St. Thomas Aquinas is a faithful son and teacher of the Church. He never attacked nor oppose the teachings of the Pope.
-
Fr, is the source below is supported by the Catholic Church or is it a propaganda made by the Extreme Traditionalist?
Because I saw the link below being posted by the admin of San Lorenzo Ruiz de Manila Parish in their Facebook Page...
Paki-linaw lang po...
Thanks!
http://www.cfnews.org/sacrilege.htm
-
Fr. Abe, CRS said...
-
[Fr, is the source below is supported by the Catholic Church or is it a propaganda made by the Extreme Traditionalist?
Because I saw the link below being posted by the admin of San Lorenzo Ruiz de Manila Parish in their Facebook Page...
Paki-linaw lang po...
Thanks!
http://www.cfnews.org/sacrilege.htm]
THIS IS MERE PROPAGANDA BY THE ULTRA TRADITIONALISTS. THAT JOHN VENNARI IS AN SSPX OR EVEN WORSE. DON'T BELIEVE HIM.
-
Anonymous said...
-
[Fr, is the source below is supported by the Catholic Church or is it a propaganda made by the Extreme Traditionalist?
Because I saw the link below being posted by the admin of San Lorenzo Ruiz de Manila Parish in their Facebook Page...
Paki-linaw lang po...
Thanks!
http://www.cfnews.org/sacrilege.htm]
THIS IS MERE PROPAGANDA BY THE ULTRA TRADITIONALISTS. THAT JOHN VENNARI IS AN SSPX OR EVEN WORSE. DON'T BELIEVE HIM.
saan po nag ka mali si John Vennari sa kanyang article? which line ang mali?
-
Fr. Abe, CRS said...
-
THE ENTIRE ARTICLE IS WRONG IN ITS PREMISE. HE DECLARES COMMUNION IN THE HAND AS SACRILEGE BUT IT IS HIS MERE OPINION. HE FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY OFFICIAL CHURCH DECLARATION MUCH MORE A DOGMA THAT COMMUNION BY THE HAND IS SACRILEGE AND IS EVIL. HE MAKES HIMSELF MORE AUTHORITATIVE THAN THE POPE.
-
Anonymous said...
-
Father naman, di mo binasa ang article. He actually quote St Thomas Aquinas.
Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that “out of reverence for this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated.” Thus, he said the sacred vessels of the altar are consecrated for this holy purpose, but also, the priest’s hands are consecrated for touching this Sacrament. And St. Thomas said that it is therefore not lawful for anyone else to touch it, except to save it from desecration. (Summa, III, Q. 82. Art. 3)
Pakibasa mo muna ang article tsaka point out his errors. I don't think he is giving out his opinion because he is quoting from the Church and the Church Fathers.
St Thomas Aquinas himself says that only Consecrated Hands can touch the Holy Eucharist. Are you saying St Thomas is wrong?
-
Fr. Abe, CRS said...
-
[Father naman, di mo binasa ang article. He actually quote St Thomas Aquinas.]
BINASA KO. IKAW TALAGA HINDI KA MARUNONG MAGBASA. WALA SIYANG NAIPAKITA KAHIT ISANG CHURCH DOCTRINE PROHIBITING COMMUNION BY THE HAND. WALA. NADA, NUNCA. IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET. HA HA HA...
[Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that “out of reverence for this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated.”]
HA HA HA... SO IS JOHN VENNARI A PRIEST? SO THEN EVERY TIME HIS MOUTH TOUCHES THE HOLY EUCHARIST THEN HE COMMITTED ABOMINATION AND SACRILEGE. WHY? BECAUSE HIS MOUTH AND HIS TONGUE ARE NOT CONSECRATED. HA HA HA...
SO, EVERY TIME THE LAY PEOPLE TOUCHES THE SACRED BODY OF THE LORD THROUGH THEIR MOUTH AND TONGUE THEY ARE COMMITTING SACRILEGE BECAUSE THEIR MOUTHS AND TONGUE ARE NOT CONSECRATED. HA HA HA...
