Christopher Wendt: Our Lady of Fatima, all guests, happy anniversary of the solar miracle of Our Lady of Fatima. What a great day it is. Tonight’s broadcast with His Excellency will be on the third part of the Holy Eucharist from the Roman Catechism, and there will be one more part that we will air in December. But before we start our broadcast, could you lead us in prayer, Your Excellency?
His Excellency: Yes. In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie. Et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.
In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Christopher Wendt: Thank you, Your Excellency.
Before we get started on your catechism lesson, I have two announcements. One, I am so excited about your new book, Your Excellency: Credo, A Compendium of the Catholic Faith. I encourage everyone to get a copy of it. It is available at Sophia Press and is also already on Amazon. You have to get a copy of this. It is a great question-and-answer resource on all the modern topics: transgenderism, abortion, everything that is going on. I pray it will bring great clarity about the true faith to millions of people. So you really should get your copy.
Also, we have an opportunity to support a beloved project of His Excellency in Africa. In Tanzania, there is a Saint Benedict House of Studies that they are trying to build. I encourage you to support it. We are actually going to sponsor a climb of Mount Kilimanjaro. It is the fourth-highest mountain in the world and stands at twenty thousand feet. I, along with some other climbers and hikers, am going to hike it in July.
If you are interested in being a hiker, you can reach out to us at climb@liftfatima.io. If you would like to support the climbers and these fine young men, there are about two hundred fifty young men who want to become priests, authentically Catholic priests. They want to be able to study at the Saint Benedict House of Studies, but they cannot do that if we do not help make it happen.
It really is an important project. I just cannot stress that enough. I was there, in Tanzania. I saw the potential, and it is on my heart. I am going to do everything in my power, with Our Lady’s help. I know Our Lady wants this to happen.
So if you can, please consider making a donation. Go to livefatima.io/climb. You can scan the QR code there. Please visit the site and consider making a donation if you are able.
Also, please pray for us. Pray that we will be successful with the climb. We are going to have a Latin Mass every day on the way up. We will have a climb chaplain, and at the top, we are going to proclaim the reign of Mary at the very summit of the mountain. We will send you a picture when we are done.
So please, prayerfully consider supporting us at the very least with your prayers, but if possible, also with a gift. And if you want to climb, you are welcome to join us.
Without further ado, I am going to turn it over to you, Your Excellency, to begin your third catechism lesson on the Holy Eucharist from the Roman Catechism.
His Excellency: So today we will speak about the Eucharist as Holy Communion. First, we will look at the threefold manner of receiving Holy Communion.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent speaks about this. That the faithful may learn to be zealous for the better gifts, they must be shown who can obtain these abundant fruits from the Holy Eucharist, from Holy Communion. Therefore, they must be reminded that there is not only one way of receiving Holy Communion.
Wisely and rightly, then, did the Council of Trent distinguish three ways of receiving this sacrament. Some receive it sacramentally only.
Such are those sinners who do not fear to approach the holy mysteries with polluted lips and hearts, who, as the Apostle says, eat and drink the Lord’s body unworthily. Of this class of communicant, Saint Augustine says, He who does not dwell in Christ, and in whom Christ does not dwell, certainly does not eat His flesh spiritually, although carnally and visibly he presses with his teeth the sacrament of His flesh and blood.
Those, therefore, who receive the sacred mysteries with such a disposition not only obtain no fruit from them, but, as the Apostle himself testifies, they eat and drink judgment to themselves.
Others are said to receive the Eucharist in spirit only spiritual Holy Communion. These are those who, inflamed with lively faith which works through charity, partake in wish and in desire of that celestial bread offered to them. From this, they receive, if not the entire, at least very great fruits.
Lastly, there are some who receive the Holy Eucharist both sacramentally and spiritually. These are those who, according to the teaching of the Apostle, having first proved themselves and having approached this divine banquet adorned with the nuptial garment, derive from the Eucharist the most abundant fruits, which we have already described.
Hence, it is clear that those who have it in their power to receive, with fitting preparation, the sacrament of the Body of the Lord, and yet are satisfied with a spiritual Communion only, deprive themselves of the greatest and most heavenly advantages.
Now, let us look at the necessity of previous preparation for Holy Communion.
To demonstrate the great necessity of this preparation, we can reflect on the example of our Savior. Before He gave His Apostles the sacrament of His precious Body and Blood, although they were already clean, He washed their feet. This was to show that we must use extreme diligence before Holy Communion in order to approach it with the greatest purity and innocence of soul.
