March 1981 Print

1 . Sacramentum Sacramentorum

Adoremus in aetemum Sanctissimum Sacramentum: Let us adore forever the most Holy Sacrament. Of all the countless gifts which God has bestowed upon mankind there can be no doubt that the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar is the greatest and most precious. St. Augustine of Hippo introduced the term "Sacrament of the Altar" to emphasize the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, reminding us that this Sacrament of Sacraments, Sacramentum Sacramentorum, is not simply reserved upon the altar for our adoration, but is the Saving Victim offered upon the altar during the Sacrifice of the Mass, Who opens wide the gates of heaven to mankind:

O Salutaris Hostia,
Quae coeli pandis ostium.

There can be no doubt that the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar is indeed the Sacramentum Sacramentorum because, as St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us, It contains Christ Himself. In fact, the Blessed Sacrament is Christ Himself, and hence God Himself. A Catholic can, and must, make the equation: "The Eucharist is God." He must offer divine worship to the most Holy Sacrament under pain of anathema. Naturally, because the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar is God Himself, we can never offer It sufficient honor, sufficient reverence. Those who remember the devotion shown to our sweet Sacrament Divine in Catholic churches before Vatican II will know that, humanly speaking, this manifestation of our adoration could hardly have been improved upon.

"May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting."

 

2. Liturgical Development

It is a mistake to think of the Christian religion as something static. Such an attitude is a characteristic of some of the more extreme Protestant fundamentalist sects. Thus, because the Bible does not mention the Holy See, cardinals, religious orders, or reservation of the Blessed Sacrament, the Catholic Church is accused of introducing novelties not countenanced by Scripture, or even of deviating from the pure Bible Faith. In his great book, The Development of Christian Doctrine, Cardinal Newman proves that development is an essential characteristic of a true and living faith. The original Gospel message, handed on by Our Lord to His Apostles, and preached by them throughout the world, can be compared to an acorn which develops into a mighty oak. The oak, indeed, bears little resemblance to the acorn, but at each stage of its development it is consistent with the stage that came before. Had it been stunted at any stage of its growth this, indeed, would have been an aberration. But to call an oak an aberration because it does not resemble an acorn is to lose all claim to credibility.

In the case of Christianity, as the centuries passed, and under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, the original seed of the Gospel message has developed in many ways within the one true Church founded by Our Lord. The doctrine of the papacy, the veneration shown to Our Lady, the theology of the Sacraments, and, above all, the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, have undergone considerable development. Yet, where the developed doctrine, as we have it today, is sometimes scarcely recognizable as the original seed found in the Gospel, if we trace its development back stage by stage, we will find that every stage is consistent with the one which preceded it. There is no more justification for alleging that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as explained in the Cathechism of the Council of Trent, is unfaithful to the Gospel, than there is for claiming that the magnificent oak is unfaithful to the acorn from which it sprang.

Where the Blessed Sacrament is concerned, as the years passed Christians became more and more aware of Its awesome nature as God the Son truly present among us. Naturally, this increasing awareness was given liturgical expression, nowhere more apparent than in the distribution of Holy Communion. The pattern of development differed slightly in the East and in the West. As Catholics of the Western or Latin Rite, the development of devotion to the Blessed Sacrament within our own branch of the Church is what should most concern us. In the first centuries, Holy Communion under the form of bread was usually given to the faithful in the hand. But, by the fourth century, awareness of the divine nature of the Sacrament had become so acute that there was already anxiety lest the smallest particle should fall upon the ground. St. Cyril of Jerusalem warned the faithful:

Partake of It, ensuring that you do not mislay any of It. For if you mislay any, you would clearly suffer a loss as it were, from one of your own limbs. Tell me, if anyone gave you gold-dust, would you not take hold of it with every possible care, ensuring that you did not mislay any of it or sustain any loss? So will you not be much more cautious to ensure that not a crumb falls away from that which is more precious than gold or precious stones?