[Thus, he said the sacred vessels of the altar are consecrated for this holy purpose, but also, the priest’s hands are consecrated for touching this Sacrament. And St. Thomas said that it is therefore not lawful for anyone else to touch it, except to save it from desecration. (Summa, III, Q. 82. Art. 3)]
THAT IS RIGHT. THIS IS ALSO THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TODAY. ST. THOMAS STATED THAT IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN AND DEFEND THE POWER OF THE PRIEST AS MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST AND OF THE SACRED TRADITION OF GIVING THE VIATICUM TO THE SICK.
BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS NO STATEMENT THERE THAT: "COMMUNION ON THE HAND IS SACRILIGE" AS BEING PROPOSED BY JOHN VENNARI. NOTHING AT ALL.
IF YOU WILL THAT STATEMENT OF ST. THOMAS ON COMMUNION ON THE HAND THEN IT WILL BE VERY DETRIMENTAL TO YOU TOO BECAUSE THAT INTERPRETATION OR RATHER APPLICATION CAN ALSO BE SAID OF COMMUNION BY THE MOUTH OR TONGUE.
ALSO BEAR IN MIND THAT ST. THOMAS SIMPLY DEFENDS THE STAND OF THE CHURCH. DURING HIS TIME THERE WAS NO COMMUNION BY THE HAND YET HANDED ON BY THE CHURCH SO HE WAS MERELY DEFENDING THE EXISTING CUSTOM OF THE CHURCH BUT HE NEVER STATED THAT THE POPE CAN NEVER AUTHORIZED COMMUNION BY THE HAND.
MY SUGGESTION TO YOU IS: GET REAL. DO NOT READ WHAT IS NOT STATED IN THE SUMMA.
[Pakibasa mo muna ang article tsaka point out his errors. I don't think he is giving out his opinion because he is quoting from the Church and the Church Fathers.]
SINABI KO NA SAYO NA BINASA KO NA. AT WALA AKONG NAKITA NA KAHIT ISANG QUOTATION NIYA FROM THE BIBLE, FROM THE FATHERS OR FROM THE SAINTS THAT PROHIBITS THE POPE IN ALLOWING COMMUNION BY THE HAND AND THERE IS NO SINGLE STATEMENT THEREIN THAT SAYS 'COMMUNION BY THE HAND IS SACRILEGE'. NO, NO, NO... NADA, NUNCA. IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET!
[St Thomas Aquinas himself says that only Consecrated Hands can touch the Holy Eucharist. Are you saying St Thomas is wrong?]
ST. THOMAS IS RIGHT BUT JOHN VENNARI IS WRONG. WHERE DID ST. THOMAS SAY THAT COMMUNION BY THE HAND IS SACRILEGE?
MY SUGGESTION TO YOU IS THAT READ AND READ THAT PASSAGE FROM THE SUMMA AND IMPRINT IT ON YOUR HEAD SO THAT WHEN YOUR NON-CONSECRATED TONGUE AND MOUTH TOUCH THE BODY OF THE LORD YOU CAN DIE WITH SIN OF SACRILEGE AS A PRIZE FOR YOUR DISTORTED INTERPRETATION OF IT.
.jpg)
![ST. JEROME EMILIANI [1486-1537]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6dKQTchkJaA/R0lo013dyBI/AAAAAAAAB_4/XzUAPDESwwQ/s1600/St.+Jerome+in+prayer,+small_1.jpg)
On this issue, it should be noted that communion by the tongue and kneeling is the norm and that communion on the hand while standing was allowed only by indult. It is just unfortunate that the second became the quite universal practice.
ReplyDeleteHA HA HA... SO IS JOHN VENNARI A PRIEST?
ReplyDeletekailan ko sinabing priest si John Vennari? kailan cya nag claim na priest cya? wala, hindi, never. NADA, NUNCA. IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET. dont impose something which he never claim.
SO THEN EVERY TIME HIS MOUTH TOUCHES THE HOLY EUCHARIST THEN HE COMMITTED ABOMINATION AND SACRILEGE. WHY? BECAUSE HIS MOUTH AND HIS TONGUE ARE NOT CONSECRATED.
what a liberal answer. there is no church teaching that "in order to receive communion, his mouth and tongue must be consecrated" nada, nuncha. in Russian: nyet nyet. The proper way to receive communion is through tongue to fully express the dogma that the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is manifested.
