“When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.” (Mt. 9:36)
Last Sunday, there was a Mass in Luneta, the large urban park in Manila where a reported 6 million Catholics gathered to see Pope Francis – despite a typhoon. In the wind and the rain, the enormous crowd waited, many, probably most, spending the night outdoors for a chance to attend Mass with the Vicar of Christ.
Such discomfort, made as a sacrifice, is surely an indicator of the faith of those willing to make it. I have always heard great things about the Filipino people and their commitment to Catholicism. Those Filipinos I have had the pleasure of knowing have certainly exemplified this, along with a natural joy and charity that seems happily characteristic of their people.
But faith alone is not a safeguard against error or sacrilege. Catechesis is.
So when a video emerged on Monday showing the Eucharist being distributed at this Mass in such a way that the Eucharist was treated carelessly, I wrote:
Some have gone so far as to describe what you are seeing here as a “desecration” of the Eucharist. While I doubt this is intentional, I find it hard to dispute that description. Whatever the case, I can’t see a way any Catholic who believes in the Real Presence would find this appropriate.
[…]
How many of those hosts were unintentionally dropped and stepped on, to say nothing of the lost fragments? How many were pocketed and brought home? How many were received by those who were non-Catholic, or were not in a state of grace? There’s simply no reasonable way I can conceive of for a Mass with over a million people in attendance to handle distribution of communion properly. It is a wonderful thing to yearn for our Lord in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar and to desire to be present with the Vicar of Christ in a public Mass. But that yearning should be accompanied by a deep and abiding sense of propriety, a desire never to offend Him or profane His sacred body, even by accident.
It was upsetting to watch the manner in which holy communion was given to those gathered at Luneta. The crowd pressed close against the barriers with outstretched hands, beckoning to receive by whatever means they could. Consecrated hosts were handed out, and the people took them in their hands above their heads, passing them back through the sea of raised hands, Our Lord being handled indelicately by countless grabbing fingers before disappearing into the crowd.
To state that this was inappropriate is not a judgment of the Filipino people. It is not to call into question their faith, or even their longing for Jesus. Neither is it the prerogative of a people, because of their own customs or sense of identity, to arrogate to themselves the right to break discplines put in place to protect and preserve Catholicism’s most sacred treasure. It is important that we take both of those arguments off the table, since they have continuously appeared in the conversation that has arisen around the controversy.
Simply stated, the issue is this: the Church has created strict rubrics to protect the Most Holy Sacrament and to enhance our belief in it; any Catholic with true faith in the Real Presence will honor those rubrics, because the nature of the sacrament creates in those who understand it a sense of profound reverence and awe.
This sense does not arise in all of us innately; instead, for most it is a gift received from our clergy, whose job it is to instruct and form us in sacramental discipline.
Yesterday, GMA News — one of the major news outlets in the Philippines — covered my analysis in their prime time newscast. They also interviewed Archbishop Socrates Villegas, President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, to get his response to the concerns I raised.
Filipino Catholic Church officials came in defense of this, saying the Masses, particularly at Luneta, were “extraordinary” circumstances.In an interview with GMA News, Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas, president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), said: “Under normal circumstances, hindi dapat mangyari ‘yon, pero extraordinary ang situation natin sa Luneta, six million people.”He added: “Sa ganu’ng pagkakataon, kailangan nating tulungan ang isa’t isa na makatanggap ng communion.”http://youtu.be/tZUansKJ4xUFor his part, Fr. Francis Lucas, executive secretary of the CBCP Episcopal Commission on Social Communication and Mass Media, echoed this, telling GMA News Online: “For pastoral reasons since people can’t move during communion, mass passing of the host is okay.”
As you can see, even in this English report, we’re left with some comments in Tagalog. I reached out to a friend for an unofficial translation of the Archbishop’s remarks. Taken from this longer clip of his statements, I was told that… [UPDATE – 1/21/15 @ 2:52 PM] – I received an additional translation from another contact that pointed out a specific nuance that is important to the Archbishop’s remarks. That addition is in red and replaces the earlier translation of the bishops remarks:
His words, as cited in the article from GMA Network, are:
“Under normal circumstances, hindi dapat mangyari ‘yon, pero extraordinary ang situation natin sa Luneta, six million people.”
He added: “Sa ganu’ng pagkakataon, kailangan nating tulungan ang isa’t isa na makatanggap ng communion.”A literal translation of this is as follows:
“Under normal circumstances, this should not have happened, but the situation in the Luneta was extraordinary, six million people.” He added: “On this occasion, it was necessary to help each other receive communion.”
The operative word here is “kailangan” — necessary. Essentially he is saying that what happened in Luneta was not only permissible, it was necessary.
UPDATE CONTINUED: As referenced in the originally provided translation:
The lady interviewing him attributed the following statement: that there was no desecration of the Eucharist just because people held the consecrated host. This (a desecration) only happens when people do not love and revere the host, the Holy Mass and Jesus.
The upshot: typically, this sort of thing would be wrong. But because of the unique logistics, it’s okay that we broke the rules. [And now, as we see with the new information, allegedly “necessary.”]
I take issue with such an answer from a Catholic prelate – particularly one of the standing of Archbishop Villegas. He needn’t have been harsh in his assessment of what happened, but he could certainly have said, “It is understandable that those gathered wanted to receive our Lord, but the circumstances made this impossible for all in attendance. What took place was not the appropriate way for holy communion to be distributed and could have led to profanation of the sacrament. In the future, we will seek to ensure that appropriate Eucharistic piety is observed.”
Ours is not a relativistic faith. Our beliefs are not circumstantial. While receiving the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life (CCC 1324), we are only obligated to receive communion once a year, during Easter time. In large Masses like those celebrated by a pope, it becomes incredibly difficult to avoid profanation of the Eucharist. GMA reports that there were 20 communion stations at the Luneta Mass, “with 5,000 communion distributors and 5,000 ushers.” If there were truly 6 million people there, that’s (on average) 1200 communicants per “distributor.”
What a logistical nightmare – and all the more reason why distribution of holy communion at such Masses should be reserved to only a representative sample of those in attendance, if it is given to anyone outside the sanctuary. The rest could have been told in advance that they would be invited to a spiritual communion, in order to avoid any desecration of the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
Otherwise we’re always going to faced with what happened on the video. It’s no wonder problems like those seen in the video arose. But that’s precisely why we have norms to ensure that this sort of thing doesn’t happen. In the 2004 instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, we are given clear teaching:
[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.