He who approaches without this preparation not only derives no advantage from it but even incurs the greatest misfortune.
It is characteristic of the best and most salutary things that, if used at the proper time, they are productive of the greatest benefit. But if employed out of time, they prove most harmful and destructive. It should not, therefore, surprise us that the great and exalted gifts of God, when received into a soul properly disposed, are of the greatest assistance toward the attainment of salvation, while to those who receive them unworthily, they bring with them eternal death.
The Ark of the Lord offers a convincing illustration of this truth.
The people of Israel prized nothing more precious than the Ark of the Lord. It was for them the source of innumerable blessings from God. But when the Philistines carried it away, it brought upon them the most destructive plague and the heaviest calamities, together with eternal disgrace. Thus, also, food, when received from the mouth into a healthy stomach, nourishes and supports the body, but when received into an indisposed stomach, it causes grave disorders.
Now, let us look at the preparation of the soul for Holy Communion. The first preparation that the faithful should make is to distinguish this table from other tables, this sacred table from profane tables, this celestial bread from common bread. We do this when we firmly believe that the Body and Blood of the Lord are truly present, He whom the angels adore in heaven, and at whose presence the pillars of heaven tremble in awe. The heavens and the earth are full of His glory.
This is to discern the Body of the Lord in accordance with the admonition of the Apostle.
Another very necessary preparation is to ask ourselves if we are at peace with and sincerely love our neighbor. Therefore, if one offers their gift at the altar and remembers that their brother has anything against them, let them leave their offering before the altar, go first to be reconciled to that brother, and then come and offer their gift, as Holy Scripture says.
We should, in the next place, carefully examine whether our conscience is defiled by mortal sin, which must be repented of, so that it may be blotted out before Communion by the remedy of contrition and Holy Confession.
The Council of Trent has defined that no one conscious of mortal sin and having the opportunity to go to Holy Confession, no matter how contrite they may deem themselves, is to approach the Holy Eucharist until they have been purified by sacramental confession.
We should also reflect in the silence of our own hearts how unworthy we are that the Lord should bestow on us these divine gifts. Like the centurion, of whom our Lord declared that He had not found so great a faith in Israel, we should exclaim from our hearts, “O Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof.”
Then, there is also the preparation of the body. Our preparation should not be confined solely to the soul; it should also extend to the body, observing the Eucharistic fast. We should also wear decent clothing while receiving Holy Communion.
Now, let us speak about the obligation of Holy Communion.
How often must Communion be received? The Church has decreed that the faithful should receive Holy Communion at least once a year, during the Easter time.
The Church desires the faithful to even communicate daily. However, let not the faithful imagine that it is enough to receive the Body of the Lord once a year in obedience to the decree of the Church. They should approach often, but whether monthly, weekly, or daily, this cannot be decided by any fixed universal rule. Saint Augustine, however, lays down a most certain norm: “Live in such a manner as to be able to receive the Lord every day.”
It is clear that the soul stands in no less need of spiritual food than the body does of corporal food. Here, it will be most useful to recall the inestimable and divine advantages which flow from sacramental Communion. It will also be helpful to refer to the manner in the Old Testament, which was a figure of the sacrament and which refreshed the bodily powers of the Israelites every day.
The Fathers of the Church have earnestly recommended the frequent reception of Holy Communion. The words of Saint Augustine can be cited: “Thou hast commanded, since sinners daily receive, daily express.” This is not only his opinion but that of all the Fathers who have written on the subject. Anyone who carefully reads the Fathers of the Church will easily discover this. In some places in the past, the ancient practice of giving Holy Communion even to infants prevailed. This practice is still observed among the Catholics and the Orthodox faithful of the Eastern Rites.
Regarding the age at which children should be given Holy Communion, in the Roman Rite, it is the age of reason. Specifically, this can be determined by the parents and the Confessor.
It is their responsibility to inquire and ascertain from the children themselves whether they have some knowledge of this admirable sacrament and whether they desire to receive it.
Holy Communion must not be given to persons who are insane or incapable of devotion. However, according to the decree of the Council of Trent, it may be administered to them at the close of life, provided they have shown, before losing their minds, a pious and religious disposition. No danger should arise from the state of the stomach or other inconveniences, nor should any disrespect be likely.
Let us now look at the right of administering and receiving Holy Communion. Christ the Lord instituted and delivered this sacrament to His apostles at the Last Supper, under the species of bread and wine. However, it does not follow that by doing so, our Lord and Savior established a law for administering it to all the faithful under both species.