Not surprisingly, this enhanced reverence for the Blessed Sacrament developed to the point where the Host was placed upon the tongue of the communicant. This gradually became the general practice in a number of regions. The Synod of Rouen, in the year 650, condemned the reception of Communion in the hand as an abuse, indicating that reception on the tongue must already have been a long-established practice in that area. The Roman Ordo of the ninth century accepts Communion on the tongue as the normal practice. Scholars are divided as to the precise reasons for the change. Father Joseph Jungmann, one of the greatest liturgical experts of this century, cites "growing respect for the Eucharist" as the decisive reason. By the thirteenth century, it was already a firmly established tradition that only what had been consecrated specifically for the purpose should ever come into contact with the Blessed Sacrament. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) writes:

The dispensing of Christ's Body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First because he consecrates in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His Body at the Supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's Body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands for touching this sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it, except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.

 

3. The Protestant Heresy

Reverence towards this sacrament led to a number of signs of devotion which were observed universally throughout the Western Church up till the time of the Protestant Reformation. Wherever the Protestant heresy triumphed, many or all of these signs of reverence were quite logically forbidden because, within the context of this heresy, the bread and wine are no more than symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ. In themselves they remain bread and wine, no different and no more holy, than bread and wine used outside the Communion Service.¹

Catholics were accused of "bread worship" which, the Protestants alleged, constituted idolatry. Some sects abolished every sign of reverence which was offered to the Blessed Sacrament within the Catholic Church; others retained a number in the interests of good order and decorum. For example, the Church of England retained the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion, but added the notorious "Black Rubric" to its prayer book. This rubric stressed that the act of kneeling involved no adoration, that the bread and wine remained in their own natural substances, "and therefore may not be adored, for that were idolatry to be abhorred by all faithful Christians."

The first Protestant Prayer Book was imposed upon the English people in 1549. It retained the practices of kneeling and Communion on the tongue. This was one of several details in the 1549 Prayer Book which evoked the displeasure of the more radical Protestant Reformers, particularly Martin Bucer, a German who exercised a considerable influence upon the liturgical work of Thomas Cranmer, principal author of the Anglican Prayer Book. In his criticism of the 1549 Prayer Book, Bucer wrote:

I have no doubt that the usage of not putting these sacraments in the hands of the faithful has been introduced out of a double superstition; firstly, the false honor they wished to show to this sacrament, and secondly, the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration.

Bucer demanded that, "as every superstition of the Roman Antichrist is to be detested, and the simplicity of Christ, and the Apostles, and the ancient Churches, is to be recalled," the sacrament should be placed into the hand of the laity:

In that way good men will easily be brought to the point of all receiving the sacred symbols in the hand, conformity in receiving will be kept, and there will be safeguards against all furtive abuse of the sacraments. For, although for a time concession can be made to those whose faith is weak, by giving them the sacraments in the mouth when they so desire, if they are carefully taught they will soon conform themselves to the rest of the Church and take the sacraments in the hand.

When the revised version of the Anglican Prayer Book was published in 1552, not only had the "Black Rubric" been added, but the practice of Communion in the hand was introduced. Thus, from the time of the Reformation, the placing of the Sacrament in the hand of the communicant acquired a new signification. It signified rejection of the Catholic belief that there is a difference in essence between Eucharistic Bread and ordinary bread, or a difference in essence between a priest and a layman. Although the practice is not intrinsically irreverent, as a practice sanctioned by the Church so widely and for so long could not be intrinsically irreverent, as a result of the significance placed upon it by the Protestant Reformers it became unacceptable to Catholics. The reception of the Blessed Sacrament upon the tongue by laymen testifies to their belief in the priesthood and Real Presence; the reception of their sacrament in the hand by Protestants testifies to their rejection of these beliefs. Thus the situation remained until the closure of the Second Vatican Council in 1965. When the Council ended the Liturgical Revolution got underway.

