Catechism Of the Crisis In the Church
The chapter on the New Mass concludes with a study of Communion in the hand, including the historical background to its treacherous introduction, and a vigorous defense of the Church’s use of its sacred language, Latin.
68) How should Holy Communion be received?
Holy Communion must be received reverently, for it contains our Lord Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. The best way to express this reverence is to receive Holy Communion on the tongue from the hand of the priest while kneeling.
Did Jesus Christ Himself state that He is really present in the Eucharist?
Yes, Jesus Christ solemnly affirmed His Real Presence in the Eucharist: “For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him” (Jn. 6:56-57).
Did our Lord express this truth other times?
Our Lord clearly expressed what the holy Eucharist is during its institution when He celebrated the first Mass during the Last Supper:
Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. (Mt. 26:26-28)
Who denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist?
For fifteen centuries, with a few very rare exceptions (for instance, the heretic Berengarius of Tours in the 11th century, who ultimately abjured his error), Christians unanimously believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. They held this sacrament in great honor, considering it the Lord’s most precious gift. It was only during the 16th century that the leaders of the Protestant revolt succeeded in dragging the multitudes into rejecting faith in the Holy Eucharist.
69) Is Communion in the hand a worthy way to receive Holy Communion?
As it is practiced today, Communion in the hand does not respect our Lord Jesus Christ truly present in the host. It thwarts faith in the Real Presence, and so it must be rejected. Moreover, it has never existed in this form in the Church.
Is not the distribution of Communion in the hand a practice of the early Church?
Holy Communion was indeed distributed in the hand in certain parts of the early Church, but quite differently from the way it is today. The communicant bowed to receive it and, at least in some places, had to have his hand veiled. The priest would place the host in the right hand, and the faithful carried it to his mouth without picking it up with his other hand.
Do these differences of detail really matter?
These differences reveal a different attitude from that which prevails at present. The manner, widespread today, of taking the host resembles an act of taking possession of or domination, which is out of place in the reception of the Body of Christ.
Does this difference in attitude between the practice of the early Church and the current practice show up in any other way?
The difference in attitude is revealed in the very great attention formerly given to particles of the hosts. St. Cyril of Jerusalem exhorted the faithful to take care lest the least particle fall on the ground:
Take care that nothing fall on the ground. What you would let fall would be as the loss of one of your members. Tell me: if someone gave you gold powder, wouldn’t you gather it so carefully that none of it would be lost to your disadvantage? Should you not then be much more attentive that not a crumb be lost, which is much more precious than gold or diamonds?1
What does St. Cyril’s exhortation show ?
Everything about it exudes reverence! Where do we hear such warnings today? With Communion in the hand, many particles fall on the ground without anyone’s noticing. It is an objective lack of respect for Christ.
But if Communion in the hand was practiced before in the Church, how can it be rejected now?
This argument relies on one of the major sophisms of the liturgical revolution: the sophism of archaeologism, already denounced and condemned by Pius XII.2
In what way is this argument a sophism?
This argument presupposes that what was good in Christian antiquity is necessarily better now, and must be preferred to whatever the Church instituted over the course of centuries. This is obviously false. What was in the beginning without danger thanks to the early Christians’ fervor, and because there had not yet been any heresy against the Real Presence, could become dangerous since the Protestants’ denial of transubstantiation. Moreover, love is inventive, and progressive development is the law of life in creatures. So it is normal that the Church should have developed over time the expression of its faith in and reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament. The desire to revert to the (material) practices of the early Church in reality betrays its spirit, for it means refusing the development it carried within itself and to which it imparted the impetus.
Might it not be said that the refusal of Communion in the hand today is tantamount to refusing the impetus and the progressive development which is natural to the Church?
A change can only be qualified as “progress” in relation to a set of criteria by which to evaluate it. (The anarchic proliferation of cells in a living organism marks a progress of a sort, but that of a cancer and not that of life.) The right criteria, in this instance, are these: the manifestation of faith and of reverence towards our Lord. It is obvious that Communion in the hand does not constitute progress, but rather regression. Moreover, this practice was introduced in a revolutionary and subversive manner into the Church.
Why do you say that Communion in the hand was introduced in the Church in a revolutionary and subversive way?
Communion in the hand was first practiced without any authorization in a few very progressive groups against the explicit rules of the Church. On May 29, 1969, the Instruction Memoriale Domini took cognizance of this disobedience and reiterated in detail the advantages of Communion on the tongue. It reported that a survey of the Latin-Rite bishops showed that a very large majority of them were opposed to the introduction of Communion in the hand.3 It concluded that the traditional usage was to be maintained, and vigorously exhorted the bishops, priests, and faithful to carefully respect the custom.