When speaking of the sacrament, the Lord Himself frequently mentions it under one kind only. For instance, He says, “If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever. And the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. He that eats this bread shall live forever.” Here, our Lord speaks of the Holy Sacrament under one species, the bread.
Why does the priest alone receive under both species?
It is clear that the Church, influenced by numerous and most cogent reasons, not only approves but also confirms the general practice of communicating in the Roman Rite under one species. In the first place, the greatest caution was necessary to avoid spilling the blood of the Lord on the ground, which would have been difficult to prevent if the chalice were administered to a large assembly of people.
Additionally, there are many who cannot bear the taste or even the smell of wine.
Let us not allow what is intended for spiritual health to prove hurtful to the health of the body. It has been most prudently provided by the Church that Holy Communion should be administered to the people under the species of bread alone.
Finally, a most important reason was the necessity of opposing the heresy of those who denied that Christ, whole and entire, is contained under either species. These heretics asserted that the Body is contained under the species of bread without the Blood, and that the Blood is contained under the species of wine without the Body.
In response to these errors, the Church rejected the heresies of the Protestants. In order, therefore, to place more clearly before the eyes of all the truth of the Catholic faith, Communion under one kind, that is, under the species of bread, was introduced. This serves to make known that under the species of bread is contained the Blood of Christ, and under the species of wine is also contained the Body of Christ.
Let us now look at the minister of the Eucharist.
Only priests have the power to consecrate and, ordinarily, to administer the Holy Eucharist.
It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given the power to consecrate the Holy Eucharist and, ordinarily, also to administer Holy Communion to the faithful. This has been the enduring practice of the Church: that the faithful should receive the sacrament from the hands of priests, and that the officiating priest should communicate himself. This has been explained by the Council of Trent, which also showed that this practice has proceeded from the apostles and is rooted in apostolic tradition.
This is to be religiously retained, particularly because Christ the Lord left us an illustrious example. He consecrated His own most sacred Body and gave it to the apostles with His own hands. Just as in the Old Law, the high priests were prohibited from allowing anyone unqualified to touch the sacred vessels, so too has the Church, in every possible way, sought to safeguard the dignity of so august a sacrament.
Not only is the power of its administration entrusted in the ordinary way to priests alone and in exceptional cases to deacons but the Church, from ancient times until the Second Vatican Council, also prohibited anyone but consecrated persons with consecrated hands (that is, priests or others in major orders) from handling or touching the sacred vessels which contain the Holy Eucharist, unless in a case of urgent necessity.
From this, priests themselves and the rest of the faithful may understand how great should be the piety and holiness of those who approach to consecrate, administer, and receive the Holy Eucharist.
The unworthiness of the minister, that is, the priest, does not invalidate the sacrament. As has already been explained regarding the other sacraments, the same holds true for the Sacrament of the Eucharist: a sacrament is validly administered even by a sinful priest, provided that all the essential elements have been duly observed.
For we believe that the efficacy of the sacraments depends not on the merit of the priest, but on the power and virtue of Christ our Lord, the eternal High Priest.
How should we approach receiving Holy Communion?
We should not hurry, but proceed with hands folded and eyes downcast. We may also look up at a crucifix or other sacred image to keep our focus on divine things.
How should we receive Holy Communion?
We should receive while kneeling, if our physical condition allows it, and on the tongue.
Why have Christians received Holy Communion this way for so many centuries, even for over a millennium?
To show that the Eucharist is not common food, but our very Lord and God; and that the ordinary minister of this sacrament is not a common man, but one set apart by a special sacrament, Holy Orders, and anointed for this divine work
And we believe, adore, and submit to the ineffable Divine Majesty hidden in this little host, allowing ourselves to be fed by the good God like children. This supernatural food is His alone to give, and we cannot earn it or be equal to it.
This is the tradition of the Church. The current practice of Communion in the hand does not respect the tradition of the Church.
The current practice of Communion in the hand is spiritually harmful and foreign to the Catholic liturgical patrimony, having been invented by Calvinists in this concrete form to signify their rejection of Holy Orders and the Transubstantiation.
Therefore, Communion in the hand as it is given today violates the rights of Christ, failing in the proper reverence due to the Eucharist, to the sacred vessels, and ordained ministers. It diminishes Catholic faith and piety, weakening belief in and witness to the Incarnation and the Transubstantiation. It also compromises the necessary custody of the consecrated host, which is increasingly subject to theft due to this practice.
What ancient practice is sometimes invoked to defend Communion in the hand?
