Study: Communion on Tongue = More Belief in True Presence

The Real Presence and Eucharistic Reception: Exploring a Study, Its Implications, and the History of Communion Practices

The Eucharist, described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the “source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1324), holds a central place in Catholic theology. The doctrine of the Real Presence—that Jesus Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity in the consecrated bread and wine—has been a cornerstone of Catholic faith since the earliest days of the Church. Yet, recent studies have raised concerns about declining belief in this doctrine among Catholics, particularly in the United States. 

A 2025 study published in the Catholic Social Science Review by Natalie A. Lindemann, a psychology professor at William Paterson University, has sparked discussion by suggesting that Catholics who receive Communion on the tongue exhibit stronger belief in the Real Presence than those who receive in the hand. This blog post examines the study, critiques its limitations, particularly its failure to account for Catholics who prioritize internal faith over external practices, and provides a historical perspective on the development of Communion on the tongue and in the hand. Ultimately, it argues that faith in the Eucharist is rooted not in the mode of reception but in an informed, intentional spiritual life.

 The Study: Traditional Practices and Belief in the Real Presence

Published on September 23, 2025, in the Catholic Social Science Review, Lindemann’s study investigates how liturgical practices influence U.S. Catholics’ belief in the Real Presence. The research surveyed participants on a five-point scale, where 1 represented the belief that the Eucharist is merely a symbol and 5 indicated certainty in the Real Presence. The study found that Catholics who had ever received Communion on the tongue scored higher (M=3.27) than those who had never done so (M=2.79). The effect was more pronounced among those who always received on the tongue, and strongest among those who believed Communion should be received on the tongue (M=4.32) compared to those favoring reception in the hand (M=2.62) or personal choice (M=3.37). Additionally, traditional liturgical elements, such as ringing consecration bells or exposure to the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), correlated with stronger belief (M=3.63 for parishes offering TLM vs. M=3.04 for those that did not).

The study suggests that traditional practices—Communion on the tongue, kneeling, consecration bells, and TLM attendance—foster a deeper conviction in the Real Presence. Lindemann argues that these practices emphasize reverence, which may reinforce belief in the Eucharist’s sacred reality. The findings align with concerns raised by earlier surveys, such as the 2019 Pew Research study, which reported that only 31% of U.S. Catholics believe in the Real Presence, prompting the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to launch a Eucharistic Revival initiative.

The study’s methodology involved a quantitative survey of U.S. Catholics, assessing their liturgical experiences and Eucharistic beliefs. It controlled for variables like age, gender, and ethnicity, finding that liturgical context, not demographics, drove differences in belief. For example, participants whose parishes rang bells at the consecration—a practice highlighting the moment of transubstantiation—reported higher belief scores. Similarly, exposure to the TLM, even if not regularly attended, correlated with stronger faith in the Real Presence.

 Critiquing the Study: Overlooking Internal Faith

While Lindemann’s study offers valuable insights into the correlation between liturgical practices and Eucharistic belief, it has significant limitations, particularly in its failure to account for Catholics who prioritize internal faith over external rituals. The study’s focus on measurable practices risks oversimplifying the complex nature of faith, which is deeply personal and shaped by factors beyond liturgy.

 1. Correlation vs. Causation

The study establishes a correlation between receiving Communion on the tongue and stronger belief in the Real Presence but does not prove causation. It assumes that traditional practices cause stronger belief, but the reverse could be true: Catholics with pre-existing strong belief may gravitate toward traditional practices like receiving on the tongue or attending Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The study does not explore whether these individuals already held firm convictions before adopting these practices, nor does it examine whether less traditional Catholics might maintain robust faith through other spiritual practices, such as Eucharistic adoration or personal prayer.

 2. Neglecting Internal Disposition

Faith in the Real Presence is not solely a product of external actions but of an internal disposition cultivated through catechesis, personal reflection, and spiritual growth. The study’s emphasis on physical practices overlooks Catholics who may receive Communion in the hand yet possess a profound belief in the Eucharist due to thorough education or a vibrant prayer life. For example, a Catholic who attends a Novus Ordo Mass, receives in the hand, and participates in regular adoration may have a stronger faith than someone who receives on the tongue but attends Mass irregularly or lacks catechetical grounding. The study’s reliance on a single metric—mode of reception—fails to capture these nuances.

 3. Sampling Bias

The study does not provide detailed information about its sample size or selection process, raising questions about representativeness. If participants were drawn from parishes with strong traditionalist leanings, the results may be skewed toward those already inclined to favor practices like Communion on the tongue. Catholics who prioritize faith through intellectual engagement, such as studying Church teachings or participating in theological discussions, may be underrepresented. The study’s focus on liturgical context may also marginalize Catholics who express their faith through service, community involvement, or other non-liturgical means.

