Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Communion in the Hand is the culprit

Now let's bring this discussion to what the archbishop said "extraordinary situation"

If that is the intent, why not just pass the ciborium and have the people get It themselves?

Wasn't that how things are being practiced in retreat houses? 

We have posted photos of self-communication Under "normal circumstances", the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the bishops, priests and deacons. NORMAL. BUT!

I am one of those who greatly admire you Archbishop.

The least you could do is to think and pray this over.

We have had a mega-Mass before in 1995.  I was there.  It did not happen.

And worst for this year, the hands of the people are all wet!  Putting the consecrated hosts in people's hands would of course

I have to look at the history of the Church, Her legislation, tradition and patrimony if there is such a thing as "extraordinary moment to receive Holy Communion".

There are 6 to 7 million reasons that the archbishop and those supporting this Host passing can cite.  But there is only one reason why we should not do this.

Maybe we could always allow this dear Archbishop Villegas for every Mass we celebrate at the Luneta where people pack the grounds.  The El Shaddai group always fills the grounds of their "church" in Paranaque.

Maybe we could've planned to tell the pilgrims to just line up near the Communion stations aka kubols so they can just pick the Host themselves.

Why does the Church even have ministers to give Holy Communion and not let people get the Host themselves and feed themselves with It?

Communion by the hand is a form of self-communion.  That defeats the symbolism of having the Lord feed us with his own Body.  The ministers give to us the Bread of Life to feed us.  We do not feed ourselves.  The Lord feeds us.

Trained or not, the EMHCs who distributed the Hosts should know that it is their job to be there to:

1.  Protect the Eucharist
2.  Disrtibute the Eucharist

Surprised?  Yes, you read it right.  The first job objective of anyone distributing Holy Communion is to protect the Lord.  There are instances where priests approach public sinners from approaching Holy Communion since they are not worthy tor receive the Lord.  Leo Cardinal Burke often mentioned it that if a politician advocating abortion would approach him for Holy Communion, he would have refused him Holy Communion.

Ok we maybe getting off track here, but we ARE NOT.  Those EMHCs who were in their stations at the Luneta Park are no Cardinal Burke and certainly not in a position to tell if one of the pilgrims is worthy of receiving Holy Communion, save for a fact maybe when the communicant approaches him with either the "666" or inverted cross on his forehead, or the Freethinkers or Carlos Celdran...

The hands of the communicants were also wet.  When you place the Hosts, thin wafers made of wheat flour, they absorb water.  With all those passing around, do you think the Hosts stayed dry?

Do you remember the claim of the great liturgist Fr. Genaro Diwa about pushing for Communion in the Hand to prevent the spread of SARS and that it is more "hygienic" than Communion on the Tongue?

Can't hear them now, do we?

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!

If those who defend this practice call this a pastoral response and about "feelings", then let us just throw away the Bible, the Catechism, the Code of Canon Law (which the Church wrote as a pastoral response to the pastoral needs of the Church).  We'll just all see fit what is proper and necessary based on our feelings, based on what the Spirit tells us, based on whatever tricks or creativities a bishop or priest can ever think of.

Wasn't the defense "based on the situation" the same defense that the pro-RH camps used?  Wasn't it their defense to say that if a couple has too many children and they cannot practice NFP, maybe the Church in this "situtation" can allow the couples to practice artificial contraception?  There are even "priests", catholic priests, yes with a small "c", who say that the Church must allow artificial contraception for the

We really made a world record that day at the Luneta.

In this digital age, this act will be replayed over and over again.

This is on the organizers and the EMHCs.

Make an Act of Reparation.

We all surely need the Mercy and Compassion of God for the Hosts that were treated that way.

Are we sure no one took home a Host?

And since we started this post about an "extaordinary situation", look at these pictures and ponder on what the archbishop said about "the situation".

In these situations we say like what our elders say:  Kung gusto may paraan, kung ayaw maraming dahilan.

FYI, no Communion was held at Tacloban according to my friends who were there.  Why?  Winds and rain was strong.  Better not have Communion or risk desecrating the Holy Eucharist.

Communion in the hand is like what we say in business school:  The Risks far outweigh the Benefits.

Think about that.

Think about what you just did.

Now if you still are sure of what happened was ok, write a letter and send it to Rome.  Tell them if that happened again, you'd do it again.

Communion in the hand is the culprit.  If it were not allowed, this would not have happened.


  1. If I was the Usher in Luneta,I would shout like the Priest-Barker: "HOY! MAG-INGAT KAYO NG KAMAY MO SA TANGGAP NA KOMUNYON!" Sorry,my Tagalog is not that fluent. And Yes,I am a full-blooded Filipino.

  2. Extraordinary situation? Here's the only thing situational when it comes to administering Communion: “the celebrant priest, if there is a present danger of sacrilege, should not give the faithful communion in the hand”.

    Under the situation, the consecrated hosts should not have been distributed. Hosts in the mud and all, how obscenely fast Bishop Villegas excuses the incident. Mas diyos na nya tao kaysa Panginoon?

    1. It is not an excuse. Hindi naman inaasahan na ganyan ang nangyari dahil sa ulan.

      Kung sana nagkaloob man lamang ng kubol ang gobyerno, disin sana naging maayos ang distribution ng Communion.