[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]
[94.] It is not licit for the faithful “to take . . . by themselves . . . and, still less, to hand . . . from one to another” the sacred host or the sacred chalice.[181]
Far from saying that special circumstances merit the dispensation of these rules, Redemptionis Sacramentum outlines the prevalance of such abuses in the modern Church, and why they are never to be taken lightly:
[4.] …it is not possible to be silent about the abuses, even quite grave ones, against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments as well as the tradition and the authority of the Church, which in our day not infrequently plague liturgical celebrations in one ecclesial environment or another. In some places the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease.
[…]
[6.] For abuses “contribute to the obscuring of the Catholic faith and doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament”.[14] Thus, they also hinder the faithful from “re-living in a certain way the experience of the two disciples of Emmaus: ‘and their eyes were opened, and they recognized him’”.[15] For in the presence of God’s power and divinity[16] and the splendour of his goodness, made manifest especially in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, it is fitting that all the faithful should have and put into practice that power of acknowledging God’s majesty that they have received through the saving Passion of the Only-Begotten Son.[17]
[…]
[8.] It is therefore to be noted with great sadness that “ecumenical initiatives which are well-intentioned, nevertheless indulge at times in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith”. Yet the Eucharist “is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity or depreciation”. It is therefore necessary that some things be corrected or more clearly delineated so that in this respect as well “the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery”.[19]
[…]
[24.] It is the right of the Christian people themselves that their diocesan Bishop should take care to prevent the occurrence of abuses in ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and devotion to the Saints.[57]
[…]
[27]…Individual Bishops and their Conferences do not have the faculty to permit experimentation with liturgical texts or the other matters that are prescribed in the liturgical books … the particular norms that have been established are strictly and comprehensively to be observed.
As I said in my original commentary, “It is essential that we correct these practices, beginning at the parish level, so that people return to a sense of the sacred and this reverence becomes instinctive – no matter the circumstances.” Faith and love are beautiful things, but if they do not inspire us to act in a way that most benefits our beloved — in this case, Christ Himself — who is truly the object of our love? Is it Him, who gave His all on the cross, which sacrifice we receive at every Mass? Or is it ourselves, because we want to feel as though we are a part of something important, regardless of whether we abuse Him in the process?
It is the job of the bishops to ensure that the Eucharist is given due respect at Masses within their own dioceses. This could take shape in a number of ways: training for priests, letters from the Bishop to be read at all Masses, enforcement of norms, particular programs of catechesis, and so on. Perhaps the easiest and most obvious way to do it? Restore the practice of communion on the tongue, kneeling. This posture for reception not only minimizes the chance of the loss of a host or its fragments, but also creates in the recipient an interior disposition of submission to and reverence for Our Eucharistic Lord.
The bishops have a tough job, no doubt, but we need them to do it. Christ himself took pity on the people when He saw that they were like “sheep without a shepherd.” Should our own shepherds do any less?
[UPDATE 2 – 1/21/15 @ 3:01 PM] Augustinus at Rorate Caeli excerpts a post on the blog Pinoy Catholic, which offers on this unfortunate information:
For those talking about being too rubricist and holier-than-thou accusation…
Here is something for you.
I have talked to some EMHCs and even nuns who were stationed at the Communion Stations. I asked them for their “experiences”.
They found Hosts in the mud!
The information is anecdotal, but if it’s true, it is precisely what I feared.
Thank you very much for trying to clarify the issues. We shall see from the comments whether you have succeeded.
PUNA SA INTERNET TUNGKOL SA PASAHAN NG OSTIYA SA
LUNETA
Dahil sa inconvenience ng pagpila, mas piniling
ipamahagi ang Banal na Komunyon sa pamamagitan ng pagpapasa-pasa ng mga tao.
Naganap ito sa Misa ng Santo Papa sa Manila cathedral kung saan napakaraming
tao kahit sa labas. Napabalitang naulit ito sa Misa sa Luneta. Hindi ba’t isa
itong kalapastangan kay Jesus sa Banal na Sakramento? Wala ba tayong “awa
at habag” para sa Diyos na sumasaatin sa anyo ng tinapay? (DLB/KPNews)
Ito po ang General Instruction of the Roman Missal:
“The faithful are not permitted to take the
consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand
them from one to another. ”
Ano po ang masasabi ninyo, mga Kapiling?
Video was taken by RLF
Dominador Medina WALANG INTENSYON ANG MGA TAO NA I
DESECRATE SI JESUS SA BANAL NA OSTIA. ANO BA ANG INTENTION NILA – MAGANDA NAMAN
– MARATING ANG HINDI MARARATING NG KOMUNYON. maraming pagkakataon na nag adjust
si jesus dahil sa bagong situasyon at pangangailangan.tulad sa ebanghelyo sa
araw na ito January 20, (mk. 2:22-28) pinuna si jesus dahil pinabayaan nya na
mangitil ng uhay at kumain ang mga alagad na gutom na gutom sa pagmimisyon.
pinuna siya ng mga pariseo dahil bawal yon mag-ani sa araw ng pangilin.
ipinaliwanag pa ni jesus kung paanong tama ang paglabag ni haring david noon
nakaraang panahon nang pabayaan nyang kumain ang kanyang mga gutom na mga
kasama sa mga alay sa templo na bawal na bawal kainin ninoman, maliban sa mga
pari. at marami pang ibang paglabag ang pinuna nila kay Jesus tulad ng
“hindi paghuhugas ng kamay” bago kumain (tandaan natin: si jesus ay
karpintero at mapapasma siya pag naghugas ng pagod na mga kamay). malimit punahin
si jesus sa pagpapagaling niya sa araw ng sabat na bawal na bawal yon. PERO
LAGING TINITINGNAN NI JESUS AY ANG PANGANGAILANGAN, AT MAY MGA BATAS NA
KAILANGAN IADJUST DAHIL SA PANGANGAILANGAN. ANG FOCUS NI JESUS AY ANG “LAW
OF LOVE” YON ANG SUPREME LAW. kaya sa mt. 15:3 sinagot ni jesus ang mga
pumupuna sa kanya: “bakit naman ninyo nilalabag ang utos ng diyos dahil sa
inyong mga minanang turo?” sa NORMAL SITUATION, TAMA HUWAG PAHAHAWAKAN
KAHIT KANINO NA LAMANG ANG OSTIYA, AT HUWAG PAGPAPASAPASAHAN. SA NORMAL NA SITUASYON
SA ORDINARYONG MISA SA SIMBAHAN O ALINMAN LUGAR NA ORDINARYO. PERO ANG LUNETA
NOONG LINGGO AY “EXTRAORDINARY” sa lk 10:25-37 binayaan ng pari at
lebita na magdusa ang naghihingalo, iniwan nila, dahil naalaala nila ang batas
na PAG KINAMATAYAN KA, ITUTURING KANG MARUMI AT KAILANGAN MONG MAG-ALAY SA
TEMPLO PARA IKAW AY MALINIS. ang good samaritan, hindi yung batas na yon ang
inisip kundi ang BATAS NG PAGIBIG na higit sa alinamang batas. pinulot nya ang
naghihingalo kinalinga at pinagsakripisyuhan ng TIME TALENT AT TREASURE.