 4. Cultural and Historical Context

The study notes that the COVID-19 pandemic influenced some participants to receive Communion in the hand due to hygiene concerns, yet it does not explore how such external factors might affect belief. For instance, Catholics who switched to receiving in the hand during the pandemic may still maintain strong faith, but the study’s framework might misinterpret their practice as indicative of weaker belief. Similarly, cultural differences within the U.S. Catholic population—such as varying traditions among Hispanic, African American, or Asian communities—are not adequately addressed, potentially oversimplifying the relationship between practice and belief.

 5. Overemphasis on Uniformity

The study suggests that “uniformity of ritual” strengthens belief, but this overlooks the diversity of Catholic spirituality. The Church has long embraced varied expressions of faith, from the contemplative mysticism of St. John of the Cross to the active charity of St. Vincent de Paul. By prioritizing traditional practices, the study risks implying that less traditional Catholics are less faithful, which may alienate those who find spiritual depth in other aspects of the faith, such as Scripture study or social justice work.

In summary, while the study highlights an interesting correlation, it fails to account for the complexity of faith, particularly among Catholics who focus on internal belief and spiritual growth rather than specific liturgical practices. Faith in the Real Presence is not a one-size-fits-all outcome of ritual but a dynamic relationship with Christ, shaped by education, prayer, and personal commitment.

 A Brief History of Communion on the Tongue and in the Hand

To understand the debate surrounding Communion on the tongue versus in the hand, a historical perspective is essential. Contrary to common assumptions, receiving Communion in the hand is the more ancient practice, rooted in the early Church, while Communion on the tongue emerged later as a response to theological and practical concerns.

 Early Church: Communion in the Hand

In the first centuries of Christianity, receiving Communion in the hand was the norm. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his 4th-century Mystagogic Catechesis, instructed the faithful to receive the Eucharist in the hand with reverence: “Coming up to receive, therefore, do not approach with your wrists extended or your fingers splayed, but making your left hand a throne for the right… receive the body of Christ, and answer, ‘Amen.’” This practice was highly ritualized, with communicants washing their hands, bowing deeply, and consuming the Host directly from the palm to avoid dropping particles. Early Church Fathers, such as St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom, also describe Communion in the hand, emphasizing the need for reverence to reflect belief in the Real Presence.

The early Church’s practice was not casual; it was accompanied by strict protocols to ensure respect for the Eucharist. However, as the Church grew and Eucharistic theology developed, concerns about potential abuses—such as dropping fragments or irreverent handling—began to emerge.

 Shift to Communion on the Tongue

By the 6th and 7th centuries, the practice of receiving Communion on the tongue started to gain traction, particularly in the Western Church. Several factors drove this shift:

1. Theological Development: As the doctrine of the Real Presence became more explicitly defined, particularly in response to early heresies questioning Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, the Church sought to emphasize reverence. Receiving on the tongue, often while kneeling, was seen as a way to express humility and adoration.

2. Practical Concerns: The risk of Eucharistic particles being lost or mishandled led to stricter controls. Documents from the Synod of Rouen (650) and the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople (680-681) condemned Communion in the hand to prevent abuses, with the latter threatening excommunication for those who continued the practice.

3. Clerical Authority: The growing distinction between clergy and laity in the medieval Church reinforced the practice of Communion on the tongue. Priests, whose hands were consecrated, were seen as the appropriate ministers to handle the Eucharist, reducing the laity’s direct contact with the Host.

By the 9th century, Communion on the tongue had become the universal norm in the Latin Rite, often received while kneeling at altar rails. This practice remained dominant for over a millennium, reinforced by the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which reaffirmed the Real Presence and emphasized reverence in Eucharistic practices.

 Revival of Communion in the Hand

The 20th century saw a renewed interest in early Church practices, spurred by the liturgical movement and the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). In 1969, the Holy See issued Memoriale Domini, which acknowledged that Communion in the hand was the ancient practice but noted that Communion on the tongue had become the norm due to concerns about reverence and particle loss. The document permitted bishops’ conferences to request an indult (permission) to allow Communion in the hand, provided it was done with proper catechesis and reverence. The United States received this indult in 1977, and today, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) states that communicants may receive “either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand” (No. 161).

The revival of Communion in the hand was not a rejection of reverence but an attempt to reconnect with the early Church’s traditions while ensuring proper instruction. However, critics argue that inadequate catechesis and casual practices in some parishes have undermined reverence, contributing to declining belief in the Real Presence.

 Modern Context

Today, Catholics may choose to receive Communion either on the tongue or in the hand, as both are sanctioned by the Church. The USCCB emphasizes that the decision belongs to the individual, provided it is done reverently. Debates persist, with some, like Cardinal Robert Sarah, arguing that Communion in the hand reflects a “lack of submission to the signs of God,” while others, such as Fr. Josh Johnson, stress that both methods are valid when approached with faith.

