually believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist; that is, only so many self-proclaimed Catholics actually adhere to the Church’s dogmatic teaching of Transubstantiation.

For example, in the summer of 2019, the Pew Research Center reported that, based on a scientific survey it had conducted, only one-third of “self-described Catholics” in the U.S. believe in the dogma of Transubstantiation:

Transubstantiation – the idea that during Mass, the bread and wine used for Communion become the body and blood of Jesus Christ – is central to the Catholic faith. Indeed, the Catholic Church teaches that “the Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life’” [quoting Novus Ordo Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1324, and Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, n. 11].

But a new Pew Research Center survey finds that most self-described Catholics don’t believe this core teaching. In fact, nearly seven-in-ten Catholics (69%) say they personally believe that during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine used in Communion “are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.” Just one-third of U.S. Catholics (31%) say they believe that “during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus.”

(Gregory A. Smith, “Just one-third of U.S. Catholics agree with their church that Eucharist is body, blood of Christ”, Pew Research Center, Aug. 5, 2019)

Although with regard to the modern ‘Mass’ of Paul VI (Novus Ordo Missae), the 69% of respondents who believe the Eucharistic species remain mere bread and wine actually happen to be correct, that is so only accidentally, since the official teaching of the Vatican II Church is, of course, that the ‘New Mass’ is valid, that is, the bread and wine do in fact transubstantiate during the consecration into the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

In any case, a statistic of a mere 31% of self-proclaimed U.S. Catholics believing in Transubstantiation is abysmally low and demonstrates how much the New Mass, communion in the hand, and post-Vatican II catechesis have wrecked people’s faith since the late 1960s.

Now, however, a new poll has just been published that was conducted by Vinea Research in late 2022, and its results show that a different (and purportedly more accurate) wording of the poll questions has led to a very different result: As many as 69% do in fact believe in the Real Presence as taught by the Church, the results appear to show.

Vinea Research is a church market research company founded by Hans Plate, who appears to be a conservative Novus Ordo adherent. Its stated goal is “applying proven, business-based market research methods to helping Catholic groups get the information they need to further the New Evangelization [of John Paul II].”

This month, Vinea released a 7-page brochure detailing the official results of its scientific poll, accessible here:

• “Do Catholics Truly Believe in the Real Presence? An Exploration of the Critical Importance of Word Choice when Asking Questions about the Catholic Faith” (Vinea Research)

In its pamphlet, Vinea compares and contrasts its methodology and results specifically with those of the 2019 survey of the Pew Research Center, for which it tries to provide a corrective of sorts:

To evaluate the impact of question wording on this topic, we conducted an experiment where we sampled over 2,000 Catholics and split the sample so that half saw Pew’s wording and the other half saw the questions with language more inline with Catholic teaching on the subject. Because we wanted to compare results to Pew’s language, we used the same wording structure and question length as Pew’s wording.

(“Do Catholics Truly Believe in the Real Presence?”, p. 2)

To understand this better, let’s first look at the Pew wording and then at the revised wording used by Vinea, both of which are found on page 2 of the same brochure:

Poll Questions and Multiple-Choice Answers by Pew Research Center

1. Which of the following best describes Catholic teaching about the bread and wine used for Communion? The bread and wine…
   a. Actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ
   b. Are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ
   c. Not sure
2. Regardless of the official teaching of the Catholic Church, what do you personally believe about the bread and wine used for Communion? During Catholic Mass, the bread and wine…
   a. Actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ
   b. Are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ

Poll Questions and Multiple-Choice Answers by Vinea Research

1. Which of the following best describes Catholic teaching about the bread and wine used for Communion?
   a. Jesus Christ is truly present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist
   b. Bread and wine are symbols of Jesus, but Jesus is not truly present
   c. Not sure
2. Regardless of the official teaching of the Catholic Church, what do you personally believe about the bread and wine used for Communion?
   a. Jesus Christ is truly present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist
   b. Bread and wine are symbols of Jesus, but Jesus is not truly present

The justification Vinea gives for departing from Pew‘s language and using this revised wording for the multiple-choice answers instead is the following:

“Actually become,” is not language that the Catholic Church uses in teaching on transubstantiation. Paragraph 1374 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states:

…the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’….” (emphasis added)

In other place [sic] in the CCC and USCCB language, real presence and truly present are used.

(“Do Catholics Truly Believe in the Real Presence?”, p. 2; italics and bold print given.)

In its brochure, Vinea concludes that “we believe we demonstrated how Pew’s wording may have greatly underestimated the percent of Catholics who believe in the Real Presence.” At the same time, they also acknowledge that “the complex nature of the question leads us to believe the real answer is somewhere between Pew’s results and ours” (p. 7).

Fair enough. But while from Vinea Research‘s conservative Novus Ordo perspective, the revised wording might indeed seem preferable because allegedly more in line with the official ‘Catholic’ catechism, we believe it is actually Pew Research‘s wording that allows for a more accurate measurement of what actual Novus Ordos truly believe about the Eucharist and Mass.

The reason for this is quite simply that the phraseology of the bread and wine actually becoming the Body and Blood of Christ is very clear and straightforward, especially when contrasted with the alternative answer, that of the Eucharistic presence being merely “symbolic”. Thus, a self-described Catholic who answers that the bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood of Christ, shows that he has understood the dogma of Transubstantiation.

