In fact it is sacrilegious!
I'll let his status updates speak for themselves.
My bishop/priest friends who regularly read the blog would need to comment on this...badly!
For Non-English speakers, here is the gist...
1. He took home a consecrated host after being reminded of the two priest to take "Jesus home" using a white cloth presumably either a corporal or purificator.
2. He kept it overnight at his home for his own vigil.
3. No one knows what he did to Him afterwards.
Redemptionis Sacramentum states:
[132.] No one may carry the Most Holy Eucharist to his or her home, or to any other place contrary to the norm of law. It should also be borne in mind that removing or retaining the consecrated species for a sacrilegious purpose or casting them away are graviora delicta, the absolution of which is reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Code of Canon Law:
Can. 935 No one is permitted to keep the Eucharist on one’s person or to carry it around, unless pastoral necessity urges it and the prescripts of the diocesan bishop are observed.
Can. 1367 A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric can be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.
Did he take the Host for sacrilegious purposes? We don't know. But this we do. HE TOOK HIM HOME!
This is against Church law as I have stated here and he must be made aware of what he has done.
I advise him to go see the Cardinal Archbishop of Manila, if he really lives within the territorial jurisdiction of the Archdiocese.
Whoever Fr. Jek and Fr. Gener are...you two are also in a lot of trouble!
And you, Fr. Diwa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is the perfect example why we need to STOP COMMUNION IN THE HAND!!!
It has created more problems and scandal for the Church!
If you are pastorally sensitive as you always put it in your documents Fr. Diwa, then in God's name, you are bound by the duties and responsibilities of the Sacrament of Holy Orders conferred upon you, to act against this sacrilege!
STOP COMMUNION IN THE HAND!
My God!
ReplyDeleteI didn't found any PASTORAL NECESSITY to bring the Blessed Sacrament to his house.
And his room IS NOT THE PROPER PLACE (REPOSITION) of the Blessed Sacrament..
This must be reported to the Local Ordinary.
That's an ABUSE.
Report Mr. Robby Okol (and the conniving priests) to the local ordinary, NOW. My uncle is the Bishop of the Diocese of Kalibo, Aklan. I am not sure how he could be of assistance to this matter. If no proper and just action is taken against them, report them to the Vatican.
ReplyDeleteThis should be reprimanded...
ReplyDeletePART 1
ReplyDeleteThis is very sad! May God have mercy on us all, poor sinners.
I thought it was just some barbershop tales when they said some sabungeros would smuggle the Blessed Hosts and feed their tandangs with them.
Again, this is but another sign of how much we have lost the sense of the sacred inside our Church, that has crept well into our Liturgy, and yes, in even the way we've treated the Blessed Sacrament.
x Observe now how so few people enters the Church as though they were entering a movie house.
x So many are dressed improperly with their tsinelas, pekpek shorts, miniSkirts, mall shorts, sandos, faded maongs, ahhh you name it.
x Making the Signum Crucis when entering the Church is no longer a norm.
x Genuflecting to the direction of the Tabernacle that hosts the Holy Eucharist is no longer done.
x So many no longer kneel and instead sit down after the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei
x The act of reverence before receiving Holy Communion is NOT practised by the vast majority perhaps due to ignorance. This is either by bowing to the Eucharist before receiving it, genuflecting, or (as in olden times) receiving Communion kneeling down.
x No one bows down or kneels during the creed when reciting the lines: "Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est."
x No one is striking of the breast when reciting the "Mea Culpa, mea Culpa, mea Maxima Culpa...: even if these lines have been rightfully restored in the new translation of the English Novus Ordo Missae.
x Anybody and just about anybody roams about around the sanctuary that is reserved ONLY for all the ordained clergies and the altar boys. Yes only boys because this is a practicum for them and a taste test in case they might feel the calling to oneday become priests, and not as a chauvinist exclusion of girls.
Like the Roman Collar for the clergies, these seemingly immaterial or accidental acts and eemingly harmless motions that hold sacred meaning, means a lot in reminding Catholics of the sacredness of the place called Church, and highest dignity in rank of the prayer called Mass.
Even the excessive use of the lay ministers contributed to this abuse, because like it or not, ONLY the ordained ministers are allowed to touch the sacred species, and lay ministers are suppose to be done only when there is an extreme lack of priest over the proportion of people. Not even nuns are allowed to touch the Eucharist.
I do not have to discuss the other liturgical anomalies that I have enumerated at another post.