This historical overview reveals that Communion in the hand is not a modern innovation but a return to an ancient practice, while Communion on the tongue is a later development rooted in medieval concerns for reverence. Neither practice inherently determines faith, but both require an interior disposition of reverence and belief.

See more: Sacerdotus: Holy Communion: Hand vs Tongue Discussion

 Faith in the Eucharist: Beyond the Mode of Reception

While Lindemann’s study suggests that traditional practices like Communion on the tongue strengthen belief in the Real Presence, the true source of faith lies not in the external act but in an informed, intentional spiritual life. The Church teaches that faith is a gift of grace, nurtured through catechesis, prayer, and active participation in the sacramental life. Several key factors contribute to a robust belief in the Eucharist:

 1. Catechesis and Education

A deep understanding of the Eucharist is foundational to faith in the Real Presence. The Church’s teachings, as articulated in the Catechism (CCC 1374-1375) and Scripture (John 6:27-58), emphasize that the Eucharist is not a symbol but the true presence of Christ. Catholics who engage with these teachings—through homilies, Bible studies, or theological reading—are more likely to develop a conviction that transcends liturgical practices. For example, a Catholic who receives in the hand but has studied the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas on transubstantiation may have a stronger faith than someone who receives on the tongue but lacks such knowledge.

 2. Spiritual Practices

Faith in the Eucharist is deepened through practices like Eucharistic adoration, where Catholics encounter Christ’s presence in a contemplative setting. Adoration, which has seen a resurgence in recent years, fosters a personal relationship with Christ that reinforces belief, regardless of how one receives Communion. Other practices, such as frequent confession, prayer, and meditation on the Passion, also cultivate a Eucharistic spirituality.

 3. Interior Disposition

The Church emphasizes that reverence for the Eucharist begins with the heart. Whether receiving on the tongue or in the hand, the communicant’s interior disposition—marked by humility, faith, and a state of grace—is paramount. St. Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 warns against receiving the Eucharist unworthily, highlighting the importance of spiritual preparation over physical posture.

 4. Community and Witness

Faith is also shaped by the witness of others. Catholics who belong to vibrant parishes, participate in faith-sharing groups, or see examples of Eucharistic devotion in their families are more likely to internalize belief in the Real Presence. This communal aspect transcends the mode of reception and emphasizes the role of the Church as a living body.

 5. Response to Modern Challenges

The decline in belief noted in studies like Pew’s 2019 survey reflects broader challenges, including secularization, poor catechesis, and cultural shifts. The USCCB’s Eucharistic Revival seeks to address these by promoting education, adoration, and renewed liturgical focus. While traditional practices may help, they are not a panacea; faith requires a holistic approach that engages both heart and mind.

In contrast to the study’s focus on external practices, these factors highlight that faith in the Real Presence is a dynamic process, rooted in an informed, intentional relationship with Christ. A Catholic who receives in the hand but actively pursues spiritual growth may exhibit greater faith than one who receives on the tongue out of habit or cultural preference.

 Conclusion

Lindemann’s study offers a thought-provoking perspective on the correlation between traditional liturgical practices and belief in the Real Presence. However, its limitations—particularly its failure to account for Catholics who prioritize internal faith over external rituals—underscore the complexity of Eucharistic belief. The history of Communion practices reveals that receiving in the hand is an ancient tradition, while Communion on the tongue emerged later to emphasize reverence. Neither method inherently determines faith; instead, belief in the Real Presence is cultivated through catechesis, spiritual practices, and an interior disposition of reverence.

As the Church navigates declining belief in the Eucharist, the focus should not be on mandating one form of reception but on fostering a deeper understanding of the sacrament. Catholics who are informed about Church teachings, engage in prayer and adoration, and approach the Eucharist with humility—whether receiving on the tongue or in the hand—are the ones who truly embody faith in the Real Presence. The Eucharistic Revival offers an opportunity to renew this faith, not by privileging one practice over another but by inviting all Catholics to encounter Christ in the Eucharist with open hearts.

---

 References and News

1. Lindemann, N. A. (2025). “Traditional Liturgical Experiences Predict Stronger Belief in the Real Presence.” Catholic Social Science Review, Volume 30. [Study Link]

2. ZENIT News. (2025, September 23). “Study Links Traditional Eucharistic Practices to Stronger Belief in Christ’s Presence.” ZENIT - English.[](https://zenit.org/2025/09/23/study-links-traditional-eucharistic-practices-to-stronger-belief-in-christs-presence)

3. Catholic News Agency. (2025, September 22). “New study: ‘Traditional liturgical experiences predict stronger belief in the Real Presence’.” catholicnewsagency.com.[](https://catholicnewsagency.com/news/266685/new-study-traditional-liturgical-experiences-predict-stronger-belief-in-the-real-presence)