 

4. The Second Vatican Council and Liturgical Reform

The standard response given to the faithful who complain about the endless succession of liturgical innovations which have been foisted upon them since Vatican II is that these innovations were ordered by, authorized by, or are a response to the Council. I have a copy of a letter sent by an English bishop to a group of Catholics who pleaded with him to prevent the vandalization of the sanctuary in their parish church, particularly the removal of the tabernacle from the high altar. The bishop informed them that these changes had been ordered by the Liturgy Consitution of the Second Vatican Council. There is not one word in this Constitution which so much as hints at the possibility of removing the tabernacle from the high altar. Nor does the Constitution mention Mass facing the people, lay-ministers of Communion, dancing in the sanctuary, or Communion in the hand. Pope Paul VI complained that: "Some priests and members of the faithful mask with the name 'conciliar' those personal interpretations and erroneous practices that are injurious, even scandalous, and at times sacrilegious."

The practice of Communion in the hand was introduced soon after Vatican II by ecumenically-minded priests in Holland who wished to ape the Protestant practice. This was done as an act of calculated defiance of liturgical law and legitimate ecclesiastical authority. The Dutch rebels soon found imitators among the progressive clergy in Germany, Belgium, and France. Sadly, most bishops reacted with the weakness which has characterized Western hierarchies since the Council, when faced with defiance by Liberal clerics. They failed to take prompt disciplinary action and the abuse spread. Thus the practice, which had already become unacceptable to Catholics in view of the Protestant signification it had acquired during the Reformation, became additionally tainted as the symbol par excellence of liturgical anarchy, the banner of those who had defied the authority of Rome, and more than a thousand years of unbroken Catholic tradition.

 

5. The Instruction Memoriale Domini

Despite the scandalous refusal of the bishops to exercise their authority, the indignation of large numbers of the faithful at this breach with tradition, and the irreverence or even sacrilege to which it led, prompted Pope Paul VI to act. He polled the bishops of the world upon the issue; they voted overwhelmingly to retain the traditional practice. At this time, 1969, the abuse was still confined to a few "advanced" Western countries. On 29 May 1969, the Instruction Memoriale Domini was promulgated by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. It had been prepared at the special mandate of Pope Paul VI, and was approved by him in virtue of his apostolic authority. This Instruction explained how the earlier practice of Communion in the hand had been superseded:

From a pressing sense of reverence toward this holy sacrament, and of humility which its reception demands, the custom was introduced by which the minister himself would place the piece of consecrated Bread upon the tongue of the communicants.

In view of the state of the Church as a whole today, this manner of distributing Holy Communion must be observed, not only because it rests upon a tradition of many centuries, but especially because it is a sign of reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist. The practice in no way detracts from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament, and it is part of the preparation needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord's Body.

The Instruction quoted the result of the ballot among the bishops of the world, and warns that the practice of Communion in the hand can lead to: "a lessening of reverence toward the noble Sacrament of the Altar, Its profanation, or the adulteration of correct doctrine." It adds that:

From the response received it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline should not be changed at all, indeed, that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibilities and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful.

After he had considered the observations and the counsel of those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule" the Churches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importance of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long-received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed.

The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests, and people to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgment of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the Church.

6. Disloyal Bishops

Unfortunately, the Holy See made a calamitous error of judgment within the Instruction. It agreed that, where the abuse had already become firmly established, it could be legalized by a two-thirds majority in a secret ballot of the national episcopal conference, providing the Holy See confirmed the decision. This concession gave the green light to Liturgical anarchists, despite the fact that it clearly referred to countries where the abuse had become established at the time Memoriale Domini was promulgated, i.e., May 1969. Clerical rebels in such countries as England or the U.S.A. would naturally conclude that if rebellion could be legalized in Holland it could be legalized in any country. They decided that if they ignored Memoriale Domini and defied the liturgical law of the Church, their rebellion would be tolerated and eventually legalized. Their judgment proved to be only too accurate. Despite the appeal of the Holy See for bishops to observe zealously the traditional practice, despite the fact that they themselves had voted for the traditional practice, as the abuse spread from country to country the bishops first tolerated it and then voted for its legalization. Only in a few countries, such as Italy or Poland, did the bishops respond to the appeal in Memoriale Domini, and insist upon maintaining the practice of Communion on the tongue "out of concern for the common good of the Church."