alang-alang sa tao, itinaya ni jesus sa EXTREME DESECRATION ANG SARILI NYA –
HULIHIN, PAHIRAPAN, IPAKO SA KRUS. pero, iyan ang kalooban ng ama para
ikabubuti, ikaliligtas ng tao – alang-alang sa PAGBIG. may batas naman na
ingatan mo ang iyong sarli – nilabag yon ni jesus dahil sa BATAS NG PAGIBIG at
kalooban ng ama. “ako’y naparito hindi upang paglingkuran kundi upang
maglingkod at IALAY ANG SARILI PARA SA MARAMI.”(mk 10:45), at sa pagaalay
na yon the greatest desecration happened – HINULI SIYA, INAGLAHI,HINATULAN,
PINATAY NA PARANG ISANG KRIMINAL SA KRUS SA GITNA NG 2 MAGNANAKAW. is there any
desecration greater than this? yet, “NOT MY WILL BUT YOURS BE DONE”.
pinili ni jesus, ayon sa kalooban ng ama na maging tao kalakip ang lahat ng
kamalasan ng kalagayang tao: ang ipanganak sa sabsaban (a desecration?) ang
habulin at papatayin ni herodes at kailangan itakas sa ehipto (desecration?),
ang pagtangkaang ihulog sa bangin at patayin (desecration?). pinili ni jesus na
maging tinapay kalakip ang lahat ng puedeng mangyari dito habang ginagawa ang
misyon – IBIGAY ANG SARILI BILANG PAGKAING NAGBIBIGAY BUHAY.
1 hr · Edited · Like · 4
I wish I knew what to say.
Unfortunately this is not just a law. This is faith. The supreme law of the Church is Salvation of Soul.
Canon 1752
Excellent:
“Who is truly the object of our love? Is it Him, who gave His all on the cross, which sacrifice we receive at every Mass? Or is it ourselves, because we want to feel as though we are a part of something important, regardless of whether we abuse Him in the process?”
It seems like makeshift communion rails would have solved this problem.
“It seems like makeshift communion rails would have solved this problem.”
And you expect the Philippine government to shoulder the cost of these makeshift rails, I suppose? It shouldn’t have been a problem if it was meant to organize a mass of hundreds of thousands but if you do this for millions of communicants, this is a costly proposition – money that the Pope would rather the government spend on the poor.
Its not the philippine govt who has a problem. It is the catholic hierarchy itself has the problem. The catholic faith in the Philippines is shallow. They are leaning towards protestantism. The priests and bishop do not recognize this and they dont really care. Yes, churches are full on sundays a parish has at least 2 masses full of people but i doubt that 75% of those are aware of the Real Presence. This doesnt include TLM goers.
I referred to the comment to illustrate that her suggestion may not be feasible. Not permitting communion is probably a more appropriate solution.
But since you brought it up, I agree that the Catholic faith in the Philippines is shallow. My theory on this is that Catholicism here is practiced as a tradition, practically passed on from parents to their children by default – as children are automatically baptized in church months after birth. However, much of the Catholic indoctrination (or “idealogical colonization” perhaps?) in the Philippines happens in private Catholic schools, which unfortunately majority of Filipinos do not have access to. And homilies during Sunday masses mostly center on “feeling and doing well”. Much of the basics are not covered. Hence, the Pope’s challenge to the youth: “think well, feel well and do well.”
Whether they are leaning towards protestantism, I cannot say. I also cannot pass judgment on what the clergy recognizes or cares about.
But if you look up the Pope’s message to the clergy during the same trip, you will be glad to hear that he wants to address this. This incident underscores the importance of the Pope’s message to the clergy: to reach out to the poor.
Uhm, what is TLM?
Traditional Latin Mass.
Sorry to hear about the Philippines, but it’s not different in the USA. An American who should know said:
Peter Kreeft
Thank you for your reponse.
This made me realize that my agreement to the shallowness of faith of the Filipino Catholics was limited solely to their knowledge about the faith (for socio-economic reasons). I did not intend to pass judgment on the attitudes/feelings or behavior/actions of the pilgrims towards their faith during the Papal mass or in general.
The Pope on his post-visit press conference noted the felt gestures and the sincere joy and enthusiasm of the pilgrims. If these are indications of their love or faith, who am I to judge? I was not there myself.
This leads me to ask: does a lack of/limited knowledge on Catholic dogma/doctrines make it impossible for Catholics to have deep faith? Does a lack of understanding that Jesus is our Savior despite a person’s manifestation of love and faith in Jesus Christ hinder one from experiencing salvation?
I’m not the one to answer. I draw your attention to the Gospel verse that begins this article: “When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.” (Mt. 9:36)
nice opinion.
Well, you were able to make this lavish reception for the Pope.
So is he more important than the Body of Christ?
Of course not. But I would hardly call it lavish. Costs associated with his visit were largely for security and not for luxury or extravagance. I deem them necessary. We would offer the same level of security to any head of state visiting our country.
But if we could do that for the Pope, it seems we can’t muster enough of that capability to ensure that the Lord is not humiliated.
Where’s the priority?
I’m only guessing here… but I think it’s only because the Pope’s visit was planned, the desecration was not.
Sorry but that does not fly.
Are the organizers so poor in planning that they did not even think of the logistics of the communion considering that they had WYD to go by?
