MARRIAGE OF THE CHINESE IN THE PHILIPPINES DURING SPANISH RULE

The marriage between the Chinese and the Filipinos was an occasion for unending problems for the church authorities in the Philippines. Since the Chinese had to be baptized as a prerequisite for marriage, they received the sacrament with mixed intentions. To obtain this, a royal decree in 1849 ordered the Chinese who wished to contract marriage in the Philippines to present before the government:

a. his baptismal certificate
b. written consent of the parents or guardians of his future wife
c. an affidavit that his name had been included in the padron or census list of christians for more than two years.

he also had to certify six years' residence in the country, his good conduct all this while, and a testimony from the parish priest that he had been instructed in the Christian doctrine. Once married according to this form, the chinese needed the express consent of his spouse in order to return to his country. it had frequently happened that once there, the husband did not return to the wife left in the Philippines. in view of so much difficulty, many unbaptized chinese preferred to live in open concubinage with filipino women, with no church intervention. for this reason, Fr. Manuel de Rivas in the middle of the 19th century urged the patronato real to obtain from the Holy See a habitual dispensation for disparity of cult for the chinese, who turned out to be good husbands, though remaining pagans, once they married in the eyes of the church.

-HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN THE PHILIPPINES 1521-1898
p. 155
by Fr. Pablo Fernandez, O.P.

THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE XXIII INTERNATIONAL EUCHARISTIC CONGRESS 1962

Manila Archbishop Rufino Cardinal Santos delivering his speech.

The procession of the Most Blessed Sacrament.

Clergy in cassocks and surplices.

The Philippine hierarchy dressed in their mantelletas.

The altar at the Luneta

* PICTURES FROM THE BOOK ''THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE XXIII INTERNATIONAL EUCHARISTIC CONGRESS MANILA" 1962

COMMUNION IN THE HAND...MANDATED BY VATICAN 2?

for those who argue that communion in the hand was mandated by the second vatican council, think again...:

...it carries certain dangers with which may arise from the new manner of administering communion : the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.[ how true of many Catholics today]

Three questions were asked of the bishops, and the replies received by 12 March 1969 were as follows:

1. Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above the traditional manner, the rite of receiving communion on the hand should be admitted?
YES: 597
NO: 1,233
YES, BUT WITH FEW RESERVATIONS: 315
INVALID VOTES: 20

2. Is it your wish that this new rite be first tried in small communities, with the consent of the bishop?
YES: 751
NO: 1,215
INVALID VOTES: 70

3. Do you think that the faithful will receive this new rite gladly, after a proper catechetical preparation?
YES: 835
NO: 1,815
INVALID VOTES: 128
[ it is interesting to note that majority of the bishops don't like to endorse the so-called new rite of communion in the hand]

From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed[ how then is communion in the hand allowed if the majority of the bishops were against it in the first place], and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many faithful.

...in view of the gravity of the matter[gravity...in a sense that it involves a fundamental doctrine of the church and that is the doctrine of the body and blood of Christ present in the Host.] and the force of the arguments put forward,[so there are bishops who are also pro communion in the hand] the Holy Father [Paul VI]has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.[Yes, the Pope did the right thing]
The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid[communion kneeling and on the tongue] and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgement given by the majority of Catholic Bishops[the figures above], of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.[I might just add...for the preservation of Catholic "Tradition"]

-INSTRUCTION ON THE MANNER OF
DISTRIBUTING HOLY COMMUNION

Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. Memoriale Domini, 29 May, 1969
Vatican Council II, The conciliar and post conciliar documents pp.150-151

MY COMMENT:

WE MUST RECEIVE OUR LORD IN THE EUCHARIST REVERENTLY KNEELING AND ON THE TONGUE, WE MUST BE THE MODELS OF THAT CATHOLIC LAITY WHO KNOWS WHAT HE IS DOING DURING MASS. WE MUST TEACH IT TO OTHERS, THE SIGNIFICANCE, THE IMPORTANCE OF KNEELING IS TO ADORE OUR LORD AND TO WORSHIP HIM. WE MUST RESTORE THAT "loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, OF TAKING OUT of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE? A BETTER VIEW

The separation of Church and State cannot be used against the participation and involvement of the Church in shaping the politics of the country. Bishops, Clergy and Laity must be involved in the area of politics when moral and Gospel values are at stake (PCP-II,344).

The separation of Church and State is strictly defined in the 1987 Constitution to refer to the following :

1) That no religion may be established as the official religion of the State.
2) That the State may not favor one religion over the others.
3) The State shall forever allow the free exercise and enjoyment of religion and shall not require any religious test for the exercise of civil and political rights.

* the separation of Church and State does not require division between belief and public action, moral principles and political choices. Rather, the separation of Church and State protects the rights of believers and religious groups to practice their faith and act on their values in public life. The Constitution does not advocate for a separation of Church form the State at all, rather the protection of religious from the State.


"When the separation of Church and State begins to mean separating religious faith from public life, we begin to separate from morality and citizens from their consciences. and that leads to politics without character, which is now a national epidemic" -ARCHBISHOP CHARLES CHAPUT, DENVER COLORADO


-ARTICLE FROM A LEAFLET OF "ANG KAPATIRAN PARTY" CBCP MONITOR

THE LAITY TOGETHER WITH THE CLERGY JOIN HANDS TO PROCLAIM OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST TO ALL MEN.

Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales speaks about the Prieshood.

"Like cows, we have been branded. We have been claimed. Once anointed we belong completely to God. There is no transfer of ownership. We cannot lend ourselves to someone. Our fidelity should go beyond observance of law and duty."