M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
IIRC, this happened over the course of at least a month. (They had 5 Masses on the weekend.) ,A
And several Hosts found in everywhere in the church. (This parish is fairly big too.)
- Status
And several Hosts found in everywhere in the church. (This parish is fairly big too.)
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Lord, have mercy!!!
M
Montrose
Guest
SSPX is not a Church and because they are not in full communion with Rome or the local bishop they probably don’t care.
M
Montrose
Guest
It is a temporary measure due to the health crisis.
It is anyway somewhat of a moot point as there is no Mass here. I live in Manila and the government has banned all gatherings, including religious gatherings, of more than 5 people so that has effectively put Masses on hold.
Last edited:
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
O dearest God, save us! 
Indeed, quite a terrifying tale.
SSPX have valid orders, Eucharist, etc. and are most definitely Catholic (although irregular), so to make such a blanket statement as all Catholic churches in the Philippines have banned COTT, the only reason I point to a SSPX church is because I know for sure that they only have COTT, as do any number of Eastern Catholic Churches, although I do not know which churches are open in the Philippines and which are not, the SSPX church I pointed to does seem to be open.
C
CRM_Brother
Guest
As a student of Church History, I feel a need to correct something inferred by the article which originated this forum thread. I am not making comment on the current issue of communion in the hand, just making a statement of historical fact.
The practices of some churches after Vatican II for reception of communion in the hand was not the first instances of this practice, as alluded to in the article.
The first descriptions of the Mass from the Early Church witness that the original method of receiving of the Eucharist was in the hand. The priest would consecrate the Blessed Sacrament, it would be distributed, and then the entire congregation (priest, deacons, and layity) would consume the Eucharist at the same time. This practice continued in various local churches until the reforms and standardization of the Council of Trent.
The first descriptions of communion on the tongue which I have been able to find come from the 6th-7th centuries.
Historically, reception of communion in the hand is actually older than reception of communion on the tongue.
The practices of some churches after Vatican II for reception of communion in the hand was not the first instances of this practice, as alluded to in the article.
The first descriptions of the Mass from the Early Church witness that the original method of receiving of the Eucharist was in the hand. The priest would consecrate the Blessed Sacrament, it would be distributed, and then the entire congregation (priest, deacons, and layity) would consume the Eucharist at the same time. This practice continued in various local churches until the reforms and standardization of the Council of Trent.
The first descriptions of communion on the tongue which I have been able to find come from the 6th-7th centuries.
Historically, reception of communion in the hand is actually older than reception of communion on the tongue.
Last edited:
M
Montrose
Guest
I did not say the churches are closed. I said there can be no more than 5 people in a church at one time and that would include the priest. It effectively stops Masses.
Anywhere under Enhanced Community Quarantine and Modified Enhanced Community Quarantine are bound by the authorities not to have gatherings of more than 5 people. Quezon City is the epicenter of covid-19 in Metro Manila. There will be no Masses there.
You still don’t seem to get it though. You can argue all you want that bishops cannot stop how communicants receive but that is true under normal circumstances. We are in the middle of the worst health crisis in a century and they decided to only permit receiving in in the hand. This has been the case for months as we have been under strict lockdown since March 17. Rome has not intervened in this decision.
I didn’t either, I said that I didn’t know which churches were open. Perhaps I should’ve said which churches were open to the public.
I’m not arguing with you I was simply pointing out the fact that it is not within the bishops power to deny anyone communion on the tongue weather under normal circumstances or during this pandemic.
However, what bishops are and aren’t allowed to do and what they actually are doing are two different things.
Have you tried receiving on the tongue since the beginning of this pandemic? If so were you denied communion on the tongue?
If you or any others have been denied communion on the tongue, you may want to report it (to Rome), as it is your rights that are being violated.
I have relatives in an area that were told that the bishop has said to strictly only allow reception of communion in the hand and yet the priest allows for those who wish, to receive on the tongue after all the others in Mass (who wish to) have received in the hand.
Point being those who have wished to receive on the tongue have not been denied (in that area), as it is not within the priest or bishop’s right to deny communion on the tongue, ever under any circumstances including this pandemic.
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
Then the same should go for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, no?
Extraordinary doesn’t mean what you want it to, it simply means “not ordinary” as in not an ordained minister who’s function is to be a minister of Holy Communion.