 7. Deceitful Propaganda

In such countries as England and the U.S.A., the bishops went beyond first tolerating the abuse and then having it legalized. To cover up their own weakness they promoted the abuse as the better way of receiving Holy Communion. Some of the propaganda utilized to induce the faithful to change to the Protestant practice involved a serious manipulation of the facts, and sometimes outright falsehood. For example, the Catholic Truth Society of England and Wales, an episcopally-approved organization, published a pamphlet which assured the faithful that the Eastern churches had preserved the practice of Communion in the hand. This is totally false. In the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church of the Eastern Rites, the faithful receive the sacrament upon their tongues. The fact that this pamphlet was written by Father Anthony Boylan, Secretary of the Liturgy Commission of England and Wales, indicates the ignorance of some of those claiming to be "liturgical experts." The Catholic Information Office of England and Wales published a statement claiming that the practice had only been introduced after widespread consultation among priests and laity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Few of the clergy so much as knew that the bishops had voted upon the matter until the innovation was imposed upon them as a fait accompli.

The type of propaganda used to popularize the abuse in the U.S.A. is well illustrated by a book entitled Preaching and Teaching About the Eucharist, by Msgr. Joseph M. Champlin. It is a faithful popularization of an official publication of the American Bishops entitled The Body of Christ. Msgr. Champlin explains the introduction of Communion in the hand into the U.S.A. as follows:

Around the time of the Second Vatican Council, some Catholics, following the liturgical principles approved by the bishops, sought to have the ancient practice of communion in the hand restored as an option. (Continued below)

* * * * *

Our sins, O Lord, darken our minds, and we lose the benefit of loving Thee as Thou deservest. Enlighten us with a ray of Thy bright light. Thou art Friend, Redeemer, Father of all who turn repentant to Thy Heart; and we return to Thee sorrowing. Save us, O Jesus; provide out of Thy infinite bounty for our miseries. O Jesus, we hope in Thee because we know that our salvation cost Thee Thy life, sacrificed upon the Cross, and induced Thee to dwell continuously in the Blessed Sacrament, in order to be united with us as often as we desire. We, O Lord, to thank Thee for the great love Thou bearest us, promise with the help of Thy grace to receive Thee in the Blessed Sacrament as often as possible; to declare Thy praises in church and in every place, without human respect. O Lord, confiding in Thy Sacred Heart, we beseech Thee, to preserve in Thy love those who love Thee and to invite all to receive Thee daily at the altar in accordance with Thy burning desire. Indulgence of 300 days, every time—St. Pius X, 6 July 1906.

 

Msgr. Champlin thus gives his readers the impression that Vatican II provided a mandate for the abuse when, in fact, it is not hinted at in any document of the Council. He also conceals the fact that what he describes so euphemistically as a desire to have "Communion in the hand restored as an option" was, in fact, an open rebellion against established tradition and ecclesiastical authority. He continues:

As these desires intensified, Pope Paul surveyed bishops throughout the world about the desirability of reintroducing this as an alternative to communion given directly on the tongue. In response to their views, our Holy Father decreed that the present method would be retained, but that bishops in a particular country might vote to introduce communion in the hand as an option.

The obvious conclusion to which Msgr. Champlin's readers would come is that the bishops had voted in favor of the innovation, and that the Pope had agreed to permit it in response to this vote. As has just been shown, the bishops voted overwhelmingly against it, and permission to legalize the practice was clearly intended to apply only to countries where it had been established by 1969.

Much of the propaganda for the abuse consists of little more than gibberish. Unfortunately, few people are critical by nature, and many are only too willing to succumb to propaganda which flatters their sense of self-esteem. Thus, in The Body of Christ, the American Bishops assure the faithful that the act of receiving Communion in the hand:

Forms a positive, human, understandable response to Jesus' invitation "take and eat"... reflects the giving-receiving dynamic ... appears to many a more mature and adult gesture...."

Does it indeed!