Is that not one of the first things that you think of when planning a Mass for a multitude?
I thought they were terribly dumb to think that 5000 priests/EMHCs would be enough to give communion to the conservative estimate of 2.5million. That’s 500 per minister at only at 2.5M. Considering that WYD wa 4million, they could at least have planned for that.
And now the Bishop excuses the desecration! Is it any wonder that the laity is the same if the Bishops are that blasé about it.
I get you. I’m also not impressed with the archbishop’s response.
What doesn’t fly with me was your analogy of the security/reception of the pope vs. the handling of the Eucharist as they were handled by different groups of people: the government and the Vatican were responsible for the pope’s security while the clergy was responsible for the organization of the mass. Somehow your argument is coming off like you’re blaming the government (people) for the distribution of the Eucharist.
I am not blaming the government.
I am just saying that if it is possible to handle the Pope’s security (I heard that they even formed human shields), how come it is not possible to organize the Mass in such a way that proper reverence for the Lord is ensure.
Were they all ignorant of Redemptionist Sacramentum? Or are you saying that just because they are clergy they are devoid of any knowledge of logistics.
Again, the human shields were the military and the police – part of the government not the clergy.
The video in question was only part of the entire crowd. Isn’t it possible that the sections of the crowd where the faithful were not ignorant did not desecrate the Eucharist?
Well the way it was reported, it was like they gathered volunteers from parishes to act as a shield – that it was not entirely just a government/military undertaking.
Indeed that is possible. And not just possible. That is most likely what happened in some sections. But, it is also possible this video captured what occurred in other areas as well. You have to realize that there are 6M people and only 5k ministers. That’s 1200 per priest/EMHC.
The volunteers were behind the concrete barricades (which were merely borrowed from highways and not purchased). It was still the police and military who were at the other side of the barricade (the side closest to the popemobile). Are you seriously still arguing the use of communion rails?
I don’t think the clergy intended to serve the entire crowd as there were not enough hosts based on a report I read.
I never argued for communion rails.
The instructions from Redemptionist Sacramentum was clear and easy to follow. It seems the Bishops chose to ignore that.
If so then they should have know that an orderly line is impossible and those on the ground should have been instructed on the proper protocol and that if it cannot be done reverently then the giving of communion should cease and the crowd instructed to go to the evening Mass at their Parish for communion.
If there was no intention of giving communion to everyone in the first place, then it does not matter when you stop. It could and should have been done before the desecration happened.
This happened partly because of bad catechesis.
Thanks for clarifying your stand. I was of the same position as the writer that communion should’ve just been withheld — just so that we are clear on this.
Now to your comments: Instructing the crowd to go to the evening mass may not have been feasible The pilgrims already camped out in the evening because the park was already going to be closed as early as dawn. Any movement would’ve just lead to chaos.
I think it happened primarily because of poor catechesis and even the lack of it. If you are familiar with the country and its people at all, you would know that a huge majority of Filipinos do not have access to private Catholic school education (majority do not even get to finish public high school). Of the Catholic schools, only a few are run by the clergy. So please understand that experience is the only catechist of a huge majority of the Filipino faithful.
I don’t know how you learned about the Holy Eucharist but I know I learned about it from Catholic school (How did you learn about it btw?). And because my Catholic education ended in high school as I attended the top university in our country for college (which was a public one and considered by some as training ground for atheists and corrupt public officials), there were no theology classes for this faithful. I am also not familiar with Redemptionis Sacramentum as it was issued only in 2004. We don’t really get memos on these new instructions in the workplace.
I am clueless about the training of the clergy but I am hopeful that those who were aware of it, conducted themselves according to instruction. I wouldn’t generalize about this as I have a more favorable view of Cardinal Tagle than Archbisop Villegas. And I am sure that this inconsistency is also present in other countries.
That said, I am hopeful that we will learn from this in the same way that you learned from a similar incident that happened in your country in 1979.
And to me this is precisely the evidence of the problem with the Church in the Philippines (but also everywhere else).
Why should it be necessary for people to go to a Catholic school just to be educated in the faith? Is it not the duty of the Bishop to ensure that the faithful is properly Catechized?
Also, Catholic schooling does not necessarily mean better catechized. I know because all my nephews and nieces went to a Catholic school and they are as clueless about the faith as everyone else.
You are forgetting that after VII, they have been offering a dumbed down version of the faith in Catholic schools.
I learned it from my saintly mother. I learned more about it from choosing to study it myself privately. The sad thing is the Bishops have failed miserably in their duty to teach the faithful.
Neither. Tagle is just as bad going by the shenanigans at the recent Synod.
Which country might that be? I am not in the US.
Thank you for sharing… We are in agreement. I made those statements not to make excuses for the incident but merely to illustrate the reason why the incident happened in the hopes that foreigners would be more understanding of the pilgrims who only had experience as their catechist.
I have mentioned in my other posts that the Luneta incident underscores the importance of the Pope’s message to the Filipino clergy (during the Manila Cathedral mass held days ahead of the Luneta mass), which is to reach out to the poor.
The next day, the Pope made an even more powerful statement when he insisted to go to the island ravaged by Haiyan despite the threat of a hurricane. He turned down the suggestion to have the mass at a cathedral and insisted to proceed with the original plan to hold it at an open venue despite the strong winds and rain. He had to be where the people were.
Foreigners probably can’t imagine how moving this is to the pilgrims who kept their faith even after witnessing the death of their family members and the annihilation of their homes. (So to those who are opposed to outdoor masses, I hope they understand that this experience was probably necessary. The venue was not to blame for the desecration.)
The following day, in an engagement before the Luneta mass, the Pope advised the Catholic-educated youth to allow themselves to be evangelized by the poor and the well-to-do to be beggars of His love.
The solutions to the underlying problem were already laid out before us. It’s a matter of acting on it – and this is not a simple matter. So please pray with us that that we be able to heed the call and follow the examples of the Pope. Better still, please pray for our bishops.
“How many were received by those who were non-Catholic, or were not in a state of grace?” No American should dare accuse any other Catholic of participating in a profane Mass if he or she were not in the state of grace when they have received Communion. That is the state most American Catholics are in when they attend Mass these days.
If I happened to find myself in line with someone who I knew beyond a doubt should be recusing themselves, like Pelosi, well, there would be an excellent chance that some sort of legal action would be levelled against me by the end of the day. I would not resort to violence, but any humiliating physical interference can be construed as “assault” these days.