In some places during the first centuries, Holy Communion was placed on the palm of the right hand, sometimes covered with a white cloth called the domenicali for women. The faithful would then bow their heads deeply and take the host directly by mouth without touching it with their fingers. The hand was washed both before and after, to purify it so that no fragment would be lost.
There is no evidence that this practice was ever universal in the Church.
And so, therefore, the Church instinctively later prohibited entrance in order to preserve and strengthen an admirable consensus that had already been reached in both the East and the West.
By the first millennium, it was observed that the conditions no longer existed to ensure proper respect for the Eucharist, and the highest honors were increasingly and instinctively paid to this sacred mystery during the administration of Holy Communion.
So, the Church denies Holy Communion to public sinners. Why?
Out of reverence for the Eucharist, care for the unity of her members, and concern for the salvation of the sinner, the Church denies Communion to anyone in a public state of objectively grave sin. This includes situations such as concubinage, adulterous cohabitation, public and especially political support for abortion, same sex civil unions, homosexual activity, and similar conditions.
The Eucharist may not be administered to non Catholic Christians, such as Protestants and even the Orthodox. As the sacrament of unity, the Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church.
It may not be given to those who deny any truth of the Church’s faith or who harm unity by formally adhering to any heretical or schismatic local community.
It is the duty of all who have heard of Jesus Christ and who desire eternal salvation not merely to accept His doctrine as a whole, but to assent with their entire mind to each and every point of the doctrine of Christ. It is unlawful to withhold faith from God, even in regard to a single point.
And so, the Eucharist, truly the Holy Communion, is the pledge of future glory.
It bears the infallible promise of a glorious resurrection for all who receive Holy Communion worthily.
Our Lord said, “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Thank you.
Christopher Wendt: Can you hear me now, Your Excellency? Okay, sorry. I just have a couple of questions. One would be: if a priest is in a state of mortal sin, what should he do? Let’s say he is in the mission field and cannot walk. If he is in a diocese or on mission, or even if he is a prisoner in a diocese, then obviously he can go to confession before he celebrates his next Mass, right?
His Excellency: Well, as the Council of Trent taught, anyone who is conscious of mortal sin, even if he has repented, should not go to Holy Communion before sacramental confession. Without sacramental confession, this is the rule. But in practice, the Church has made an exception in the sense that the priest does not act for himself, but for the people. So, he should not deprive a large number of people of the graces of Holy Communion by refusing to celebrate Holy Mass simply because he is in a state of mortal sin and cannot go to confession, for example, when there is no priest available to hear his confession.
However, he must repent, have supernatural contrition, and must intend to go to sacramental confession at the next possible opportunity. Some theologians also say that, even if a priest is physically unable to confess, there can be situations of moral impossibility as well. For instance, if he is only with his superior or with his bishop and no one else is available, he may not be obliged to confess to his superior or bishop. This is to preserve the freedom of the bishop, who would then be bound by the seal of the Sacrament of Confession. The priest would expose himself, and the superior or bishop could be influenced in their decisions regarding the priest’s life. Therefore, the Sacrament of Penance must also be protected and not misused by superiors.
In such a case, some theologians say that moral impossibility may allow the priest to repent sincerely and then confess his sins to another priest at the next opportunity.
Christopher Wendt: Okay, thank you, Your Excellency. And my second question is about the Eucharistic fast for Americans. Can you remind us of what we must do to prepare ourselves physically to receive the Holy Eucharist in America?
His Excellency: Since apostolic times until the 1950s, it was a general rule in both East and West that, in order to receive Holy Communion, one must keep the fast from midnight.
Our Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters still keep this rule today. Until 1953, it was also observed by Catholics. Pope Pius XII reduced the fast to three hours before Holy Communion because he allowed evening Masses. This was so that people who were at work during the day could attend Mass in the evening and still receive Holy Communion. It would have been very difficult for them to fast from midnight, especially after working all day. The three-hour fast was, in some way, also a traditional measure. Why? Because, before 1953, it was prohibited to celebrate Mass in the afternoon or evening. This rule still exists in the Eastern Churches and the Orthodox Churches. The latest a Mass would be celebrated was more or less two o’clock in the afternoon. Before 1953, the earliest possible time to celebrate Mass was around two o’clock in the morning. Masses could not be celebrated before that hour.
So, if a priest fasted from midnight and celebrated Mass at the earliest possible time, it would naturally result in about a three-hour fast. Therefore, the Church had already allowed this minimum of three hours in ancient times, even though the rule was a fast from midnight. The rule introduced by Pope Pius XII was, therefore, also a traditional rule of a three-hour fast. I believe we should return to this traditional rule. A three-hour fast is possible for almost everyone, except in particular cases of sickness or old age. But for most people, it is achievable and spiritually helpful.