Here is a good article on this topic(from EWTN):
From the article:
“Therefore, in order that the faithful who are in the state of grace and who with an upright and pious disposition wish to share in the Sacred Banquet may not be deprived of this sacramental help and consolation, it has seemed appropriate to the Holy Father to establish extraordinary ministers, who may give Holy Communion to themselves and to other faithful under the following determined conditions: 3. Local ordinaries have the faculty to permit a suitable person individually chosen as an
extraordinary minister for a specific occasion or for a time or, in the case of necessity,
in some permanent way, either to give the Eucharist to himself or to other faithful and to
take it to the sick who are confined to their homes. This faculty may be used whenever:
Code:
a. there is no priest, deacon, or acolyte;
b. these are prevented from administering Holy Communion because of another
pastoral ministry or because of ill health or advanced age;
c. the number of faithful requesting Holy Communion is such that the celebration of
Mass or the distribution of the Eucharist outside of Mass would be unduly
prolonged.office to appoint a suitable person who in cases of genuine necessity would distribute
Holy Communion for a specific occasion. …Since these faculties are granted only for
the spiritual good of the faithful and for cases of genuine necessity, priests are to
remember that they are not thereby excused from the task of distributing the Eucharist
to the faithful who legitimately request it, and especially from taking and giving it to the
sick.
Continued…
Last edited:
…Continued from above
When we read of “the size of the congregation or a particular difficulty in which a celebrant finds himself,” it would fly in the face of common sense to say that the document had anything other than unusual situations in mind—massive gatherings where it would take an hour for a lone priest to distribute communion to everyone, or a health-condition that would make it nearly impossible for the priest to stand long enough to distribute hosts to all of the faithful receiving. It is taken for granted that if another priest or a deacon is available (at the rectory, for instance), he will assist at the appropriate time, and that when no such person is available, it can only be anundue prolongation of the length of Mass that might justify lay involvement. It is difficult to maintain that five or ten extra minutes of silence or good sacred music constitutes an undue prolongation. The liturgy is not, after all, an assembly line in which the chief aim is efficiency, making sure the gadgets move along as quickly as possible. A Mass that once in a while spilled over the clockwork sixty minutes might break the spell of utilitarianism under which almost everyone in the modern West is enchanted. Immensae caritatisalso seems to take it for granted that a layman appointed to the role, after all other possibilities have been exhausted, will usually have it only temporarily, for some occasion(s) when his help is desperately needed. "These faculties are granted only… for cases of genuine necessity."
When we read of “the size of the congregation or a particular difficulty in which a celebrant finds himself,” it would fly in the face of common sense to say that the document had anything other than unusual situations in mind—massive gatherings where it would take an hour for a lone priest to distribute communion to everyone, or a health-condition that would make it nearly impossible for the priest to stand long enough to distribute hosts to all of the faithful receiving. It is taken for granted that if another priest or a deacon is available (at the rectory, for instance), he will assist at the appropriate time, and that when no such person is available, it can only be anundue prolongation of the length of Mass that might justify lay involvement. It is difficult to maintain that five or ten extra minutes of silence or good sacred music constitutes an undue prolongation. The liturgy is not, after all, an assembly line in which the chief aim is efficiency, making sure the gadgets move along as quickly as possible. A Mass that once in a while spilled over the clockwork sixty minutes might break the spell of utilitarianism under which almost everyone in the modern West is enchanted. Immensae caritatisalso seems to take it for granted that a layman appointed to the role, after all other possibilities have been exhausted, will usually have it only temporarily, for some occasion(s) when his help is desperately needed. "These faculties are granted only… for cases of genuine necessity."
Last edited:
J
JeffRFitz
Guest
Could you identify sources for this? This is first time I’ve heard the claim 6th century.
We already know by the Pope Sixtus I (second century) and the Council of Laodicea (c.363) that people without orders cannot touch the sacred vessels. If they explicitly took great reverence of the vessels, this at least implies even greater care was taken for Eucharist.
The Council of Saragossa (c. 380) in the 4th century went as far as threatening excommunication on reception on the hand.
Where’s this notion of on the tongue being a 6th century innovation?
We already know by the Pope Sixtus I (second century) and the Council of Laodicea (c.363) that people without orders cannot touch the sacred vessels. If they explicitly took great reverence of the vessels, this at least implies even greater care was taken for Eucharist.