It is simply absurd to suggest, as Vinea does, that many people who do in fact believe in the orthodox Catholic understanding of the Real Presence do not pick the correct answer in the Pew poll simply because it contains the word “actually” (instead of “really” or “truly”), which is not found in the Novus Ordo catechism. How many average Novus Ordo people even have a copy of their own catechism — not to mention knowing what it says verbatim about any particular point of dogma? Let’s not be silly. Are we to suppose that the word “actually” throws them off to the point that they pick “are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ” instead, or select “not sure”? This would be absurdity on stilts!

What, however, of the revised wording used by Vinea Research? Is it any better, or at least just as good? Far from it. In fact, a self-described Catholic who answers that “Jesus Christ is truly present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist”, does not necessarily believe in the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation.

How so? Because, strictly speaking, Vinea‘s wording not only does not require the truth of Transubstantiation but actually rules it out, though this will be lost on many being polled because it is somewhat nuanced. The fact of the matter is that it is inaccurate, indeed heretical, to say that Christ is “present in the bread and wine.” According to the dogma of Transubstantiation, the bread and wine cease entirely in terms of substance (being), and only their accidents (appearances) remain.

This is significant because the dogma all Catholics must accept is not simply that of the Real Presence. It is that of Transubstantiation specifically. In other words, no other definition of ‘Real Presence’ but that of Transubstantiation is acceptable. Thus, no one who denies Transubstantiation actually believes in the Real Presence. Therefore, we have legitimately accused ‘Fr.’ Tom Reese, S.J., of heresy when he states openly, as he did recently, that he believes in the Real Presence but not in Transubstantiation:

• High-Profile Jesuit: ‘I Do Not Believe in Transubstantiation’

The supposedly ‘more faithful’ wording used by Vinea, therefore, favors the Lutheran heresy of Consubstantiation, also called Impanation, according to which “the substance of Christ’s Body exists together with the substance of bread, and in like manner the substance of His Blood together with the substance of wine” (Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Consubstantiation”). This heresy was condemned at the Council of Trent:

If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema.

If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema.

(Council of Trent, Session 13, Canons 1, 2; Denz. 883-884)

Since Vinea itself has emphasized the importance of accurate and nuanced wording, this is quite a head-scratcher.

It stands to reason that more people will affirm their belief in the ‘Real Presence’ if its meaning is given a wider, less clear definition that allows for some room of interpretation.

If anything, then, Vinea has (presumably unintentionally) accomplished the very opposite of what they had set out to do: get a more accurate snapshot of what self-identified Catholics in the U.S. believe about the Holy Eucharist.

Those who speak heretically or at least inaccurately about the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist have a friend in ‘Pope’ Francis, the apostate Jesuit currently leading the Vatican II Sect, as well as other significant Novus Ordo prelates:

• At Eucharistic Congress, Francis says we must worship ‘the Lord Present in the Bread’
• ‘The Greatness of God in a Piece of Bread’: A Commentary on Francis’ Corpus Christi Sermons
• ‘Jesus becomes Bread’, ‘God contained in a Piece of Bread’: Francis’ Lutheran Corpus Christi
• On Francis’ Denial of Transubstantiation: A Rejoinder to Dave Armstrong
• The Heresies of ‘Cardinal’ Muller, Part 1: Denial of Transubstantiation
• ‘The Mystery of the Lord made Bread for us’ – Archbishop of Lima redefines Transubstantiation
• ‘In Bread and Wine He Gives Himself Entirely’: Old Ratzinger Sermon denies Transubstantiation

Rather than survey self-described Catholics as to what they understand the Catholic Church to be teaching and what they themselves believe, we suggest a different and more meaningful approach to measuring ‘Catholic’ belief in the Real Presence: Start with the official number of ‘Catholics’ registered in a given parish (or diocese, country, etc.) and contrast it with how many people actually bother to attend ‘Mass’ every Sunday, and — above all — look at how people treat the putative Eucharistic species.

To give a very concrete example, the following is a photo of ‘Cardinal’ Jorge Bergoglio distributing ‘Holy Communion’ in Buenos Aires when he was ‘archbishop’ there:

This picture is a screenshot taken from this video.

In the Vatican II Church, a lot of conservative folks tend to think that as long as one believes in the Real Presence, even in Transubstantiation specifically, all is well, then one has understood the Mass, and one is being a faithful Catholic.

However, that is not the case, for aside from the truth about Transubstantiation, how many of those who regularly attend the New Mass, actually believe that the Holy Catholic Mass is a Sacrifice and not merely a meal in which Christ is given us to eat? Of those who acknowledge that it is indeed a Sacrifice, how many believe (or even know) that it is not simply a Sacifice of praise and thanksgiving, but one that is propitiatory, meaning one that is sin-atoning?

The same Council of Trent that teaches Transubstantiation, also teaches:

[Canon 1] If anyone says that in the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God, or that the act of offering is nothing else than Christ being given to us to eat: let him be anathema.

[Canon 3] If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is only one of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the Cross, but not one of propitiation; or that it is of profit to him alone who receives; or that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema.

(Council of Trent, Session XXII, Canons 1, 3; Denz. 948, 950.)

The primary reason for Novus Ordos’ lack of belief in Catholic dogma on the Holy Mass and Holy Eucharist — whether culpable or not — is precisely the New Mass:

• Is the ‘New Mass’ of Paul VI the true Roman Catholic Mass?
• Five Sorrowful Decades: Fifty Years of Paul VI’s ‘New Mass’

It is because the New Mass is so destructive to souls that the false pope in Rome insists on imposing it on as many people as possible.

And he’s about to make another move.

Image source: composite with elements from Shutterstock (wideonet) and Vinea Research (screenshot)
License: paid and fair use