Pope St Leo the Great - 10th November 2008

Today we celebrate the feast of Pope St. Leo the Great. Let us read what Dr. Plinio has to say about this great Pope.


(The encounter between Leo the Great and Attila is the last fresco painted in this room. It was completed after the death of Julius II (pontiff from 1503 to 1513), during the pontificate of his successor Leo X (pontiff from 1513 to 1521). In fact the latter appears twice in the same scene, portrayed in the guise of Pope Leo the Great and as cardinal. According to legend, the miraculous apparition of Saints Peter and Paul armed with swords during the meeting between Pope Leo the Great and Attila (452 A.D.) caused the king of the Huns to desist from invading Italy and marching on Rome. Raphael situates the scene at the gates of Rome, identified by the Colosseum, by an aqueduct, an obelisk and other buildings, even if in fact the historical event took place in the north of Italy, near Mantua.)


St. Leo the Great, who reigned as Pope from 440 to 461, was one of the greatest Popes of History. He fought against numerous heresies that agitated the Church, principally against the Manicheans and Pelagians. In 452 he faced Attila and convinced the scourge of God and his Huns not to attack Rome and to leave Italy. He was also able to thwart the destruction of Rome by Genseric three years later.

Many Africans who had been driven away by the Vandals had settled in Rome and established a secret Manichean community there. When St. Leo discovered them, he denounced them to priests and religious, and warned the people to be on their guard against this reprehensible heresy.

In Spain the heresy of Priscillianism still survived and was attracting new adherents, provoking countless riots and general agitation. St. Leo was informed of this situation by St. Turibius, Bishop of Astorga in Spain. The Pope wrote him a long letter in which he refuted the errors of the Priscillian heresy and qualified it as the “sewer of all the prior heresies.” In particular he condemned its denial of free will and the influence of astrology, considered infallible. St. Leo also showed the connection between the Priscillians and the Manicheans, and sent St. Turibius the conclusions of the juridical processes that he had made against the latter in Rome.

In these processes one can see the seed of the future Inquisition. They were presided over by the Pope, who was assisted by Bishops, clergy, senators and other illustrious personages. During them, he would declare to the faithful their obligation to denounce the heretics; question those under suspicion; try to make them retract from their errors; give penances to those who returned to the Church; and deliver to the civil authorities those who were obstinate in their positions so they might be adequately punished.

Comments of Prof. Plinio:

This selection is very beautiful because you can see how St. Leo the Great acted with the authority of a Pope and at the same time as a saint, that is, a person whom the Catholic Church declared infallibly to be one who heroically practiced all the virtues.

His sanctity, by the way, was confirmed by a colossal miracle. When he went out to meet Attila, as he approached him, St. Peter appeared over the Pope and made the barbarian retreat. This was one of the great miracles in the History of the Church. This man who was so holy was a persecutor of heretics. Manicheans who had fled from Africa to Italy because of the persecution of the Vandals received a severe reception from St. Leo. He gave sermons warning the people against them and exhorted the people to denounce them to the Church.

When the heresy of the Priscillians re-emerged in Spain, he supported the fight of St. Turibius, Bishop of Astorga, to suppress it. Further, he established a kind of Inquisition in Rome, and he was the one who presided over its sessions, assisted by Bishops and illustrious persons. He carried out the role of Inquisitor - he questioned them to see if there were heresies, tried to convert those who were in error, and ordered punishment for those who refused the Catholic doctrine. You can see, therefore, that he was practicing a holy violence against the heretics. And this in no way was opposed to his sanctity. It was a virtue, a virtue that today is poorly appreciated, because it is the opposite of the bad ecumenism.

What would St. Leo the Great say and do if he would rise up from his grave and see the Catholic Church in the sad situation she is in today where all heresies are unopposed? He would immediately order the re-installation of an Inquisition. Therefore, let us pray to St. Leo, asking him to re-ignite in the Church the spirit of the Inquisition, the spirit of discernment, of holy vigilance, of balanced intransigence, of militancy and the fight. If this were established in the Church, perhaps the world could avoid the terrible chastisement through which it needs to pass. Let us pray to him asking that we might be enflamed with this spirit and that it be maintained in the Holy Church until the end times.
(Blog Owners Note - Indeed let us pray that Our Pope Benedict XVI defends our Catholic Faith from the tide of Relativism and Socialism which is sweeping across the world today)

Historical Basis for Reception of Communion on the tongue.

According to certain modern historians and progressive theologians, Holy Communion on the tongue became the norm in the Middle ages. Following below is their version of history.

During the Middle Ages certain distortions in the faith and/or in approaches to it gradually developed. These included an excessive fear of God and an over-concern about sin, judgment and punishment, as well as an over-emphasis on Christ's divinity-- so emphasized as to down-play His sacred humanity or virtually deny it; also an over-emphasis on the priest's role in the sacred liturgy, and a loss of the sense of the community which the Church, in fact, is. In particular, because of excessive emphasis on adoring Christ in the Holy Eucharist and an over-strict approach to moral matters, Holy Communion became more and more rare. It was considered enough to gaze upon the Sacred Host during the elevation. (In fact, in certain critics' minds the elevation, exposition and benediction of the Blessed Sacrament find their origins during the 'unfortunate' Middle Ages, a period whose liturgical practices we would do well-- so they think-- to rid ourselves of.) It was in this atmosphere and under these circumstances, they argue, that the practice of Communion in the hand began to be restricted. The practice of the priest placing the consecrated Bread directly into the mouth of the communicant thus developed and, they think, was unwisely imposed.

These progressivist theologians and historians would love to do away with the past discourage the Communion-on-the-tongue practice whereby the faithful are not allowed to "take and eat," and should return to the pristine usage of the Fathers and Apostles, namely, Communion in the hand.

It is a compelling story.Too bad that it is not true.

Here are some actual Historical examples which speak the truth.

The sacred Council of Trent declared that the custom whereby only the priest-celebrant gives Communion to himself (with his own hands), and the laity receive It from him, is an Apostolic tradition.

Pope St. Leo the Great(440-461) is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith." The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well established thing.

Pope St. Gregory the Great (died in 604) is another witness. In his dialogues he relates how Pope St. Agapitus performed a miracle during Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone's mouth.

In his article on "Communion" in the Dictionaire d'Archeologiae Chretienne, Leclerq declares that the peace of Constantine in 313 A.D.served toward bringing the practice of Communion in the hand to an end. After persecution had ceased, evidently the practice of Communion in the hand persisted here and there. Church authority apparently judged that it invited abuse and deemed it contrary to the custom of the Apostles.

Thus the Synod of Rouen, France, in about 878 directed: "Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen, but only in their mouths"

A non-ecumenical Council of Constantinople known as "In Trullo" in 692 A.D. prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves (which is of course what happens when the Sacred Particle is placed in the hand of communicants), and decreed a censure against those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon.

Is it not a form of clericalism to allow the priest to touch the Sacred Host and to forbid the laity to do the same? Even priests were not allowed to touch the Blessed Sacrament except out of some need to do so.In fact, other than the celebrant of the Mass itself, no one else receiving Communion, not even a priest, could receive It in the hand. Hence in the traditional liturgical practice of the Roman Rite, if a priest were assisting at Mass (and not celebrating) and if he wished to receive Holy
Communion, he did not do so by his own hand; he received on the tongue from another priest. When Pope St. Pius X was on his deathbed in August of 1914, and Holy Communion was brought to him as Viaticum, he did not and was not allowed to receive in the hand. He received on the tongue according to the law and practice of the
Catholic Church.