The Council of Saragossa (c. 380) in the 4th century went as far as threatening excommunication on reception on the hand.
Where’s this notion of on the tongue being a 6th century innovation?
Last edited:
M
Montrose
Guest
You obviously don’t read my posts before commenting. There is no Mass available under the current health regulations. At Mass I normally receive on the tongue. If I were at Mass during this crisis and was told I can only receive in the hand it would not be a problem for me because I am still receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. How could anyone have a problem with that?
I did read your post, your post said:
You made it sound as though that communion in the hand was the only option for communion right now in the Philippines, as though in certain parts of the Philippines there was Mass available to the population, seeing as I am not in the Philippines I don’t know in which parts there is Mass available and which parts there is not Mass available, I was going off of what you said.
Your above post should’ve said:
Here in the Philippines during the COVID-19 crisis no one can really receive because no one is really allowed to go to Mass.
That way it would’ve been more clear and easy to answer.
That’s good, I am not arguing that you shouldn’t. Hopefully you and all of those in the Philippines who are unable to receive right now are able to receive as soon as possible.
Again I have no problem with that, it is just that your earlier posts make it seem as though the bishops have stated that communion on the tongue is not allowed in the Philippines.
Let’s read carefully what your later post said:
By stating the above you make it seem as though that the bishops have said that in the Philippines or in your part of the Philippines that you cannot receive communion on the tongue…
… and that Rome has not intervened in this decision.
I only wished to point out that that was not within the power of the bishops, if you or anybody wish to receive communion in the hand, that is up to you.
I most certainly have not told anyone not to receive this way.
Now it seems as though you’re saying that, because of strict lockdown, nobody can attend Mass, but that if you could attend Mass and if the bishop said the only way you could receive communion was in the hand, that you would receive that way, and again if you want to receive that way that is fine…
…however if you wish to receive on the tongue or if anyone wishes to receive on the tongue and is denied, it is a violation of Church law, pandemic or no.
I was simply trying to point that out to you.
Peace be with you
P
pnewton
Guest
Practically a bishop can overrule a priest simply by removing them from his position, if it is a diocesan priest and one over whom he has authority.
Don’t be sad. The Eucharist is an occasion for joy! It is an eternal Easter.
The way communion in the hand has spread, I cannot think of a more clear instance of the “sense of the faithful.” Is this why the Church has moved in this direction? I am reminded of the advice of Gamaliel. "And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.” The Holy Spirit still guides the ship. Might as well enjoy the ride.
Or as Jesus said, " It is hard for you to kick against the goad."
M
Montrose
Guest
Don’t be so legalistic. We are in a health crisis so it does not matter which way to receive.
Remember what Jesus said about the Pharisees sticking to the letter of the law.
Perhaps a side effect of my Western Church upbringing
O
otjm
Guest
You might want to widen your source on the matter; it was at least somewhat widespread that the laity would take the Eucharist to their homes (Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Basil and St. Jerome) up until at least 485 (St. Basil).
The council was one of bishops of Spain and southern Gaul and was directed the the heresy of Pricillianism, from the Bishop Pricillian, who espoused a mixture of Gnostic and Manichean thought, and was specific to them as they would not consume the Eucharist. They also held that bodies were created by the devil and that human souls were joined to bodies as a punishment for sins; among other odd elements they outlawed all sensual pleasure and marriage (and in spite of the last tow items, they managed to continue until the 6th century - apparently not all were “faithful”).
20 years after Saragossa, the Council of Toledo excommunicated anyone who did not consume in the church the Eucharist received from the priest.
The councils were both focused on an area problem and are the equivalent of a gathering of bishops, say from the northwest part of the US to solve a local problem. Again, it is a matter of context; neither were universal councils and both dealth with a problem in the area of Spain and Gaul.
J
JeffRFitz
Guest
I should add the Council of Laodicea also banned Agape Feasts and in home celebrations.
I’m not denying the presence of the Eucharist being at people’s homes or people self-communing in the absence of a priest. I’m pointing out that sixth century practices did not introduce Communion on the tongue.
I’m not denying the presence of the Eucharist being at people’s homes or people self-communing in the absence of a priest. I’m pointing out that sixth century practices did not introduce Communion on the tongue.
Last edited:
- Status