How did Communion in the hand spread after having been thus condemned?
Communion in the hand spread because this document (drafted in Paul VI’s name by Cardinal Gut and the ubiquitous Annibale Bugnini) was liberal. Having set forth all the reasons necessitating the retention of the traditional usage, and having stated the Pope’s desire to maintain it, it closed by allowing the contrary! Just when the question seemed to be resolved by all that went before, the authors added that, in those places where the habit of giving Communion in the hand had already been formed (that is to say, where they had already been disobeying the Church’s rules), the episcopal conferences could authorize this new practice under certain conditions if the faithful requested it.
What was the aftermath of the Instruction Memoriale Domini?
The Instruction Memoriale Domini actually authorized Communion in the hand even as it made a pretense of forbidding it. In Western Europe and North America, the consequences were immediate: the new practice, which the Pope had only authorized with reservations and for the sake of toleration, and because of the pressing demand of the faithful, was imposed almost everywhere on the faithful who had never asked for it in the name of obedience to the Pope.
70) What are the consequences of Communion in the hand?
Besides occasioning sacrileges, Communion in the hand (received standing) is at least partly responsible for the loss of faith of many Catholics in Christ’s Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. One who seriously believes he receives the Man-God in Holy Communion cannot approach this Sacrament without showing his respect. Communion in the hand thus leads first to lukewarmness and indifference, and then to loss of faith.
Can loss of faith in the Real Presence of our Lord correctly be attributed to Communion in the hand?
Communion in the hand is probably not the only cause. Errors or gaps in catechesis and preaching certainly share the blame since the Real Presence has often been presented as a symbolic presence, denying the actual change of the bread into the Body of Christ. But Communion in the hand prepared the faithful to accept these false teachings, for if the host is merely a symbol of Christ, it is not surprising that people receive Communion without any special sign of reverence.
71) Is it necessary to celebrate Mass in Latin?
Just as it is fitting to change out of one’s work-clothes for an important ceremony, it is likewise most fitting that the language of sacred liturgy be different from that of everyday life. The vernacular is not apt for the sacred action. In the West, Latin has been the liturgical language for centuries. But in other parts of the Church, and even in numerous non-Christian religions, there is also a sacred language.
Do non-Catholics also use a sacred language?
The establishment of a fixed liturgical language while the common language evolves seems to be a constant of mankind. The Schismatic Greeks employ ancient Greek in their liturgy; the Russians use Slavonic. At the time of Christ, the Jews already utilized ancient Hebrew for the liturgy, which was no longer the common language (and neither Jesus nor the Apostles criticized this). The same thing is found in Islam (literary Arabic, the language of prayer, is no longer understood by the multitudes) and some Oriental religions. The Roman pagans also had archaic formulations in their worship that had become incomprehensible.
How can this universal custom of the use of a sacred language for divine worship be explained?
Man naturally has a sense of the sacred. He understands instinctively that divine worship does not depend on him, that he must respect it and transmit it as he has received it, without allowing anything to disrupt it. The use of a fixed, sacred language in religion is in conformity with human psychology as well as the immutable nature of divine realities.
72) Don’t the faithful understand the Mass better when it is celebrated in their own language?
The Mass works ineffable mysteries that no man can perfectly understand. This mysterious character finds its expression in the use of a mysterious language that is not immediately understood by all. (It is for this reason that some parts of the Mass are recited in a low voice.)
The vernacular language, on the contrary, gives the superficial impression of a comprehension which in reality does not exist. People think they understand the Mass because it is celebrated in their mother tongue. In fact, they generally understand nothing of the essence of the holy sacrifice.
Is the function of Latin, then, to place a barrier between the faithful and the holy mysteries?
The purpose is not to build an opaque wall that would conceal everything, but, rather, to better appreciate the perspectives; for that, a certain distance is necessary. In order to penetrate a little into the mystery of the Mass, the first condition is to humbly acknowledge that it involves a mystery, something that goes beyond us.
If the mysterious character of Latin is so beneficial, should the faithful be dissuaded from learning it, and those who do understand it be pitied?
The use of Latin in the liturgy keeps up the sense of mystery even for those who know this language. The mere fact that it involves a special language, distinct from one’s maternal tongue and common speech (a language which, of itself, is not immediately understood by all even if in fact it is understood), is enough to create a certain distance that fosters respect. The study of Christian Latin should be heartily encouraged. The effort it requires helps to lift up its students towards the mystery, whereas the liturgy in the vernacular tends to bring it down to the human level.