4. Catholicism.org. (2025, September 18). “Traditional Liturgical Practices Predict Belief in the Real Presence.” catholicism.org.[](https://catholicism.org/traditional-liturgical-practices-predict-belief-in-the-real-presence.html)

5. Catholic News Agency. (2023, September 29). “New study shows that now almost two-thirds of US Catholics believe in Real Presence.” catholicnewsagency.com.[](https://catholicnewsagency.com/news/255526/new-study-show-that-now-almost-two-thirds-of-us-catholics-believe-in-real-presence)

6. Catholicus.eu. (2025, April 12). “Devotion or Disrespect? The Truth About Receiving Communion in the Hand According to Catholic Tradition.” catholicus.eu.[](https://catholicus.eu/en/devotion-or-disrespect-the-truth-about-receiving-communion-in-the-hand-according-to-catholic-tradition)

7. America Magazine. (2018, February 23). “Cardinal Sarah: Receiving Communion in the hand part of a ‘diabolical attack’ on the faith.” www.americamagazine.org.[](https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/02/23/cardinal-sarah-receiving-communion-hand-part-diabolical-attack-faith)

8. Ascension Press. (2024, December 16). “Should We Receive Holy Communion on the Tongue or in the Hand?” ascensionpress.com.[](https://ascensionpress.com/blogs/podcasts/should-we-receive-holy-communion-on-the-tongue-or-in-the-hand)

9. America Magazine. (2023, November 17). “Hands or tongue, kneeling or standing: There’s no ‘best way’ to receive Communion.” www.americamagazine.org.[](https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2023/11/17/communion-eucharist-hands-tongue-kneeling-246518/)

10. Corpus Christi for Unity and Peace. (2024, October 16). “Massive Survey Shows Receiving Communion in Hand IS THE CAUSE for LOSS OF FAITH.” www.corpuschristiforunityandpeace.org.[](https://www.corpuschristiforunityandpeace.org/massive-survey-shows-receiving-communion-in-hand-is-the-cause-for-loss-of-faith/)

11. Ron Conte. (2020, July 29). “Proof that Communion on the Tongue does not Preserve Orthodoxy.” ronconte.com.[](https://ronconte.com/2020/07/29/proof-that-communion-on-the-tongue-does-not-preserve-orthodoxy/)

12. Mater Dei Catholic Parish. (2014, November 16). “Receiving Communion on the tongue at the altar rail.” materdeiparish.com.[](https://materdeiparish.com/new-to-latin-mass/receiving-communion-tongue-altar-rail/)

13. California Catholic Daily. (2020, March 6). “Communion on tongue is more hygienic, say priests and bishop.” cal-catholic.com.[](https://cal-catholic.com/44217-2/)

14. Catholic365.com. (2019, August 26). “Why don’t Catholics Believe in the Real Presence?” catholic365.com.[](https://catholic365.com/article/10540/why-dont-catholics-believe-in-the-real-presence.html)

15. Liturgy Guy. (2015, April 11). “The Affirmative Argument for Receiving Communion on the Tongue.” liturgyguy.com.[](https://liturgyguy.com/2015/04/11/the-affirmative-argument-for-receiving-communion-on-the-tongue/)

16. The Boston Pilot. (2021, December 1). “Communion in hand or tongue?” www.thebostonpilot.com.[](https://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.php?ID=191192)

17. Reasonable Catholic. (2016, January 4). “Communion In The Hand?” www.reasonablecatholic.com.[](https://www.reasonablecatholic.com/communion-in-the-hand/)

18. Catholic365.com. (2022, July 17). “Communion on the Tongue is an Apostolic Tradition, and Should Be the Only Way to Receive the Eucharist.” www.catholic365.com.[](https://www.catholic365.com/article/19342/communion-on-the-tongue-is-an-apostolic-tradition-and-should-be-the-only-way-to-receive-the-eucharist.html)

19. Know Your Catholic Faith. (2017, November 16). “COMMUNION BY THE HAND OR BY THE TONGUE?” knowyourcatholicfaith.wordpress.com.[](https://knowyourcatholicfaith.wordpress.com/2017/11/17/%25E2%2580%258Bcommunion-by-the-hand-or-by-the-tongue/)

20. The Catholic Messenger. (2023, November 30). “Question on Communion on the tongue or hand.” catholicmessenger.net.[](https://catholicmessenger.net/2023/11/question-on-communion-on-the-tongue-or-hand/)

21. Catholic Times. (2024, February 6). “Receiving Holy Communion on the tongue.” catholictimescolumbus.org.[](https://catholictimescolumbus.org/news/father-paul-keller-op-s-t-d/receiving-holy-communion-on-the-tongue)