THAT IS RIGHT. THIS IS ALSO THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TODAY. ST. THOMAS STATED THAT IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN AND DEFEND THE POWER OF THE PRIEST AS MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST AND OF THE SACRED TRADITION OF GIVING THE VIATICUM TO THE SICK.
Don't you know how to read? that is NOT what St Thomas said. He said it plainly. "nothing touches it but what is consecrated.”
BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS NO STATEMENT THERE THAT: "COMMUNION ON THE HAND IS SACRILIGE" AS BEING PROPOSED BY JOHN VENNARI. NOTHING AT ALL.
the Church may have not such statement but that doesnt mean it is not true. It was not proposed by John Vennari, it was the constant teaching of the Church, although no explicit statement, only implicit, such as mentioned by St Thomas. The smallest particle and the big host is of the same value. If we receive communion in the hand, the possibility of these small particles fall on the ground and it is inevitable.
[HA HA HA... SO IS JOHN VENNARI A PRIEST?
ReplyDeletekailan ko sinabing priest si John Vennari?]
HA HA HA... SINABI KO BANG SINABI MO? TINATANONG KITA KUNG PARI SIYA O HINDI. ALAM KONG HINDI SIYA PARI. KAYA TUWANG TUMATAMA SA DILA NIYANG NON-CONSECRATED ANG BODY OF THE LORD HE IS GUILTY OF SACRILEGE.
[kailan cya nag claim na priest cya?]
HA HA HA... BAKIT SINABI KO BA NAG CLAIM SIYA NA PARI SIYA? HA HA HA...
[wala, hindi, never. NADA, NUNCA. IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET. dont impose something which he never claim.]
HA HA HA... BUANG KA PALA E. KAYO ITONG MGA BALIW NA NAGTUTURO NA CONSECRATED HANDS OF THE PRIEST LANG ANG PWEDENG MAG TOUCH SA CONSECRATED BODY OF THE LORD THEN ANG KAPAL NG MUKA NINYONG MAG RECEIVE NG BODY OF THE LORD USING YOUR MOUTH AND TONGUE. E DI SACRILEGE YON. I AM SIMPLY APPLYING TO YOU THE ILLOGICITY AND IMPRACTICALITY OF YOUR REASONING.
[SO THEN EVERY TIME HIS MOUTH TOUCHES THE HOLY EUCHARIST THEN HE COMMITTED ABOMINATION AND SACRILEGE. WHY? BECAUSE HIS MOUTH AND HIS TONGUE ARE NOT CONSECRATED.
what a liberal answer.]
ANONG LIBERAL DIYAN SA SAGOT KO. AYAW NINYONG DUMAPO SA KAMAY NG BAPTIZED CATHOLIC RECEIVING THE HOLY COMMUNION KASI NON-CONSECRATED ANG HANDS. TAPOS GUSTO MO SA BUNGANGA AT DILA NYO LANG DADAPO. E MGA BUANG KAYO. HINDI NAMAN PALA PARI SI JOHN VENNARI E. IBIG SABIHIN HINDI RIN CONSECRATED ANG BUNGANGA AT DILA NIYA. MASAMA PA RIN IYON.
[there is no church teaching that "in order to receive communion, his mouth and tongue must be consecrated" nada, nuncha. in Russian: nyet nyet.]
ReplyDeleteHA HA HA... E TANGA KA PALA E. WALA RING NAGBABAWAL NG COMMUNION ON THE HAND INSTEAD ITO AY PINAYAGAN NG SANTO PAPA AT MGA OBISPO. HA HA HA... ANG COMMUNION ON THE MOUTH AT COMMUNION ON THE HAND PAREHONG YES YES YES. KAYA ANONG PROBLEMA MO? HA HA HA...
[The proper way to receive communion is through tongue to fully express the dogma that the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is manifested.]
THE PROPER WAY TO RECEIVE COMMUNION IS THROUGH THE TONGUE AND BY THE HAND. YAN AY PAREHONG APPROVED AT PAREHONG NAGPAPAHAYAG NG DOGMA OF THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY EUCHARIST. WALANG TURO ANG SANTA IGLESIA NA BAWAL ANG COMMUNION ON THE HAND: NADA, NUNCA... IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET. HA HA HA...