Red herring. Abuses here do not excuse abuses elsewhere.
Fr. Juan Manuel Rodríguez de la Rosa published a great comment in Spanish on such disrispect to the Holy Eucharist (http://www.adelantelafe.com/el-americanismo-y-la-situacion-actual-de-la-iglesia/#comment-4050)
The archbishop’s quote in Tagalog translates reasonably as follows: “Under normal circumstances, this should not happen, but the extraordinary situation we are in at Luneta, is of six million people. In [the interest of?] time, we need to help each other to receive communion.”
Equally unfortunate was the response of the bishops’ conference spokesman: “For pastoral reasons since people can’t move during communion, mass passing of the host is okay.”
No, Father, it is not okay. None of this is okay. The Church Herself has said it is not okay.
Okay?
Okay! they must admit it that they have lapses in dealing with a humongous crowd and faithfully following the rubrics that they are mandated to observe…comes next year, the 2016 international Eucharistic congress in Cebu, Philippines…they will be the same people that will have the primary roles on this occasion…hope they will learn by that time, Okay?
Okay, Jesus has been humiliated and the very people tasked with duty of ensuring that this does not happened has failed miserably.
What makes matters worse is the complete lack of Mea Culpa and even a mention that this should not have happened and that we will resolve to not let this happen again.
Instead what we see over and over again are excuses and rationalizations. Has the Church hierarchy really become this bad?
Many commentors seem to pit “dogma” against the needs/wants of the people. As if dogma should be subservient to those inclinations in some circumstances or particular situations, subject to “pastoral” application. This is wrong. Dogma is not just a teaching, to be written, rewritten, edited. Dogma is truth given to us. Dogma is truth. Jesus is truth. The respect for Truth is sadly lacking in the video and in many of the comments and opinions assailing the Truth.
This is what happens in a papacy of iconoclasm, relativism, modernism. Feelings trump teaching. Paragraphs 92-94 above are clear. At this Mass the Holy Eucharist was utterly desecrated. Utterly.
Thank you for this further clarification. One can see how another gospel is being written and preached. God is to be known primarily in our feelings about Him. Dogma, Church teaching, rubrics are opposed to this new gospel and must take a secondary position to it. Whatever this new gospel is, it won’t be Catholic.
It seems we are all in a quandary as to what is more important: respect for Christ (the consecrated host) or mercy and compassion for the Church (the people) by its other members.
I think all Catholics can agree that both are important and can be achieved in future Papal masses. Can we all just move on and learn from this?
Speaking only for myself, I am not in a quandary. It is not an either/or proposition, as you are suggesting it is for many here. How is it compassionate or merciful to God’s people to allow what happened? I read that all other Masses in the area were canceled that day. One can only imagine the reasoning in that. This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened. Why is it continuing?
It is not simply a matter of moving on and learning. Learning what?
I don’t know what you are imagining as the reason for the cancellation of the masses in the area but I think that it is a practical one – as most roads and public transportation in the area are closed to ensure the security of the Pope, its entourage and the people who will attend the Papal mass. They closed not only the route the Pope will take but also an alternate route in the event of emergency (this practically affects the entire area where the masses were cancelled). You can argue that the people can still walk to their respective parishes but considering that millions are already expected in an area near these parishes, it is more efficient to just have the clergy in the area to assist at the Papal mass. What were you imagining as the reason?
We obviously learn from mistakes. It was not right to have the consecrated host be manhandled the way that it had been. Can you not forgive as Christ has forgiven?
This is what the government told people according to the AP, “Bracing for huge crowds, the government put out a public service announcement warning the elderly, pregnant women and children against coming to the event.” This was a Sunday Mass, right? So the weakest among the population might have been prevented from attending their Sunday obligation.
Having attended several Marches for Life in Washington, DC, I am reassured that local parish churches are always open and holding Masses in the area (even though a special Mass is held in the basilica there), ready to assist and aid marchers with physical and spiritual nourishment. Of course the March is small compared to the papal Mass, yet still they seem to have a good idea of how to manage and be supportive of large Catholic crowds.
I wonder if all the businesses were closed along the route, too…
The AP article went on to describe the Pope’s arrival: “Francis made a triumphant entry into Rizal Park.” At least he wasn’t on a donkey. 😉
You ask me, “Can you not forgive as Christ has forgiven?” I hold no animus for any of the pilgrims, or the clergy (including the Pope). This is not a matter of someone personally offending me. Why are you making it personal? Can we not discuss the implication and ramification of what happened? Why are you so eager to drop the discussion? No one is making you read or comment about it. And please stop with the veiled insults. They don’t work, friend.
All the masses during the Pope’s visit were televised on all local networks so I doubt that those who were discouraged from going to the actual mass missed hearing Sunday mass (even the deaf could hear this mass actually).
Yes, businesses in an even larger area were inconvenienced/closed for the duration of the Pope’s stay. Cellphone reception was also blocked at certain periods in the city. Pilgrims were even prevented from bringing backpacks to avoid a situation similar to the Boston marathon bombing. So overall, more than a few were inconvenienced during that time in the interest of public safety and security.
It’s easy enough to look at this from your experiences but do try to understand also that looking at a local situation using foreign context could lead to rather ridiculous misunderstandings (eg. using Western issues such as gay marriage to interpret a message sent to people affected by issues like over-population, poverty and corruption). The scale of this event alone is unprecedented for a Catholic gathering so using the context of events of a smaller scale may not apply to this one. (I still am curious as to what you imagined the reason was for the cancellation of masses. I would probably find it outrageous.)
And if I may add that the next largest gathering was also held in the same area 2 decades ago. In comparison, the Pope’s recent visit to the Philippines is more organized than the last one. So I believe that people are capable of learning from these experiences.
I am not making this personal. I just happen to sense the discussion leaning towards the vilification of those who committed the mistake of allowing the pilgrims to pass the Holy Eucharist around. And because this goes against the very message that that the Pope brought to the pilgrims, I thought to discourage it. But by all means, you are free to continue the discussion if it still hasn’t been exhausted yet.
And lastly, I did not intend to insult anyone. I merely clarified my statements. Did I not answer all your questions? My last question was rhetorical and was borne out of a logical afterthought. Again, it was not meant as an insult. And now knowing that it offended you (as you classified it as an insult), I apologize.