PART 2
ReplyDeleteEven the abuse of using the vernacular has painless inculcated in us that the Mass is but another script of life or another lyrical formula of prayer, and in the process we have lost our sense of both mystery and sacrality. But unknown to many, Latin was actually NEVER thrown out of the window by Vatican II.
===========================================
Here is the actual text from Sacrosanctum Concilium:
"36. 1. Linguae latinae usus, salvo particulari iure, in Ritibus latinis servetur.
§2. Cum tamen, sive in Missa, sive in Sacramentorum administratione, sive in aliis Liturgiae partibus, haud raro linguae vernaculae usurpatio valde utilis apud populum exsistere possit, amplior locus ipsi tribui valeat, imprimis autem in lectionibus et admonitionibus, in nonnullis orationibus et cantibus, iuxta normas quae de hac re in sequentibus capitibus singillatim statuuntur."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters."
===========================================
But sadly, the vernacular took over without pain and have become a norm, while Latin has been relegated to the sidelines and which has become foreign to Catholics, yes, even to many priests. While the Maronites & Syriac Orthodox preserved their Aramaic, the Orthodox preserving Greek, and the some Eastern Europe preserve their Church Slavonic - the Roman Catholics thoughtlessly threw Latin out of the window. It is sad that even the Holy Mass in the Vatican are less and less in Latin, and mostly in Italiano, ah la miseria, vergogna ci! Oh its only the language... no, no! We simply have lost part of our patrimony and singular identity as ROMAN Catholics as distinct from BYzantine Catholics.
Just imagine, had we retained Latin as the lingua universalis for the Mass and the Liturgia Horarum, then it would be no issue if I attend a Roman Mass in Shanghai, in Latvia, Krakovia, Taipei, Los Angeles, Rome, Hawaii, Spain, Turkey, Bangkok, etc... I will always listen and respond to the same liturgical language. But sad to say, I even hear some priests allergic to Latin. I still am squirming the way the Novus Ordo has been retranslated. The earlier translation of Msgr Abriol was much more faithful to the original.
Quo vadis, Ecclesia Catholica?
My two cents:
ReplyDelete1. No, he should not have brought the Bl. Sacrament home. The Church has very strict rules in ensuring that abuse against the most august Sacrament be prevented.
However...
2. It is very clear that this person believes and confesses the Real Presence (He kept referring to the Sacred Host as 'Jesus') and his intention was to adore (in order to implore graces for upcoming events). At no point is there indicated that a) he is ridiculing Catholic dogma or b) he intends to desecrate the Sacred Host. Therefore, this incidence does not satisfy Canon 1367 which is clear that latae sententiae excommunication applies to those who a) throws away the consecrated species or b) takes or retains them *for a sacrilegious purpose*.
3. That you would hijack this incident to decry Communion in the hand has no standing. It was not indicated that he obtained the Host as result of receiving Holy Communion in the hand; in fact, two priests were aware that he was going to do so (that they gave permission is something else) and even ensured that the Sacred Host is returned to the priests after the overnight adoration. Nothing indicates that he did not return the Sacred Host the following morning.
4. The priests, instead of allowing him to take home the Sacred Host, should have used this a teaching opportunity regarding the Church's rules as a result of her faith and devotion in the Real Presence. This incident is clearly a case of misguided piety, not abuse. Following your train of thought, the Church might as well have excommunicated St. Clare for taking the Blessed Sacrament and displaying It at the city gates to repel the Saracens.
"It is very clear that this person believes and confesses the Real Presence (He kept referring to the Sacred Host as 'Jesus') and his intention was to adore (in order to implore graces for upcoming events). At no point is there indicated that a) he is ridiculing Catholic dogma or b) he intends to desecrate the Sacred Host."
ReplyDeleteNo one is saying (1) that the guy is ridiculing Catholic dogma; and that (2) he intends to desecrate the Sacred Host. In fact, TPC qualified in one of his statements above that NO ONE CAN ACTUALLY ASCERTAIN if he intended or did try to use the Sacred Host for sacrilegious purposes. But we do know (which is the crux of the post) that he has absolutely no authority (and the priests who enabled and dispensed him the Sacred Host) him to bring It home or anywhere else, as per the Church's binding laws. The intention does not in any way modify the gravity (a grave matter) of his (and the conniving priests') violation of the strict provision of Redemptoris Sacramentum.