[THAT IS RIGHT. THIS IS ALSO THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TODAY. ST. THOMAS STATED THAT IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN AND DEFEND THE POWER OF THE PRIEST AS MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST AND OF THE SACRED TRADITION OF GIVING THE VIATICUM TO THE SICK.
Don't you know how to read?]
IKAW ANG HINDI MARUNONG MAGBASA E. BULAG KA BA? HINDI MO BA NAKITA NA WALANG NAKASULAT DIYAN NA BAWAL ANG COMMUNION ON THE HAND? WALA, WALANG WALA. NADA, NUNCA... IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET. HA HA HA...
[that is NOT what St Thomas said. He said it plainly. "nothing touches it but what is consecrated.”]
HA HA HA... TANGA. HINDI DYAN SINABI NA "COMMUNION ON THE HAND IS EVIL" OR "COMMUNION ON THE HAND MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED" NO, NO, NO... WALA, WALANG WALA. NADA, NUNCA... IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET. HA HA HA...
[BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS NO STATEMENT THERE THAT: "COMMUNION ON THE HAND IS SACRILIGE" AS BEING PROPOSED BY JOHN VENNARI. NOTHING AT ALL.
the Church may have not such statement but that doesnt mean it is not true.]
HA HA HA... TANGA TALAGA. E DI INAMIN MO RIN NA WALANG PAGBABAWAL ANG CHURCH. KUNG HINDI BAWAL E DI HINDI BAWAL. HA HA HA...
THE POPE AND THE BISHOPS APPROVED COMMUNION BY THE HAND SO E DI OK. APPROBADO. PWEDENG PWEDE. SINO KA AT SINO SI JOHN VENNARI PARA MAGMAGALING LABAN SA DECISION NG POPE AT NG MGA OBISPO? WALA KAYONG KARAPATAN. HINDI KAYO ANG PASTOL NG MGA TUPA. KAYO AY MGA ASONG LOBO. MGA ASONG ULOL.
[It was not proposed by John Vennari, it was the constant teaching of the Church, although no explicit statement, only implicit, such as mentioned by St Thomas.]
CONSTANT TEACHING SA GUNI-GUNI MO. HALLUCINATIONS NYO LANG IYAN. ANG TURO NG SIMBAHAN AY MALINAW HINDI BASE SA IMAGINATION NINYONG DALAWA NI JOHN VENNARI. ANG TURO NG SIMBAHAN AY OFFICIAL NA GALING SA SANTO PAPA AT MGA OBISPO HINDI SA MGA TULAD NINYONG MADUMI ANG IMAHINASYON. HA HA HA...
ANG PAGBABAWAL NINYO AY IMAGINARY SUBALIT ANG PAPAL AT EPISCOPAL PERMISSION PARA SA COMMUNION ON THE HAND AY DOCUMENTED. HINDI ILUSYON.
[The smallest particle and the big host is of the same value. If we receive communion in the hand, the possibility of these small particles fall on the ground and it is inevitable.]
EVEN IF IT IS PUT ON THE MOUTH THE POSSIBILITY OF FALLING ON THE GROUND FOR SMALLEST PARTICLES IS STILL POSSIBLE. IF YOU DON'T WANT ANY OF THE SMALLEST PARTICLES TO FALL AWAY THEN USE MICROSCOPES TO SEARCH FOR THEM DURING EVERY HOLY COMMUNION IN ALL PARISHES. PARA MA-SATISFY ANG KABALIWAN MO.
[On this issue, it should be noted that communion by the tongue and kneeling is the norm and that communion on the hand while standing was allowed only by indult.]
ReplyDeleteTHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE WAY OF CONSIDERING THE TWO. THEY ARE BOTH APPROVED MANNERS OF RECEIVING THE HOLY COMMUNION BUT THE ONE ON TONGUE IS THE NORM AND THE OTHER BY SPECIAL PERMMISSION OR BY INDULT. BUT, WALANG EVIL OR SACRILEGE SA DALAWANG YAN.