I’m grateful you are so knowledgeable of the organizational details of the pope’s trip, but I was not aware that watching a televised Mass fulfilled one’s Sunday obligation. I could be wrong, of course.
The Catholic Church is quite used to having large crowds around, no? According to a communications person there, Rizal (Luneta) park can only hold 1 to 1.2 million people. The streets must have been clogged for blocks. It makes me wonder how far out from the actual Mass communion was distributed/passed around. If, perhaps, watching a televised Mass fulfills one’s Sunday obligation, then it must be so that watching on a Jumbotron from a block away is also permitted. I’m just thinking out loud here about what it means to be present at Mass.
Vilified, you say? No, this is a call to examine why, in light of clear Church teaching about the Eucharist, its desecration continues in these types of venues. It is not a matter of mere correction, but of catechesis and praxis. This is no small matter where our Lord’s body is concerned, especially among the shepherds who have the direct care of the Sacred Host.
Since, as you say, you meant no insult, no apology is needed and I took no offense. Insults do not work because they betray a weakness in one’s argument. It is much better to argue the points alone and let one’s side rise or fall accordingly.
I am as knowledgeable of this as any Filipino who was watching television at that time. Those who did not watch television would learn about it from the news on the internet. There was no escaping it.
I too am not sure if watching a televised mass is enough to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation. I went to hear mass at church that day and noticed that it was only half-full, but generally yes, Catholic churches in the Philippines are usually crowded on Sundays.
No arguments here on your succeeding points. Except probably that it has nothing to do with the venue or the way the mass was conducted but just the lack of understanding of the meaning of the consecration of the host. Note that much of the Catholic indoctrination in the Philippines happens in private Catholic schools, which unfortunately majority of Filipinos do not have access to. So this incident actually underscores the importance of the Pope’s message to the clergy to reach out to the poor.
Watching a televised Mass does not fulfill one’s Sunday obligation. However, there was no obligation to fulfill that day for those who regularly attend Sunday afternoon Masses as Cardinal Tagle had cancelled those within his jurisdiction.
I wonder now if the regularly televised masses for the sick and bed-ridden/terminally ill do not qualify. I sometimes resort to this when I am sick (for fear that it would get worse because of my weakened immune system and to avoid spreading the virus I contracted).
This seems right: Sunday obligation and TV Masses. As for missing Mass because of illness, you might tell it in Confession. You might say, Father, I don’t know if it was a sin, but …” Ordinarily one shouldn’t try to explain why one sinned, but in this case what you’re confessing probably isn’t a sin and you’re providing information, not an excuse. But even outside of Confession, and beyond reading the linked-to article, ask a priest.
The seriously sick, the very old, and those caught in extraordinary and unexpectedly hard situations are not obligated to attend a Sunday or Holyday of Obligation Mass.
A televised Mass is a means offered to them to somehow participate in the worship of the community. While those excused from attending Mass do well to follow a televised Mass, they are not obliged to do so, and may honor Sunday in some other way through prayer and sacrifice.
An “extraordinary” circumstance may be, for example – if one finds oneself travelling all day Sunday and unable to catch the last Mass of the day upon arriving at one’s destination. It happened to me on my way from San Francisco to Manila one rare Sunday. I had studied the flight schedule and figured I’d be in Manila in time for a last evening Mass there. But I was not aware of an eight-hour lay-over in Incheon. So I was excused for missing Mass that day.
It may be this same “extraordinary” principle that Abp. Villegas tried to apply to the sacramental descration at the Luneta papal Mass, under a different situation, of course.
Masses were not all cancelled. Afternoon Masses were “permitted” to be cancelled but “not required” to be cancelled. Sunday morning and Saturday evening Masses schedules continued as normal.
Just to clarify, not all of the Masses were cancelled. Parishes were permitted but not required to cancel Sunday afternoon Mass. Sunday morning and Saturday evening Masses went on as scheduled.
I was thinking about your comment on watching mass from a “Jumbotron” and “being present at Mass”.
It lead me to think: does Canon law set limits on the radius that the Holy Eucharist is able to extend its Presence?
If, as you seem to suggest, the Holy Eucharist “extends its Presence” in an unlimited way during the Mass, then why receive? There would be no need since the Eucharist has no physical limits. It’s grace would be shed on everyone regardless of distance, number, sight, sound, religious conviction and so on. Right? In fact, why even attend Mass? Someone sitting at home watching the television should receive the same grace as someone amongst the physical congregation receiving the Host. In fact, why did Pope Francis even need to go to the Philippines? He could’ve said a Mass in Rome and the Eucharist’s ‘no limit radius’ would’ve reached all those pilgrims in the Philippines, as well as the whole world.
No, the issue is not the limitations of the Eucharist, the issue is the limitations on the individuals attending the Mass…or not. The limitation is not on the Eucharist, the limitation is on man.
Since I have no intention of passing judgment on any faithful’s ability to be present at mass in an outdoor environment, I will not comment on that.
So what then is the requirement for a mass to be considered a “fulfilling” mass (without factoring in the faithful’s attitude/behavior)?
But you were wondering about the canonical limits of the Eucharist, right? Were you not implying that one need not be physically present at a Mass in order to receive the graces of the Eucharist?
Regarding your question of obligation regarding Mass attendance, I would be happy to benefit from your research. Thanks in advance.
Yes, I did ask about that but in the context of the physical Eucharist. I did not imply that you need not be physically present at mass.
I was merely trying to find out if an outdoor mass such as the one at the Luneta is able to meet the requirements of a “fullfilling” mass (even with Jumbotrons and all). Somehow I don’t think its outdoor nature makes it any less fulfilling as there is no canonical limit as to the venue of masses.
Not to be picky, but you said, “…does Canon law set limits on the radius that the Holy Eucharist is able to extend its Presence?”
Those in the community who are ill or infirm and unable to attend their local Mass are able to have Communion brought to them. Are you suggesting the same type of allowance for venues such as Luneta Park?
Answer to 1st question: Like I said above, I asked that question with the assumption that its Presence was what made the mass “fulfilling” (in the context of your Jumbotron comment). I still don’t know the answer to that.
Answer to 2nd question: No, I am of the same position as the writer that communion be withheld in these instances.
Perhaps the issue is the definition of “fulfilling”. Is this in the context of fulfilling one’s obligation of Mass attendance, or in the emotional sense?