Doesn’t the use of Latin risk leaving some of the faithful in ignorance of the sacred liturgy?
The Council of Trent imposed upon priests the duty to preach often about the Mass and to explain its rites to the faithful. In addition, the faithful have missals in which the Latin prayers are translated, so they can have access to the beautiful prayers of the liturgy without the advantages of Latin being lost. Experience also proves that in Latin countries, the understanding of liturgical Latin (if not in all its details, then at least globally) is relatively easy for anyone who is interested. The demand it makes on their attention fosters the faithful’s genuine participation in the liturgy: that of the mind and will; whereas the vernacular language, to the contrary, is likely to encourage laziness.
Doesn’t the use of a sacred language in the liturgy introduce an arbitrary break between everyday life (“profane”) and the spiritual life, while the role of Christians should be, on the contrary, to consecrate everything to God (even one’s everyday language)?
In order to keep the spirit of prayer in all our activities, we must sometimes break away from these activities to devote ourselves to prayer. The same applies here: sometimes using a sacred language in order to realize more deeply the transcendence of God will be an aid, and not an impediment, to continual prayer.
73) What other reasons militate in favor of using Latin in the liturgy?
Three more reasons militate in favor of using Latin:
In what way is the immutability of Latin an advantage?
An immutable faith requires a proportionate linguistic instrument; namely, a language that is as immutable as possible and which can serve as a reference. Latin, which is no longer a modern language, no longer (or rarely) changes. In a modern language, on the contrary, words can rapidly undergo significant changes of meaning or tone (they can acquire a pejorative or derisive connotation which they formerly lacked). The usage of such a language can thus easily lead to errors or ambiguities, while the use of Latin preserves both the dignity and orthodoxy of the liturgy.4
In what way is the nearly bimillennial use of the Latin language in the liturgy an advantage?
Used in the liturgy for nearly two thousand years, the Latin language has been, as it were, hallowed. It is a comfort to be able to pray with the same words that our ancestors and all the priests and monks have prayed for centuries. We feel concretely the continuity of the Church through time, and we unite our prayer with theirs. Time and eternity converge.
How does Latin symbolize the unity of the Church?
Latin not only manifests the Church’s unity in time, but also in space.5 Favoring union with Rome (its usage kept Poland from the Slavic schism), it also unites all Christian nations with one another. Before the Council, the Roman-Rite Mass was celebrated everywhere in the same language. On five continents, the faithful would find the Mass as celebrated in their own parish. Today, this image of unity has been shattered. There is no longer any unity in the liturgy, neither in language nor in rites. This is true to such an extent that someone attending a Mass celebrated in an unfamiliar language has a hard time even distinguishing the principle parts of the Mass.
How might one sum up the utility of Latin?
Our Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. The Latin language in its way contributes to each of these characteristics.6 By its native genius (an imperial language), its hieratic character (a “dead” language), and, especially, the consecration it received, together with Hebrew and Greek, on the titulum of the Cross,7 it perfectly serves the sanctity of the liturgy; by its universal, supranational usage (it is no longer the language of any one people), it manifests catholicity; by its living link with the Rome of St. Peter and with so many of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church who were both the echo of the Apostles and the artisans of liturgical Latin (they forged not only its prayers, hymns, and responses, but Christian Latin itself, which is, in many aspects, a complete renewal of classical Latin), it is the guarantee of its apostolicity; by its official usage, lastly, which makes it the language of reference for the magisterium, canon law, and liturgy, it contributes efficaciously to the Church’s triple unity: unity of faith, unity of government, and unity of worship.
1 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Fifth Mystagogical Catechesis, 21; PG, XXXIII, 1126.
2 See above Question 63.
3 Of 2,115 valid responses, 1,233 bishops [more than 58 percent] were categorically against the introduction of Communion in the hand, while only 567 [fewer than 27 percent] approved it unconditionally.
4 “The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is...an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth” (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, §60).– “For immutable dogmas, an immutable language is necessary, which will guarantee that the formulation of these same dogmas will not be altered....The Protestants and all the enemies of the Catholic Church have always harshly reproached its use of Latin. They feel that the immobility of this breast-plate wonderfully defends against any alteration of the ancient Christian traditions whose testimony crushes them. They would like to shatter the form in order to strike the heart. Error willingly speaks a variable, changing language” (Msgr. De Segur).
5 “The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity...” (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, §60).
6 “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure until the end of time, and because it totally excludes the simple faithful from its government, of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular” (Pope Pius XI, Apostolic Letter Officiorum Omnium, August 1, 1922.)
7 “And the writing was: Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews....and it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin” (Jn. 19:19-20).
Current Issue