  3. the toothpaste is not going back into the tube too late in my parish 99.9% of the people receive in the hand and do so reverently when I talk with them they have no intention to go back to receiving on the tongue. this is as true for the elderly, even more so perhaps, as for the young

    1. If you want to, you can. After 40 years of receiving in the hand, I started thee months ago receiving on the tongue.

    2. I have never ever taken Communion in my hand. I remember the lies told to Paul VI. He said it was not allowed unless it was a custom. Recall places that did this like Belgium and Holland are anti Catholic pits these days . So after Paul VI did not allow Communion in the hand our loyal and good bishops simply forced it on the laypeople! Just stinks and its like being given cookies in a queue. Everyone goes to Communon no matter what state of sin they are in! No respect and certainly unheard of in the history of the Church!

    3. Three days ago I started receiving while kneeling. I asked the priest if I could. He said yes, it showed humility. Not sure if it does show humility, but it's not important what I think.

    4. Has your immortal soul been eased into a heretic state against … God's must know Catholic Dogma, Dogma which you have never seen ?

      Has this fact placed you outside of God's Catholic Church ... which uncorrected causes the loss of your soul ?

      Is there a Catholic Dogma remedy ... for re-entering the Catholic Church ?

      Answer: The answer to all three questions is … yes. Please continue.

      You have been *profoundly* deceived ...

      Council of Florence, Session 8, 22 Nov 1439 -- infallible Source of Dogma >
      "Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the Catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally."

      You must believe the Catholic Dogma to be in the Church ... Dogma you have *never* seen.

      Site > ... infallible Dogma throughout.

      The ... Catholic Sources of Dogma ... is the Faith. It isn’t “Bible interpretation”.

      Yes ... you have been *profoundly* deceived.

      - - - - - - - - - -

      Can a group which enforces the opposite, the opposite, and the opposite of the Catholic unchangeable Dogma be the Catholic Church?

      No, it cannot possibly be the Catholic Church ... and promotion of the opposite of the Catholic Dogma is exactly what the vatican-2 heretic cult does ... and has been doing since it’s founding on 8 December 1965 at the Vatican.

      The vatican-2 heresy does not have the Office of the Papacy ... only the Catholic Church has the Papacy.

      The Dogma cannot “change” or be “reversed” ... God does not “change”.

      The founding documents of the vatican-2 heretic cult … the “vatican-2 council” documents … have well over 200 heresies *against* prior defined unchangeable Dogma. Every (apparent) bishop at the “council” approved the mountain of heresy, which caused their automatic excommunication, see Section 13.2 of

      - - - - - - - - - -

      Section 12 > Anti-Christ vatican-2 heresies (50 listed) ... followed by many Catholic corrections.

      Sections 13 and 13.1 > Photographic *proof* of heresy at the Vatican.

      Because of … the Catholic Dogma on automatic excommunication for heresy or for physical participation in a heretic cult (such as the v-2 cult) …

      … we were all placed, body and soul, *outside* of Christianity (the Catholic Church) on 8 December 1965 … the close date of the “council”.

      Section 13.2 and 13.2.2 > Dogma on automatic excommunication for heresy or participating in a heretic cult such as ... vatican-2, lutheran, methodist, evangelical, etc.

      Section 13.3 > Matt 16:18, Gates of Hell scripture ... is *not* about the Office of the Papacy.

      Section 13.4 > The vatican-2 heretic cult does not have the Office of the Papacy only the Catholic Church has the Papacy.

      Section 13.6 > The Catholic Dogma on Jurisdiction and Automatic Excommunication for heresy define that ... God has allowed Catholic Jurisdiction ... for Mass and Confession to disappear from the world. There is no such thing as Catholic Mass outside of the Catholic Church.

      Non-Catholic heresies such as “vatican-2”, “sspx”, “sspv”, “cmri”, etc. ... do not have Catholic Mass.

      Section 19.1 > Dogma on Abjuration for *re-entering* Christianity (the Catholic Church) … after being automatically excommunicated.

      Section 10.2 > Returning to a state of grace, in places and times when Confession is not available, like now.

      - - - - - - - - - -

      Second Council of Constantinople, 553 A.D. -- infallible Source of Dogma >
      "The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy."

      Everything you must know, believe, and do to get to Heaven is on > >

      Our Lady of Conquest
      Pray for us

  4. Does anyone have a photos of the Hosts being found in the mud? I understand that sacrilege has been done, but verification is always necessary.

    1. I hope kung meron po sana na may Consecrated Hosts na nalaglag sa putikan (mud). Kung wala, that means, they (netizens/biased media reporters) sensationalized the alleged sacrilege.

  5. The reply about alleged sacrilege:

  6. Only priests and deacons should give Holy Communion out. If their is risk of profanation no Communion! It is astonishing that love of Christ is just words! We are like those that slapped his face and spat on him...but unlike them we say we are His true friends. We are like Judas who betrayed Christ with a kiss!

  7. In the Vatican, for huge crowds, the priests assigned for communion are instructed not to give communion by hand. They could have given this instruction to the lay ministers that this may have been avoided.

  8. I read this in a footnote of an article: "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)" Was the comment about the Philippines true? Is it still true? The article was called "Reverence During Mass."