22. FSSP Joliet. (2020, June 27). “Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand? (Revised June 27, 2020).” fsspjoliet.wordpress.com.[](https://fsspjoliet.wordpress.com/2020/06/27/holy-communion-on-the-tongue-or-in-the-hand/)

23. Integrated Catholic Life. (2011, October 21). “How to Receive Holy Communion on the Tongue.” integratedcatholiclife.org.[](https://integratedcatholiclife.org/2011/10/deacon-bickerstaff-how-to-receive-holy-communion-on-the-tongue/)

24. Bismarck Diocese. (2018, November 4). “Is it best to receive Holy Communion in the hand or on the tongue?” bismarckdiocese.com.[](https://bismarckdiocese.com/news/is-it-best-to-receive-holy-communion-in-the-hand-or-on-the-tongue)

25. Catholic Herald. (2020, May 28). “Prohibiting Communion on the Tongue: A Canonical View.” catholicherald.org.[](https://catholicherald.org/catholic-herald/prohibiting-communion-on-the-tongue-a-canonical-view/)

26. Catholic Arena. (2023, August 15). “Receiving the Holy Eucharist: tongue, or hand?” www.catholicarena.com.[](https://www.catholicarena.com/latest/2023/8/11/receiving-the-holy-eucharist-on-the-tongue-or-in-the-hand)

 

A Critique of Cardinal Blase J. Cupich’s Article: “Tradition vs. Traditionalism”

A Critique of Cardinal Blase J. Cupich’s Article: “Tradition vs. Traditionalism”

Cardinal Blase J. Cupich’s article, published on September 3, 2025, in Chicago Catholic, titled “Tradition vs. Traditionalism,” (Tradition vs. traditionalism - Cardinal Blase J. Cupich - Chicago Catholic) offers a thought-provoking reflection on the nature of Catholic tradition, its living dynamism, and its distinction from what he describes as traditionalism. Drawing on the insights of historian Jaroslav Pelikan and the theological legacy of St. John Henry Newman, 

Cardinal Cupich articulates a vision of tradition as a vibrant, evolving force in the life of the Church, contrasting it with traditionalism, which he characterizes as a stagnant adherence to past practices. The article is a compelling contribution to ongoing discussions about the Church’s relationship with its past and its mission in the present. Its strengths lie in its theological depth, its grounding in historical and ecclesial perspectives, and its alignment with the Church’s call to engage the modern world while remaining rooted in its living faith. 

However, while the article makes a strong case for embracing the development of doctrine and liturgical reform, Cardinal Cupich’s generalization about traditionalists risks oversimplifying a diverse group of faithful Catholics, including myself, who cherish tradition without idolizing it. Below, I offer a critique of the article, highlighting its merits while addressing this concern and situating my perspective as a Catholic who loves both the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms of the Mass.

 Theological Depth and Historical Grounding

One of the most commendable aspects of Cardinal Cupich’s article is its theological depth, rooted in the distinction between “tradition” and “traditionalism” as articulated by Jaroslav Pelikan: “Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” This quote, which serves as the article’s cornerstone, is a powerful lens through which to view the Church’s ongoing mission. Cardinal Cupich uses Pelikan’s insight to frame tradition as a dynamic, Spirit-guided process that allows the Church to adapt and grow while remaining faithful to its apostolic roots. By invoking Pelikan, a respected historian of Christianity, the Cardinal grounds his argument in a scholarly tradition that resonates with both theologians and lay readers. This appeal to intellectual authority strengthens the article’s credibility and invites readers to engage with the concept of tradition as something alive and responsive to the needs of each age.

The article’s reference to St. John Henry Newman, recently declared a Doctor of the Church by Pope Leo, further enhances its theological richness. Cardinal Cupich highlights Newman’s understanding of the development of doctrine, noting that Newman recognized the organic growth of Catholic teachings over time. For example, Newman observed that Protestants accepted doctrines like the Trinity and Christ’s divinity, which developed historically, but were inconsistent in rejecting other doctrines, such as purgatory or those related to the Blessed Virgin Mary, which also emerged through the Church’s reflection. By drawing on Newman, Cardinal Cupich underscores the legitimacy of doctrinal development, a concept central to Catholic theology since Vatican II. This reference not only honors Newman’s legacy but also situates the article within a broader theological conversation about how the Church discerns truth over time. It is a reminder that the Catholic faith is not static but grows through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, a point that resonates deeply with the Council’s teachings in Dei Verbum.

 Alignment with Vatican II and Papal Teaching

Cardinal Cupich’s article shines in its alignment with the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, particularly its emphasis on liturgical reform and the Church’s mission to engage the modern world. He cites Pope Francis’s 2022 remarks, where the Holy Father critiqued those who “call themselves traditional” but are “looking to the past, going backward.” This papal perspective reinforces the article’s central thesis: true tradition is forward-looking, enabling the Church to witness to the Gospel in new contexts. Cardinal Cupich argues that accepting the liturgical reforms of Vatican II is essential to understanding what it means to be a Church of tradition. This point is particularly compelling in light of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Council’s constitution on the liturgy, which called for a renewal of worship to make it more accessible and participatory for the faithful. By connecting the liturgical reforms to the Church’s broader mission, Cardinal Cupich presents a vision of Catholicism that is both rooted and adaptive, capable of speaking to contemporary challenges while drawing on the wisdom of the past.