 

8. "A Wicked Movement"

Probably the most frequently reiterated argument in favor of the abuse is that it is a return to primitive practice. This was the same argument which the Protestant Reformers used to justify it. Pope Pius XII had condemned attempts to subvert the liturgy, under the guise of a return to primitive practice. In his Encyclical Mediator Dei (1947), he described this tendency as "a wicked movement that tends to paralyze the sanctifying and salutary action by which the liturgy leads the children of adoption on the path to their heavenly Father." He explained that "the desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of a table; to want black excluded from our liturgical colors, and pictures and statues excluded from our churches." Mention has already been made of Cardinal Newman's explanation of the process of doctrinal and liturgical development. The great Cardinal warned that to reverse the course of an existing development is not a development but a corruption.

 

9. Pope John Paul II Speaks

In his Apostolic Letter Dominicae Cenae, dated 24 February 1980, Pope John Paul II noted that since the introduction of Communion in the hand "cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the Eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior, but also to the pastors of the Church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasions, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where Communion in the hand has been authorized." He made no secret of his own preference in the same letter, by stressing the ancient custom of "the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary! To touch the sacred species, and to distribute them with their own hands, is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist." Unfortunately, the Pope clearly believes that it would not be practical to attempt to enforce a return to the traditional practice within the present climate of anarchy within the Church. His attempt to persuade nuns who have abandoned their religious habits to return to them, even in a simplified form, has not simply been defied but ridiculed.

 

10. Communion in the Hand: A Symptom of Irreverence

The abuse of Communion in the hand is just one example of a widespread pattern of decreasing reverence for the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. When the Council closed, the practice throughout the Latin Church was for kneeling communicants to receive the Host on their tongue from the consecrated hands of a priest. Now It is commonly placed in the hands of a standing communicant by lay distributors, sometimes while the priests sit in their presidential chairs and watch. Similarly, the many signs of reverence on the part of the priest have been abolished, simplified, or made optional. Examples here are the practice of keeping the thumb and forefinger together from the moment of consecration, until the meticulous ablutions which followed the communion of the people. Now, before the Communion, the priest is often seen rushing about inside and outside the sanctuary shaking hands with as many people as possible.

What, then, should be the reaction of a faithful Catholic to the abuse of Communion in the hand? Clearly, out of respect for the Blessed Sacrament, which is God, he should insist upon receiving It only upon the tongue from the consecrated hands of a priest, and to receive It kneeling. Alas, in some churches today this means that he will be refused Holy Communion. This has happened in London's Westminster Cathedral. But, surely, although we receive Holy Communion to unite ourselves with our Divine Savior, we can manifest our love for Him more clearly by depriving ourselves of this consolation where it would involve receiving Him without due respect. Those who kneel to receive Our Lord upon the tongue are following the example of countless great saints throughout the centuries—and acting in the manner which the present Holy Father clearly prefers. Communion in the hand is totally prohibited in Italy and Poland.

However, we should certainly refrain from passing judgment, in private or in public, upon any of our acquaintances who receive Holy Communion in the hand. While the practice has certainly led to much irreverence, it does not necessarily denote irreverence on the part of every individual who now receives in this manner. Where a parish priest has made it clear that he wishes Communion to be received this way, where it has been made clear that this is the wish of the diocesan bishop, where an incessant campaign of cleverly slanted propaganda has been aimed at ordinary members of the faithful, it is hardly surprising that so many have succumbed. But this does not mean that, perhaps by distributing articles such as this, we should not attempt to persuade our friends and relatives to return to the traditional practice. Any effort we make to achieve this is an effort intended to increase reverence to our Eucharistic King, and surely we could engage in nothing more worthwhile than this.

 

Remember then, O Saviour,
I supplicate of Thee,
That here I bowed before Thee
Upon my bended knee;
That here I owned Thy Presence,
And did not Thee deny:
And glorified Thy greatness
Though hid from human eye.

---

1. The one exception was within the Lutheran heresy where the Body and Blood of Christ were said to co-exist with the bread and wine, i.e., the theory of consubstantiation.

 

This article by Mr. Davies will soon be available from the Angelas Press in pamphlet form. Please watch for an announcement.