Sorry for using the vague term. I meant the first one.
Why should they have to make do with a tv Mass when they could have had attended a live one if the Masses had not been cancelled.
I think the masses were cancelled because it would be challenging for parishioners in the area to get to church because the roads and public transportation in the area were closed. I went to church in an adjacent city and found it difficult to go to church that day due to lack of public transportation. I can only imagine how it would be for those living in Manila.
Imagine roads are closed to and from the destination of the Pope in such a way that it forms an “O” around the city for hours and people cannot cross these roads because they are barricaded by concrete/steel and the police. Note that the pope had 2 activities in the area that day so 2 “O’s” were formed.
Also for context: consider the size of the city of Manila (not to be confused with Metro Manila which is composed of several cities).
Then would it not have been better to schedule it on avoid this altogether since the Pope had already celebrated Mass at the Cathedral?
Did anyone really think out the desirability of having such a huge crowd?
The mass at the cathedral was meant for the clergy while the mass at the park was meant for the faithful.
Oh and if the visit was scheduled to fall on weekdays, more businesses would’ve been inconvenienced as there was a need to declare a non-working holiday during his entire stay. As it was, 3 working days were already affected.
Masses were not all cancelled. Afternoon Masses were permitted to be cancelled but not required to be cancelled. Sunday morning and Saturday evening Masses schedules continued as normal.
Thanks for the info. That is good to know.
“Or maybe you just don’t believe in mercy and compassion which is why you don’t see the quandary?”
Ah… how quickly we turn to judging the hearts and minds of our brothers and sisters.
For myself, your specious arguement is as incorrect as it is tiresome. “Orthdodoxy contributes to orthopraxy, and
orthopraxy reinforces orthodoxy. When the latter vanishes, the former follows suit. It’s human nature.” –Richard Malcolm
Realizing now the offensive nature of the statement, I already deleted it. Peace!
Might have been better to leave it there, as being more humiliating to oneself. (This is a note to myself, rather than a reply to you.)
By the way, I did not mean to pass judgment on anyone’s capacity to show mercy or compassion by that statement, I was merely asking his thoughts on the matter. In any case, I deleted it to avoid further misunderstanding.
The problem is the Bishops and laity alike do not even think there is anything to forgive. That is THE problem.
I am hopeful that the bishops were merely justifying the mode of distribution of the host and not the actual desecration. I am also hopeful that they will learn from this incident and not allow this to be repeated.
But the mode is distribution is precisely what led to the desecration. And not one mea culpa for their culpability in all these can be heard from the hierarchy. They are only concerned about damage control and covering their behinds.
Masses were not all cancelled. Afternoon Masses were permitted to be cancelled but not required to be cancelled. Sunday morning and Saturday evening Masses schedules continued as normal.
And only in the Archdiocese of Manila… but you are right in the schedule. I thought it was the entire day. I was also mistaken as to the rationale for the cancellation.
Here is the circular:
If “we are all in a quandary” over this episode, then what have we “learn[ed] from this”, and how, then, should we “just move on”?
Maybe not. So I ask anyone here: what is the penance for unintentional consecration of the host? for the tolerance for such behavior?
MaDoll,
It’s a sticky situation but not without hope.
It might be good if someone can approach and ask Cdl. Tagle or Abp. Villegas: Does the principle, Ecclesia Supplet/Deus Supplet, apply to this situation? If so, they should publicly apologize for what happened [instead of justify] and explain Ecclesia Supplet/Deus Supplet to the public [if it does apply] as humbly as they can. I’m sure the various media will be delighted.
Someone may also suggest to them to declare a period of continuous Eucharistic Adoration in all churches in Manila and Tacloban in reparation for the desecration.
I am not a canonist but it wouldn’t hurt to explore this option.
Thank you for your posts, MaDoll. God bless you.
Thank you. This seems like a good suggestion.
I reposted your comment in another local news website covering a CBCP presscon so that hopefully someone would act on it.
God bless you too.
It might be a good idea, too, to suggest to Cdl. Tagle and Abp. Villegas that, along with Eucharistic adoration, they declare a day of prayer and fasting.
Another excellent suggestion.
But how can they declare a day of fasting and penance when they refuse to acknowledge that desecration happened?
MarcAlcan,
Abp. Villegas has acknowledged the sacrilege [or at least did not deny it.] And immediately he gave an excuse [which may or may not have been an application of Ecclesia Supplet.] That’s why they [Cdl. Tagle and Abp. Villegas] need to explain it publicly and apologize, if they haven’t already.
And for good measure, it would be ideal if they declare one or two days of prayers, fasting and Eucharistic adoration. It would be nice if someone could suggest these to them. The desecration of the Eucharist has deeply wounded the Church in the Philippines and some medicine [reparation] must be applied.
Other situations that may or may not have factored in the desecration incident:
1. Quite a crowd had already started gathering the day before, although no overnight camping was allowed inside the park. I’ve wondered where people who came from far and wide spent the night? It was a rainy night, too. Even if they all had money to spend on hotels, [which I doubt], there weren’t enough hotel rooms in the area to house them for the night.
Consider also that as soon as there was light, the vast crowd, increasing by the minute, had to be corralled within the confines of the white fences. By noon, they would be so tightly packed cheek-by-jowl, literally. Everyone remained standing because there was no room to even squat or sit on the ground.
No water, no food because no backpacks nor bags were allowed in the area. No umbrellas, either. I understand the reason for the tight security – to avoid any terrorist incident like what happened at the Boston marathon. People simply stood, wet, thirsty, and hungry, tightly packed together within the confines of white fences – with absolutely no protection from the elements – for hours.
I’m praying that the Lord at least had kept an eye of mercy on them.
Well the last article I read he was saying there was no sacrilege. He is in denial.
We are all aware that there was quite a crowd, that the crowd was tired, thirsty, etc.
But all that is not the reason the desecration occurred. As I said before the blame goes to the clergy.
Firstly, for not planning well enough the logistics of communion.
Secondly, for choosing to do away (or maybe they do not even know when they should ) with the guidelines set forth in Redemptionist Sacramentum
Thirdly, for being more concerned about covering their behind rather than being dismayed that the Body of the Lord has been desecrated.
The calls for reparation came from the laity like yourself. It seems that did not even occur to the priests and bishops.