The article’s emphasis on the Church’s capacity to “go deeper into the tradition in order to move forward” is a particularly inspiring articulation of this balance. Cardinal Cupich frames reform not as a rejection of the past but as a deepening of the Church’s engagement with its living faith. This perspective is a powerful antidote to the polarization that often characterizes debates about liturgy and doctrine. By presenting tradition as a dynamic process, the Cardinal invites Catholics to see change not as a threat but as an opportunity to live out the Gospel more fully. This aligns with Pope Francis’s vision of a Church that is “on the move,” responsive to the signs of the times and open to the Spirit’s guidance.

 A Call to Mission and Engagement

Another strength of the article is its emphasis on the Church’s mission to witness to the Gospel in new contexts. Cardinal Cupich argues that true reform allows the Church to communicate the faith effectively in diverse cultural and historical settings. This missionary impulse is a hallmark of Vatican II’s vision, as seen in documents like Gaudium et Spes, which calls the Church to engage with the modern world. By framing tradition as a tool for evangelization, Cardinal Cupich challenges Catholics to move beyond nostalgia and embrace the Church’s call to be a living presence in the world. This is particularly relevant in an era marked by rapid cultural and technological change, where the Church must find new ways to proclaim the Gospel without losing its identity.

The article’s focus on mission also resonates with the universal call to holiness articulated by Vatican II. Cardinal Cupich’s reference to the Church’s ability to “witness to the Gospel in new contexts” underscores the role of every Catholic—clergy and laity alike—in carrying forward the faith. This inclusive vision is a reminder that tradition is not the exclusive domain of theologians or liturgists but belongs to the entire People of God. By emphasizing this communal aspect, the Cardinal fosters a sense of shared responsibility for the Church’s mission, encouraging Catholics to see themselves as active participants in the unfolding of tradition.

 Addressing the Critique: Generalization About Traditionalists

While Cardinal Cupich’s article is a robust defense of the Church’s living tradition, it falters in its generalization about traditionalists. The Cardinal’s characterization of traditionalism as “the dead faith of the living” risks painting all those who cherish traditional practices with too broad a brush. As someone who loves tradition and serves both the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms of the Mass, I find this generalization problematic. I deeply appreciate the beauty of traditional vestments, lace, incense, bells, Latin, and devotions, but I do not deify them or turn them into idols. These externals are man-made aids that enhance our sensory experience of worship, helping us to focus on God, but they are not intrinsically connected to the divine nature. I understand that the Church has authority over the liturgy and its traditions (sacramentum ordinis), and that the liturgies of one period are no more or less efficacious than those of another. The Mass, whether in Latin or the vernacular, whether celebrated with ornate vestments or simple ones, is the same sacrifice of Christ, and its value does not depend on external forms.

Cardinal Cupich’s critique of traditionalism is valid when applied to those who elevate rubrics and customs to the level of idols, treating them as essential to the validity of the Mass or the Sacraments. For example, some traditionalists insist that the Mass must be in Latin or that Communion must be received only on the tongue from a priest for it to be valid. This mindset mirrors the Pharisees’ legalism, as Jesus critiqued in Mark 7:13, where human traditions were used to nullify the word of God. When Catholics—clergy, laity, or religious orders—treat man-made rules as indispensable, they risk turning the Sabbath into an idol, as if the purpose of worship were to serve the rules rather than to lead us to God. In this sense, Cardinal Cupich’s warning about traditionalism as a “dead faith” is apt, as it highlights the danger of reducing the richness of the Catholic faith to a set of rigid practices.

However, not all traditionalists fall into this trap. Many, like myself, cherish traditional practices because they are powerful aids to worship, not because we believe they are inherently superior or necessary for salvation. The Extraordinary Form, with its reverence and solemnity, can inspire a profound sense of the sacred, while the Ordinary Form offers accessibility and participation that resonate with modern sensibilities. Both forms are valid expressions of the same Eucharistic mystery, and I serve them with equal devotion, recognizing their role in drawing the faithful closer to Christ. By generalizing traditionalists as backward-looking, Cardinal Cupich overlooks the vibrant faith of those who embrace tradition as a living, breathing part of the Church’s heritage, not as a museum piece to be preserved unchanged.