"That you would hijack this incident to decry Communion in the hand has no standing. It was not indicated that he obtained the Host as result of receiving Holy Communion in the hand"
True. However, this is not the only incident that lays the case against Communion in the Hand. There are many. For ex: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-will-horror-of-communion-in-hand.html
The incident is a case of misguided piety and ABUSE on the part of the conniving priest (a grave matter according to Redemptoris Sacramentum).
No one is saying someone has got to be excommunicated. It is you who conjured that up. As far as I am considered no one in this thread has the competency and office to draw and exact the proper action that should be taken with regard to this abuse. Again, the hard fact stands: Mr. Okol and the conniving priests have committed an act that put at risk "the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist."
[173.] Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in nn. 48-52, 56, 76-77, 79, 91-92, 94, 96, 101-102, 104, 106, 109, 111, 115, 117, 126, 131-133, 138, 153 and 168. Moreover, attention should be given to the other prescriptions of the Code of Canon Law, and especially what is laid down by canons 1364, 1369, 1373, 1376, 1380, 1384, 1385, 1386, and 1398.
"[132.] No one may carry the Most Holy Eucharist to his or her home, or to any other place contrary to the norm of law."
There are so many prayers approved by the Church right? So why not pray all of that prayers? Likewise, communion in hand that you're saying that the church allows it, are you going to embrace that just to say that your obedient to the Church and its teachings? Start with the basics before you preach the Faith. Act what is commanded by God right? Actually, it is not in the Church Magisterium.... It's not a teaching of the Church.... CASE CLOSED! The things that should be put in question is the rightful dealing of persons with regard to the MOST BLESSED SACRAMENT. Devotion which leads to disobedience is false. WE MUST BAN COMMUNION ON HAND.... Think of this : Bread has it's particles right? Then it touches the communicant's hand. Is his/her hand clean or worthy to touch the Body of Christ? HOW WE SHOULD DEAL WITH THIS IMMACULATE SACRAMENT? Hands are indirect reception of the Body and there is problem with that for it touches "unconsecrated things" thereafter. There are "holy debris" left in the communicant's hand, and some of it cannot be seen by naked eye. Isn't that "holy debris" which are of the Lord won't receive an greater unintentional desecration? ISIP-ISIP DIN TAYO PAG MAY TIME.... :D At the same time, there are laws to be followed. :D BLIND DEVOTION IS DANGEROUS. It is not devotion but a false one.... :D
ReplyDeleteThe true culprits here are the priests. The person who took the Lord in his house has poor catechism. The priests are expected to know Canon Law! If this person asked permission to bring the Lord home, the priests should have responded "You can adore the Lord in our chapel...." BUT NO!
ReplyDeleteThe person above knows his faith; misguided piety as Mr. Petrus said. The priests, though faulty, still called the Hosts "si Kristo" and thank you Lord for that; they still know you! May God hear this man's prayers!
Still....the priests whoever they may be must be the ones sanctioned! They are the ones who spent years in seminary and learned all that theology and philosophy, and look!
***The Church is not the church of "awww-so-cute-even-it's-wrong-it's-what's-inside-the-heart" (UGH...). We have the Canon Law, the Magisterium, Sacred Scriptures, Traditions etc. If something was violated, there are consequences. Example: If you're bad and did not repent, you go to hell. Simple.
@Petrus
ReplyDeleteOn your number 2 point, you said "however". Just by saying it, it already tells me that you are willing to compromise what our Catholic Faith is.
Alhough, I might agree with you that it has nothing to do with communion by hands because those priest has knowledge of it. BUT, I'm not saying that I support communion by hands as I only support communion by tongue and kneeling.
Oh, you told that the Church might as well excommunicated St. Claire? There are extraordinary situations that can be excluded from the norm. I believe St. Claire's case is a extraordinary. But the intention of the one who brought home the Jesus was not an extraordinary. If it's me, I would rather stay at the Adoration Chapel praying for my intention rather than to bring home Jesus.
I don't know what to say. Tanga-tangang bata. Yun lang ang masasabi ko......
ReplyDeleteI heard so many stories about some "sabungeros", that when they receive communion, since they received the host through their hands, they bring the host to their house and "keep" it for a while, and on the big day of the "SABONG" they tie the host to one of the legs of their favorite fighting cock, so that the cock will WIN the "SABONG". And the irony of it all, there is the so called KRISTO - the name of the bet takers during the "sabong". A Kristo normally works for a customer who asked him to get a bet for a particular gamecock.
ReplyDeleteSabi ko na nga ba eh! Communion in the hand should be ABOLISHED!!!!