[It is just unfortunate that the second became the quite universal practice.]
I AGREE. I ALSO PREFER COMMUNION ON TONGUE OVER THE ONE BY THE HAND. BUT IT IS WRONG TO SAY THAT COMMUNION BY THE HAND IS SACRILEGE.
Ay naku,balik tayo sa binding authority of the Pope. Ang problema kasi eh yung iba dyan walang tiwala sa Pope. Like sheep let us be humble and obedient to the Pope.
ReplyDeleteINSTEAD NA OBEDIENCE TO THE POPE E UTO-UTO SIYA KAY JOHN VENNARI. HA HA HA...
ReplyDeletehindi sinabing "bawal" does not mean pwedeng gawin.
ReplyDeleteHindi ipinagbawal ng Simbahan na pwedeng ihulog ang Eucharist sa sahig. Pwede mo bang ihulog sa sahig ang Eucharist? (using your argument, pwede ihulog ang Eucharist sa sahig dahil hindi naman bawal)
Hindi ipinagbawal kung haluan ng laway ang wine sa Mass. Pwede mo bang haluan ng laway ang wine? (using your argument, pwedeng haluan ng laway ang wine kasi hindi naman ipinagbawal)
Hindi rin ipinagbawal kung haluan ko ng kanin (rice) ang Eucharist. (again using your argument, pwedeng pwede haluan ng rice ang Eucharist, kasi hindi naman bawal.
In short, pwedeng pwede nating gawin lahat ng hindi bawal. Pwede ngang beer ang gamitin instead sa wine! ay jindi pala. Wine lang pala ang pwede.
THE POPE AND THE BISHOPS APPROVED COMMUNION BY THE HAND..
ReplyDeleteWhich document? please provide the document.
ANG TURO NG SIMBAHAN AY MALINAW
ReplyDeleteANong Church document? tell me the encyclical, motu propio, papa bull, o kung ano pa. anong document na malinaw. sabi mo malinaw, cge nga show me.
SUBALIT ANG PAPAL AT EPISCOPAL PERMISSION PARA SA COMMUNION ON THE HAND AY DOCUMENTED. HINDI ILUSYON.
ALing document nga?
EVEN IF IT IS PUT ON THE MOUTH THE POSSIBILITY OF FALLING ON THE GROUND FOR SMALLEST PARTICLES IS STILL POSSIBLE.
Yes, it is possible, but less posible, unless mag sneeze or mag ubo yung communicant. Pero sa Communion in the hand lahat ng maiiwan sa daliri ng communicant at Lay minister ay surely madesecrate yun.
KUNG HINDI BAWAL E DI HINDI BAWAL. HA HA HA...
fallacy.
[ANG TURO NG SIMBAHAN AY MALINAW
ReplyDeleteANong Church document? tell me the encyclical, motu propio, papa bull, o kung ano pa. anong document na malinaw. sabi mo malinaw, cge nga show me.]
HINDI LANG BALIW ITONG TUTA NI JOHN VENNARI NA ITO BULAG PA. HA HA HA... ITO:
REDEMPTIONIS SACRAMENTUM #92. Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]
YAN AY MALINAW, DIRECT AND EXPLICIT "INSTRUCTION" FROM THE HOLY SEE NA MAY PAHINTULOT SA COMMUNION BY THE HAND.
SI JOHN VENNARI AY WALANG KARAPATAN, WALANG AUTHORIDAD SA SANTA IGLESIA. HINDI SIYA ANG SANTO PAPA O ANG OFFICIAL NA AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SEE ON MATTERS OF THE SACRAMENTS AND WORSHIOP. HINDI SIYA ANG AMING SHEPHERD. SIYA AY ASONG ULOL NA NAGKUKUNWARING PASTOL NG KAWAN.
NGAYON, ANONG CHURHC DOCUMENT ANG NAGBABAWAL SA COMMUNION BY THE HAND? HE HE HE
[SUBALIT ANG PAPAL AT EPISCOPAL PERMISSION PARA SA COMMUNION ON THE HAND AY DOCUMENTED. HINDI ILUSYON.
ALing document nga?]