 The Role of Devotions and Liturgical Practices

Another area where Cardinal Cupich’s approach could be nuanced is his apparent skepticism toward certain traditional devotions and practices. While he does not explicitly mention these in the article, his broader critique of traditionalism could be interpreted as dismissive of practices like altar rails, the St. Michael prayer, or the Hail Mary prayed after Mass. These devotions, when understood properly, are valuable aids to the spiritual life of Catholics. For example, altar rails can foster a sense of reverence for the Eucharist, signaling the sacredness of the sanctuary, without implying that their absence diminishes the Mass’s validity. Similarly, prayers like the St. Michael prayer or the Hail Mary can deepen devotion to the saints and the Blessed Virgin, provided they are not treated as magical formulas or mandatory rituals.

The key, as with statues or other sacramentals, is to use these practices as tools for meditation and spiritual growth, not as ends in themselves. A statue of a saint can help us reflect on their virtues or the mysteries of the faith, but if we insist that it must look a certain way or be placed in a specific location to be “valid,” we risk falling into the idolatry Cardinal Cupich as critiques. This is where some traditionalists err, but it is not true of all who value tradition. By occasionally taking a hard line against practices like altar rails or post-Mass devotions, Cardinal Cupich risks alienating faithful Catholics who find these practices meaningful without idolizing them. A more balanced approach would acknowledge the spiritual benefits of these traditions while cautioning against their misuse.

 The Danger of Legalism in Traditionalism

Cardinal Cupich’s article rightly highlights the danger of legalism, which can manifest when traditionalists treat rubrics and customs as ends rather than means. This is a critical point, as it echoes Jesus’s teachings about the Sabbath being made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). When Catholics insist that the Mass must adhere to specific forms—such as Latin, specific vestments, or Communion on the tongue—to be valid, they risk elevating human traditions above the divine reality of the Eucharist. The Church’s teaching is clear: the validity of the Sacraments depends on proper form, matter, and intention, not on external customs, no matter how venerable. By drawing attention to this, Cardinal Cupich challenges Catholics to focus on the substance of the faith rather than its external expressions.

This critique is particularly relevant in light of debates surrounding Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis’s 2021 motu proprio that restricted the use of the Traditional Latin Mass. Cardinal Cupich’s support for the liturgical reforms of Vatican II aligns with the Pope’s call to prioritize the Novus Ordo as the “unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” While this position has sparked controversy, it reflects a commitment to the Church’s unity and its mission to evangelize in the present age. The article’s emphasis on the development of doctrine and liturgy serves as a reminder that the Church has always adapted its practices to meet the needs of the faithful, from the adoption of pagan elements in early Christian worship to the reforms of Vatican II.

 A Personal Perspective as a Traditionalist

As a Catholic who loves tradition, I find much to admire in Cardinal Cupich’s article, particularly its call to embrace tradition as a living reality. However, I believe the Church benefits from a diversity of liturgical expressions, including both the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms. My love for vestments, incense, bells, and Latin stems from their ability to elevate the soul toward God, not from a belief that they are essential to the faith. I serve both forms of the Mass with joy, recognizing that each offers unique gifts to the Church. The Extraordinary Form’s reverence and mystery can inspire awe, while the Ordinary Form’s simplicity and accessibility invite active participation. Both are valid, and both can lead souls to Christ.

I also appreciate the Church’s authority over the liturgy and its traditions. The sacramentum ordinis grants the Church the power to regulate worship, ensuring that it serves the spiritual needs of the faithful. The liturgies of one era are not inherently superior to those of another; the Tridentine Mass of the 16th century and the Novus Ordo of the 20th century are equally efficacious when celebrated with reverence and faith. By acknowledging this, I align with Cardinal Cupich’s broader point about the need to avoid idolizing specific forms. However, I believe he could strengthen his argument by recognizing that not all traditionalists are rigid or backward-looking. Many of us are committed to the Church’s mission and open to the Spirit’s guidance, even as we cherish the beauty of tradition.

 Conclusion

Cardinal Blase J. Cupich’s “Tradition vs. Traditionalism” is a masterful reflection on the nature of Catholic tradition, offering a compelling case for its dynamic, Spirit-led character. By drawing on Pelikan, Newman, and Vatican II, the Cardinal articulates a vision of the Church that is both rooted in its apostolic heritage and responsive to the needs of the present. His emphasis on the development of doctrine, the importance of liturgical reform, and the Church’s missionary call is a powerful reminder of what it means to be a Catholic in the modern world. However, his generalization about traditionalists overlooks the diversity of those who love tradition, including myself, who serve both forms of the Mass and value traditional practices as aids to worship, not as idols. By occasionally taking a hard stance against devotions and practices like altar rails, Cardinal Cupich risks alienating those who find these traditions spiritually enriching. Nevertheless, his article is a valuable contribution to the Church’s ongoing discernment of how to live out its faith in a changing world, and it invites all Catholics to embrace tradition as a living, breathing reality that leads us closer to Christ.