“Well the last article I read he was saying there was no sacrilege. He is in denial….
“The calls for reparation came from the laity like yourself. It seems that did not even occur to the priests and bishops.”
We don’t know that. The response came through a newspaper article quoting him from a TV interview. If indeed that’s all Abp. Villegas had to say with neither regrets nor reparation, Manila media should needle him on that. [I would, if I were there.] He should also explain to the press the principle of Epikeia, if indeed, that’s what he applied in excusing the desecration.
Thanks, MarcAlcan, for mentioning Redemptorist Sacramentum. God bless you.
MaDoll,
One other thing: Someone might suggest a canonist research the concept of “Epikeia” [not sure that’s how it’s spelled], in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas.
As Abp. Villegas might have already used this principle in his response to reports of the Eucharistic abuse; he might want to explain it further, for good measure. I don’t think it will hurt.
Meanwhile, we should all pray this prayer taught by the Angel at Fatima, for reparation and healing of wounds brought about by the unfortunate incident:
“My God, I believe, I adore, I hope, and I love You. I ask pardon for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not hope, and do not love You.
Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I adore You profoundly, and I offer You the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifferences by which He is offended. And by the infinite merits of His most Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg the conversion of poor sinners.”
Thanks again and God bless.
Thanks again for this.
Not sure they would read my comments so I did not go into much details. I just mentioned the idea of the need for penance and taking advantage of this “teachable moment” (as one of your influential celebrities would call it) to educate the public.
That is a brilliant suggestion.
This is most contentious because of the false dualism you are presenting.
How is desecrating the Body of Christ an act of mercy?
Let’s face it, the hierarchy is the one to blame here. They should have know better and yet they are the ones who allowed this to happen.
They do not even have enough humility to be sorry and remorseful at what they have allowed to happen.
“How is desecrating the Body of Christ an act of mercy?”
The desecration obviously cannot be an act of mercy. Apologies for the confusion. Mercy was meant for the clergy, who tolerated the desecration or its possibility. They are still sinners after all. Let us pray for them so that they may be enlightened.
Indeed. Except that the clergy thinks there was nothing wrong with what happened to the point of justifying it.
Can you just pray with us so that they may be enlightened?
Most definitely.
Thank you.
I think the catholic hierarchy here in the philippines is silent about this. They dont want to talk about this. For them what abp villegas said is already the stand of the catholic church here in the philippines.
Regarding IEC in Cebu, i am afraid, really afraid of what will happened.
Thanks for this update. It’s horrible that Archbishop Villegas casually approved such desecration. Like I said before, the desecration was undoubtedly wrong. Especially if the hosts fell in the mud! I agree with your assessment that the people were ignorant more than anything. Yes, they believe in the true presence but many have had poor Catechism classes. More so those who cannot afford Catholic schools. Honestly, I did not even know what Redemptionis Sacramentum was till I was much older.
But one would have thought that Bishop Villegas would at least know it. But instead he went justification rather than acknowledging that a sacrilege has been committed. What hope the laity when the Bishops themselves don’t seem to know what they are supposed to know.
For the love of God, I declare this to be ‘a tempest in a teapot.’ Give it a rest & let the principals do their jobs. The laity if they are scandalized will & must get over it. If there were hosts in the mud I swear the Sisters should have coveted them! This is all the work of a good Catholic writer. Well, I’m not so happy with him. One must speak to the principals first. Bad form, & it’s not much of a lay matter.
Here’s a novel idea: why not help the Filipino clergy in their catechism instead of just criticize them? I’m sure they would welcome the help.
I do not know the ideal priest:faithful ratio or the total number of Filipino priests/catechists but I think it would be logical to assume based on the sheer number of Filipino faithful that the situation is less than ideal.
I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the secondary reasons for the Pope’s visit is to inspire the youth to join the clergy to bridge that needs gap. (An increase in number of seminarians was noted following Pope John Paul II’s visit from what I heard in a news coverage.) Though this wouldn’t immediately address the current needs of the faithful, at least it’s a step in that direction.
WE have learned from this. Thank God WE have learned from our mess. In October 1979, Pope St. John Paul II said Mass in Iowa. I was a young newly ordained priest. I went there with our university students. We were there overnight on farm ground. Couldn’t dampened the spirit. The same thing happened at that Mass. But we have learned since. When I was at the WYD in Denver and Toronto, I was edified by how reverential they were.
If there is a chance, teach them. Use it to teach our own young people. Great example to use.
It also reminded me of the 4 young men who made a hole in someone’s house just to bring their sick friend to Jesus. How rude! How undisciplined! Who is going to fix the roof? What if it rains? Couldn’t they wait for a better moment? Besides, they should just suck it up and embrace the cross of their lives. Offer it up.
OR
“Lord, I am not like the other people.”
Do not dampen the spirit of eager people.
I have met many Philippine young people. They are just as excited about the faith as those in our country. They are eager to learn and are concerned. Feed the hungry. Instruct the ignorant.
My suggestions:
1. Encourage the people in the Philippines. Whether cultural or not, they are very enthused about their faith.
2. Volunteer to go to all the foreign countries to help them organize the papal Masses and direct the traffic at Communion time.
A priest who loves Eucharist.
Just curious father: did you do penance for the desecration that happened in 1979?
I am a Filipino and I am saddened by what was done to the Eucharist in Luneta. And i don’t agree with those who justify it by saying that Jesus allowed Himself to be jostled by the crowds when He was on earth. This argument misses the point, which is, if it were in your power to decide how Our Lord should be treated, how would you have Him treated? While Our Lord allowed Himself to be treated badly, he was not indifferent to displays of courtesy and reverence (the episode of the woman who anointed Him comes to mind).
The Philippines Я not the USA. Not directly related but an interesting sidelight: “Bishops of the Philippines Under Pressure”.
So under extroadinary circumstances it is perfectly alright to desecrate the Most Holy Eucharist. – I don’t think so.
Looking for something else, I came upon a curious footnote which read, in part, “since the Latin American bishops did not request an indult for Communion in the hand (and the Philippines where they applied and then, on account of abuses, changed back to only on the tongue)” Is the parenthetical comment about the Philippines true? Reverence during Mass
I remember Pope Francis at WYD and the desecration that happened there. They need to remember that Holy Communion is not the purpose of the Mass, and is indeed not even a part of it.
They should just stop giving communion at these rock and roll masses.