REDEMPTIONIS SACRAMENTUM NGA. HE HE HE... IGNORANTE KA SA REDEMPTIONIS SACRAMENTUM. HA HA HA...
NGAYON, ANONG CHURHC DOCUMENT ANG NAGBABAWAL SA COMMUNION BY THE HAND? HE HE HE
[EVEN IF IT IS PUT ON THE MOUTH THE POSSIBILITY OF FALLING ON THE GROUND FOR SMALLEST PARTICLES IS STILL POSSIBLE.
Yes, it is possible, but less posible, unless mag sneeze or mag ubo yung communicant.]
ANONG LESS ANG PINAGSASABI MO. BAKIT NABILANG MO ANG MGA SMALLEST PARTICLES NA NAHULOG SA COMMUNION BY THE HAND AT SA COMMUNON BY THE MOUTH? ILUSYON MO LANG IYAN. HAKA-HAKA. HALUSINASYON NG MGA BALIW.
[Pero sa Communion in the hand lahat ng maiiwan sa daliri ng communicant at Lay minister ay surely madesecrate yun.]
HA HA HA... WALANG DESECRATION DUON. KUNG MAY DESECRATION SA KAMAY NG COMMUNICANT E DI MAY DESECRATION DIN SA BUNGANGA AT SA DILA. BAKIT CONSECRATED BA ANG DILA AT BUNGANGA NINYO NI JOHN VENNARI? MGA DESECRATORS KAYO.
[KUNG HINDI BAWAL E DI HINDI BAWAL. HA HA HA...
fallacy.]
TANGA. WALANG FALLACY DIYAN. ANG HINDI BAWAL AY HINDI BAWAL. HA HA HA... DAPAT IPAGBAWAL NG LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY PARA MAGING BAWAL. KAYO NI JOHN VENNARI AY WALANG AUTHORIDAD MAGBAWAL WALA KAYONG MGA KARAPATAN. KAYO AY MGA ASONG TUMATAHOL SUBALIT WALANG KWENTA ANG INYONG TAHOL DAHIL INUTIL KAYO AT HINDI TUNAY NA PASTOL NG KAWAN.
Communion-in-the-Hand
ReplyDeleteCommunion-in-the-hand is approved by the Holy See as an option for the United States, and for many other countries, including Italy. The following are the relevant parts of the documents governing this permission.
In the following documents the citations refer to:
Notitiae (Not.) - the official journal of the Congregation for Divine Worship (which now includes the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments)
Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) - the official record "Acts of the Apostolic See," in which authoritative teaching and legal decrees are published.
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter "En reponse a la demande," to presidents of those conferences of bishops petitioning the indult for communion in the hand, 29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Not 5 (1969) 351-353.
In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the Instruction Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use. At the same time he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter. The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion. The condition is the complete avoidance of any cause for the faithful to be shocked and any danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist. The following norms must therefore be respected. [My emphasis. One wonders if this condition is being met.]
1. The new manner of giving communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted every one of the faithful have the option of receiving communion on the tongue and even when other persons are receiving communion in the hand. The two ways of receiving communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. There is a twofold purpose here: that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord between members of the faithful.
2. The rite of communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Since the question involves human attitudes, this mode of communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. It is advisable, therefore, that the rite be introduced gradually and in the beginning within small, better prepared groups and in favorable settings. Above all it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the sacrament. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the eucharistic presence and in excluding as well any danger or hint of danger of profaning the Eucharist.
3. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic bread in their hand and putting it into their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding it as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. Instead this option must increase in them a consciousness of the dignity of the members of Christ's Mystical Body, into which they are incorporated by baptism and by the grace of the Eucharist. It must also increase their faith in the sublime reality of the Lord's body and blood, which they touch with their hand. Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing.
ReplyDelete4. As to the way to carry out the new rite: one possible model is the traditional usage, which expresses the ministerial functions, by having the priest or deacon place the host in the hand of the communicant. Alternatively, it is permissible to adopt a simpler procedure, namely, allowing the faithful themselves to take the host from the ciborium or paten. The faithful should consume the host before returning to their place; the minister's part will be brought out by use of the usual formulary, The body of Christ, to which the communicant replies: Amen. [Note: Rome later forbid the Communicant to take the Host themselves.]
5. Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the eucharistic bread to fall or be scattered. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that there comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples.
6. In the case of communion under both kinds by way of intinction, it is never permitted to place on the hand of the communicant the host that has been dipped in the Lord's blood.
7. Bishops allowing introduction of the new way of receiving communion are requested to send to this Congregation after six months a report on the result of its concession."
Note: The "Summary of Decrees" on confirmation of the decisions of conferences of bishops in Notitiae lists the granting of this faculty to the following English-speaking conferences (as found in AAS and Notitiae):
ReplyDeleteSouth Africa, 3 February 1970
Canada, 12 February 1970
Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), 2 October 1971
Zambia, 11 March 1974
New Zealand, 24 April 1974
Australia, 26 September 1975
England and Wales, 6 March 1976
Papua and New Guinea, 28 April 1976
Ireland, 4 September 1976
Pakistan, 29 October 1976
United States, 17 June 1977
Scotland, 7 July 1977
Malaysia and Singapore, 3 October 1977
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS, Instruction Immensae caritatis, on facilitating reception of Communion in certain circumstances, 29 January 1973: AAS 65 (1973) 264-271; Not 9 (1973) 157-164.
Part 4. Devotion and reverence toward the Eucharist in the case of communion in the hand
Ever since the Instruction Memoriale Domini three years ago, some of the conferences of bishops have been requesting the Apostolic See for the faculty to allow ministers distributing communion to place the eucharistic bread in the hand of the faithful. The same Instruction contained a reminder that "the laws of the Church and the writings of the Fathers give ample witness of a supreme reverence and utmost caution toward the Eucharist" and that this must continue. Particularly in regard to this way of receiving communion, experience suggests certain matters requiring careful attention.
On the part of both the minister and the recipient, whenever the host is placed in the hand of a communicant there must be careful concern and caution, especially about particles that might fall from the hosts.
The usage of communion in the hand must be accompanied by relevant instruction or catechesis on Catholic teaching regarding Christ's real and permanent presence under the eucharistic elements and the proper reverence toward this sacrament.
The faithful must be taught that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and that therefore the worship of latria or adoration belonging to God is owed to Christ present in this sacrament. They are also to be instructed not to omit after communion the sincere and appropriate thanksgiving that is in keeping with their individual capacities, state, and occupation.
Finally, to the end that their coming to this heavenly table may be completely worthy and fruitful, the faithful should be instructed on its benefits and effects, for both the individual and society, so that their familial relationship to the Father who gives us our "daily bread," may reflect the highest reverence for him, nurture love, and lead to a living bond with Christ, in whose flesh and blood we share.
Pope Paul Vl approved this Instruction, confirmed it with his authority, and ordered its publication, setting the day of publication as its effective date.
The authority of the Church to permit what in other centuries was freely done and which "by itself" is not contrary to the faith is not in question. If abuses are widespread they are contrary to the mind of the Church as expressed in the Roman documents, and contrary to the devotion expressed in the early Church when Communion was also received in the hand. Withdrawing this permission in our time on account of the abuses is certainly something Rome could do.
Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL
HOY TUTA NI JOHN VENNARI NASAAN ANG CHURCH DOMUMENTS MO NA NAGBABAWAL NG COMMUNION BY THE HAND? HE HE HE...
ReplyDelete[hindi sinabing "bawal" does not mean pwedeng gawin.]
ReplyDeleteHA HA HA... PANAKA TANGA NITO. HINDI NGA BAWAL E SIEMPRE PWEDENG GAWIN. ANG COMMUNION ON THE HAND AY HINDI BAWAL AT MAY PERMISSION. KAYA HINDI MASAMA AT PWEDENG GAWIN.
[Hindi ipinagbawal ng Simbahan na pwedeng ihulog ang Eucharist sa sahig.]
HOY, BALIW. PINAGBAWAL IYAN NG SIMBAHAN. HA HA HA... TANGA TALAGA ITONG TUTA NI JOHN VENNARI. MALINAW IYAN SA CHURCH RULE:
REDEMPTIONIS SACRAMENTUM #[93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.[180]
IYAN AY GALING SA:
Cf. Missale Romanum, Institutio Generalis, n. 118.