Protestants Did Not Develop The Ordinary Form Mass

Did Protestants develop the Ordinary Form of that Mass from St. Paul VI? 

First, let us address the role of Protestants and Catholics in councils of the Catholic Church.

One of the common misconceptions about the Catholic Church is that it was opposed to any dialogue or engagement with the Protestant reformers. However, this is not true. 

In fact, the Council of Trent, which was convened in response to the Protestant Reformation, invited and welcomed Protestant observers to participate in its sessions as observers. According to some sources found on armchair liturgist websites and social media accounts, these observers had some influence on the discussions and even the documents of the Council. This, of course, is NOT true at all!  The Protestants present were merely observers, nothing more.  They had no say in anything. 

The Council of Trent was not a closed or defensive gathering of Catholic bishops. It was an open and ecumenical effort to address the needs and challenges of the Church in a changing world. It sought to clarify and reaffirm the Catholic doctrines that were challenged by the reformers, but also to reform and renew the Church's practices and disciplines. The Council of Trent was not a rejection of dialogue, but an invitation to it.

The same spirit of openness and ecumenism can be seen in the Second Vatican Council, which also invited and welcomed Protestant observers to its sessions. The Second Vatican Council was not a repudiation of Trent, but a continuation of it. It aimed to complete the unfinished task of Vatican I and to update the Church's teachings (in language, not content) and pastoral approaches in light of the modern world. The Second Vatican Council was not a break with tradition, but a renewal of it.

In light of this, some Catholics falsely claim that Vatican II invited Protestants who designed or developed the Ordinary Form of the Mass. They go to the extent of making up quotes and falsely attributing them to Archbishop Annibale Bugnini. The above meme shows the fake quotes propagated by these ignorant Catholics and what Bugnini actually stated.  As you can see, Bugnini never said the Liturgy needed to be stripped of anything Catholics to appease Protestants. Like in the Council of Trent, Protestants were there simply as observers. They did not speak, they did not ask questions, they did not give advice, input, or anything of the like. 

St. Pope Paul VI made it clear that the Mass is the same. The Mass of Trent and the Roman Missae are the one and same Mass. The only difference is that some redundant parts were removed. The Ordinary Form from Paul VI is a closer reflection of the Mass rite of the early Church. St. Justin Martyr describes in detail how the Mass was celebrated in the early church in his Apologia. While reading it, you will see that his is nearly describing the Ordinary Form of the Mass from Paul VI almost in precise detail. He does not mention Latin, incense, ad orientum, maniples or anything of the like. This was because these things were not part of the Mass until after the fifth century and more strongly at the Council of Trent when the Roman Rite or Latin Rite was formally codified. 

The claim that Protestants designed the Mass of Paul VI is ridiculous, unfounded and offensive to St. Justin Martyr and the early Christians who celebrated Mass in this manner: simple.  There is nothing wrong with the Mass of Trent or the formulas later on. They are again the one and same Mass. The only differences are the man-made elements added to them throughout the centuries which were removed because they were redundant.   

Both councils, Trent and Vatican II, were expressions of the Church's fidelity to its divine founder and its mission to preach the Gospel to all nations. Both councils were guided by the Holy Spirit and affirmed by the successors of Peter. Both councils were opportunities for dialogue and engagement with other Christians and people of goodwill. Both councils were moments of grace and hope for the Church and the world. 

In conclusion, Vatican II had observers from protestant denominations. They never had a say in anything. Trent invited Protestants as well (session 13, chapter 8). Neither council had any input from Protestants whatsoever.  The meme with Archbishop Bugnini claiming he wanted to strip the Liturgy from anything Catholic to appease Protestants is a fake quote. It shows the extent to which some Catholics maliciously tarnish the faith and malign Bugnini and the Second Vatican Council. Do not be deceived by propagandists of the enemy who wish to harm Holy Mother Church with their lies, spins and conspiracy theories.  

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/secretariat-state/bollettino_en.htm

What do you think? Post your comment below on Disqus.  Be sure to follow the rules so your comment can go through.  

Sources:

: https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2019/03/22/why-were-non-catholic-observers-helping-write-vatican-iis-documents/

session 13, chapter 8

: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council#Observers_(§18)

https://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/did-paul-vi-illegally-promulgate-the-new-mass/

Pope Paul VI’s 1969 Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum

https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/audiences/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19650317.html

General Audience of November 19, 1969

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6601119.HTM

https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/audiences/1969/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19691119.html

General Audience of November 26, 1969

https://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/p6691126.htm

https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/audiences/1969/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19691126.html

https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/contributors/st-justin-martyr-on-the-eucharist-and-the-ancient-mass/

https://www.goodcatholic.com/catholic-mass-described-by-st-justin-martyr/

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/mass-is-the-same-8968