They also say that after three hours, the stomach is empty, so the body is in a more appropriate and outwardly respectful condition to receive the Lord in Holy Communion. So it is a general rule. However, unfortunately, it was later reduced to two hours, and then Pope John Paul II reduced it further to one hour in the new Code of Canon Law. One hour is basically no longer a true fast. It essentially means that you should not eat during Holy Mass. For those not attending Holy Mass, one hour might still feel like a short preparation, but most people receive Holy Communion during Mass. So when they go, they can calculate that by the time Communion takes place, the one-hour period will already be over. This means that in practice, there is no real fast at all. This is very sad. We really need to return to the traditional rule of a three-hour fast.
Christopher Wendt: So, the law may now state one hour, but the more traditional and spiritually beneficial practice would be to observe a three-hour fast.
His Excellency: Yes.
Christopher Wendt: That’s greatJust a follow-up question: Many people chew gum, and I’ve seen this before. Would chewing gum during Mass break the fast? I know it may sound obvious, but I want to ask.
His Excellency: Chewing gum should not be used during Mass at all. We are not supposed to eat or chew during Mass. Just as you should not smoke during Holy Mass, the same principle applies here. These things are inappropriate and should be avoided.
Christopher Wendt: Okay, my last question, Your Excellency. In the Code of Canon Law, I believe you also refer to this in your book, does it allow, or seem to allow, that some non-Catholic Christians, like the Orthodox, could receive Holy Communion? And possibly even other Christians who believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord? Does the Code of Canon Law allow for that? And what is your opinion on this?
His Excellency: Yes, unfortunately, the Code of Canon Law allows it in certain cases. It permits a non-Catholic to receive Holy Communion when he has no possibility of receiving it in his own community, under the condition that he is well disposed and holds a true belief in the Eucharist. However, the problem is that it does not require the person to hold the entire Catholic faith, only the belief in the Eucharist. This is problematic. One must be fully Catholic in order to receive the Eucharist, because the Holy Eucharist is the sacrament of unity.
It is a contradiction to receive the sacrament of unity while not being united with the Church. The Church’s unity is based on the entirety of her doctrine, every point of it. So, when someone is in a schismatic situation, such as not recognizing the Pope or the Catholic hierarchy (as is the case with the Orthodox), they are not visibly united with the Church.
To receive Holy Communion in that state while professing to receive the sacrament of unity becomes a visible contradiction. The Eucharist is a visible expression of full and perfect unity with the Catholic Church. Therefore, in such cases, receiving Communion is inconsistent with that reality.
Moreover, the Holy Eucharist is not absolutely necessary for eternal salvation. Only Baptism and faith are essential. So, non-Catholics, including the Orthodox, can receive spiritual Communion if they desire it sincerely.
In the case of death, an exception might be considered for the Orthodox, since they truly believe in all the truths of the Eucharist and accept almost all the teachings of the Catholic faith, except for the primacy of the Pope and related doctrines.
I think that if someone is dying and sincerely desires to receive the Lord and to belong to the fullness of the Church, even if only implicitly, a Catholic priest can, in such a case, give absolution and Holy Communion. This must be seen as an exceptional situation, judged case by case, and not as a general rule.
We have to be very honest. As I mentioned, many people have died piously in the Lord without receiving Holy Communion through faith, desire, and repentance. It is possible to die in the grace of God even without sacramental Communion.
So, it seems that priests and bishops should, in practice, disregard that particular provision of the Code of Canon Law. It has no real force of law because it contradicts the Church’s tradition and the fullness of the Catholic faith.
This canon undermines the traditional teaching and the uniqueness of the Catholic Church. It relativizes the meaning and significance of the Holy Eucharist. The Eucharist is the sacrament of unity, and this provision weakens that truth.
It’s like what St. Thomas Aquinas said: an unjust law or a law that does not participate in God’s authority has no true binding power. It has no true light and no real validity in the moral order.
Yes, it may be a law in the legal sense, but we cannot ignore that it ultimately undermines the fullness of Catholic truth and the true meaning of the Eucharist as the sacrament of unity.
Christopher Wendt: Thank you, Your Excellency, I appreciate you. I have many more questions, but we’re out of time. We are on the eve of the Synod on Synodality. You have composed a beautiful prayer, and we’re going to pray that one instead of our usual prayer to hasten the triumph. Our tech assistant, Eric, will bring it up now, and you can lead us in that prayer.