HE HE HE... KITA MO NA ANG KATANGAHAN MO. PATI KAMI AY LOLOKOHIN MO PA. HOY MAHIYA KA SA KALULUWA MO KUNG MERON KA PA. BUHAY KA PA E SINUSUNOG MO NA SA IMPIERNO ANG SARILI MONG KALULUWA SA KASINUNGALINGAN MO.
[Pwede mo bang ihulog sa sahig ang Eucharist? (using your argument, pwede ihulog ang Eucharist sa sahig dahil hindi naman bawal)]
HINDI DAHIL INIUTOS NG HOLY SEE AT SINABI NG HOLY SEE NA HINDI DAPAT MAHULOG SA SAHIG ANG EUCHARIST. HE HE HE... HINDI MO PALA ALAM NA IYAN AY NASA BATAS NG SANTA IGLESIA. HA HA HA... CATOLICO KA BA? HA HA HA... IYAN ANG HIRAP SA MGA TRAIDOR SA SANTO PAPA E, NASISIRAAN NG BAIT. HA HA HA...
[Hindi ipinagbawal kung haluan ng laway ang wine sa Mass. Pwede mo bang haluan ng laway ang wine? (using your argument, pwedeng haluan ng laway ang wine kasi hindi naman ipinagbawal)]
LALONG NILUBLOB ANG SARILI SA KATANGAHAN. HA HA HA... E ANG LINAW LINAW NG BATAS NG SIMBAHAN NA DAPAT AY WINE MIXED WITH FEW WATER ANG IKO CONSECRATE. HE HE HE... MAY PAGBABAWAL DAHIL EXACTONG IBINIGAY NG SANTA IGLESIA ANG ELEMENTONG DAPAT ICONSECRATE. HE HE HE...
ISA PA SA KATANGAHAN MO KAPAG ININOM NG PARI ANG SACRED BLOOD OF THE LORD NAGHAHALO ANG HOLY BLOOD AT ANG LAWAY NG PARI. HA HA HA... BALIW ANG TUTA NI JOHN VENNARI.
[Hindi rin ipinagbawal kung haluan ko ng kanin (rice) ang Eucharist. (again using your argument, pwedeng pwede haluan ng rice ang Eucharist, kasi hindi naman bawal.]
HA HA HA... TANGA. IPINAGBAWAL IYON DAHIL HINDI IYON KASAMA SA EXACTONG LISTAHAN NG DAPAT GAMITIN SA CONSECRATION. HE HE HE... HA HA HA...
[In short, pwedeng pwede nating gawin lahat ng hindi bawal. Pwede ngang beer ang gamitin instead sa wine! ay jindi pala. Wine lang pala ang pwede.]
IN SHORT, TATANGA TANGA KA. KASI ANG COMMUNION IN THE HAND HINDI PINAGBAWAL AND AT THE SAME TIME ALLOWED. ANG LAWAY AT KANIN AT BEER PINAGBAWAL IMPLICITLY DAHIL HINDI PINASAMA SA MGA DAPAT GAMITIN SA CONSECRATION AT WALANG CHURCH RULE NA NAGPAPAHINTULOT NA GAMITIN SILA SA CONSECRATION. KAYA ANG MGA EXAMPLES AT REASONING MO AY KATANGAHAN. KABALIWAN. HA HA HA... TELL THAT TO THE MARINES. MAGSAMA KAYO NI JOHN VENNARI SA IMPIERNO, SA LABAS NG SANTA IGLESIANG ITINATAG KAY SAN PEDRO. MGA POPELESS FOOLS.
Father hayaan nyo na po sya... nang iinis lang po ang mga yan.. para po magalit kayo sa kanila..
ReplyDeleteMGA ASONG ULOL NA UMAATAKE SA SANTO PAPA ANG MGA TRADIONALISTS KUNO NA IYAN.
ReplyDeletePeronal ko lang to ha....Takot kasi ako sa communion in tongue kasi may tendency na makagat ko ang daliri ni Father.Not like sa communion in hand 100 percent safety ang ang daliri ng Pari.
ReplyDelete