I think that this relativistic, modernistic spirit, which was already reigning in theological faculties and in the episcopacy, is substantially also Protestant, because it seeks to make the Church like others, denying its uniqueness as we speak of divine revelation.
We first have to touch the heart of the Church, which is the Holy Eucharist. When we relativize the heart of the Church, we also relativize other realities and other truths. They began a general attack on the mystery of the Eucharist, first with the radical and revolutionary change of the Mass, of the liturgy of the Mass, to make it more acceptable to the Protestants.
After the publication of the Novus Ordo, several Protestants affirmed that it is very close to their thinking. Some Protestant pastors even said, “We can take the Novus Ordo and celebrate it, but only with the second Eucharistic Prayer,” which is the shortest one and expresses only the minimum of Catholic doctrine.
We already have these affirmations from Protestants. This was the first attack to relativize the Eucharist and the sacrificial character of the Holy Mass, which is the unique Catholic doctrine, and of course, also that of the Orthodox Church. Here, we are united in this truth about the fundamental and essential sacrificial character of the Holy Mass.
It was a shift toward the banquet and meal theory of Martin Luther, reflected both in the manner of celebrating and in the texts of the Novus Ordo. This was the first attack.
Then, in 1969, came the permission of Pope Paul VI for Communion in the hand, which was a direct attack on the truth. When you take our Lord in such a simple, ordinary manner, as you would take a piece of cake or an ordinary meal in your hand and place it in your mouth yourself, over time this weakens the conviction of a person and his belief that this is something special, not ordinary. One cannot behave in the same way toward the Eucharist as toward an ordinary meal.
This practice has demonstrated that it weakens belief in the Real Presence, in Transubstantiation, and in the divinity of Christ present in the little host. It also diminishes the sense of sacredness and care for the fragments that may fall to the ground and be trampled. This was an attack leading to a mass desecration of the Holy of Holies, the heart of the Church.
This was surely also the intent of the Freemasons, the enemies of the Church, to strike the heart of the Church and make this attack on the Holy of Holies through the practice of Communion in the hand. Of course, many people were instructed to do this and are innocent; they have no guilt because they did not know another way to receive Holy Communion. Unfortunately, the responsibility and guilt lie with the clergy, and ultimately with Pope Paul VI, who permitted this, even though he said, “I am against it.”
But how can you say that when someone comes to burn your house and you respond, “I am against it, you burn my house,” yet you do nothing as he enters and sets it on fire, only repeating, “I told you I was against it”? This was the behavior of Paul VI. He said, “I am against it, please keep Communion on the tongue,” but in the same text, he added that on some occasions Communion could be given on the hand.
This was like opening a dam where water is collected; when you make a little hole in the dike, over time it will overflow. We could already observe this happening, and for me, it is understandable how Paul VI could have permitted this tragedy, a tragedy of Communion in the hand, with all its consequences.