Mother Teresa and Holy communion

[NeedImprovement]

… The teaching that there is an option is generally not even brought up in either CCD or RCIA, Having taught RCIA and CCD for a long time and having attended numerous conferences and workshops over the years, and having relationships with many other catechists nationwide, I know that statement is true, People generally aren’t even told about receiving on the tongue except in passing in a fleeting sort of way. St Cyril is almost always brought up by them…

Needless to say the DRO and the Deacon at that Parish were not happy with what I had said. But at least the candidates knew the truth and the reasons behind it.

That’s so true. When’s the last time we saw many (any ?) little communicants receive Holy Communion on the tongue? The young are very impressionable. Start them off with Communion in the hand, without letting them know there is a choice and that receiving on the tongue is the “traditional way”, then let them amble on through life and discover much later on (if at all) that there was a choice and a “traditional way” … do you think they might wish to consider receiving that way ? …at that point…?
:nope:

 

[NeedImprovement]

… But the saints are very spontaneous, even if they sound off to others.

Fraternally,

JR

The key is that they never stop communicating (looks like I still have some more growing to do).

 

[NeedImprovement]

I prefer the hand method for hygenic reasons. I already abstain from the chalice, which bothers me. The thought of sharing saliva with everyone at Mass severely disturbs me. I’ve had to fight to maintian my health over the last several decades. I just can’t take the risk of contagion.

There are various perspectives to view this point from. I might just offer that, in some commentaries and annotations to the Code of Canon Law ,while explaining the interpretation of certain sections, the commentators mention that none of the faithful are requested to do anything which goes beyond their point of “natural repugnance”

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I just wanted to insert one point about the consecrated hands of the priest. A deacon is the ordinary minister of holy communion. The only reason that priests and bishops can distribute holy communion without special permissions is because they are also deacons.

JR,

Where did you get that? Where did you get the idea that the only reason a Priest or Bishop (who are higher than a Deacon), can distribute communion is because they were once ordained a deacon? Can you provide a source for that statement?

What if a Priest was ordained without being ordained a Deacon first? Would he not be permitted to distribute communion at his own Mass?

Redemptionis Sacramentum says that Priests, Bishops and Deacons are the ordinaty ministers.

“Redemptionis Sacramentum,” No. 154: “As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest” Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon, to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass”.

****The 1983 Code of Canon law says this:

“Can. 910 §1. The ordinary minister of holy communion is a bishop, presbyter, or deacon”.**

The 1917 Code taught this:**

**Canon 845, par. 1… “The ordinary minister of holy communion is only the priest.”

Canon 845. par. 2. “The extraordinary minister of holy communion is the deacon, with permission of the local bishop or the parish priest, only to be granted for a serious reason, which may legitimately be presumed in a case of emergency.”**

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I just wanted to insert one point about the consecrated hands of the priest. A deacon is the ordinary minister of holy communion. The only reason that priests and bishops can distribute holy communion without special permissions is because they are also deacons.

Consecrating the hands of the deacon is not part of the ordination rite. Deacons do not have consecrated hands and they are the ordinary ministers of holy communion. That would rule out the idea that holy communion must come from consecrated hands, as that is not part of the Tradition of Holy Orders. The hands of the priest are annointed for other reasons, not for the distribution of holy communion. All deacons are not priests and bishops, but all priests and bishops are also deacons.

To add to my last post, I will quote St. Thomas on this point.

St. Thomas:

Article 3. Whether dispensing of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?

I answer that, The dispensing of Christ’s body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above (Article 1), he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.

St. Thomas address deacons specifically in his objections and replies.

St. Thomas:

**Objection 1. **It seems that the dispensing of this sacrament does not belong to a priest alone. For Christ’s blood belongs to this sacrament no less than His body. But Christ’s blood is dispensed by deacons: hence the blessed Lawrence said to the blessed Sixtus (Office of St. Lawrence, Resp. at Matins): “Try whether you have chosen a fit minister, to whom you have entrusted the dispensing of the Lord’s blood.” Therefore, with equal reason the dispensing of Christ’s body does not belong to priests only.

**Reply to Objection 1. ** The deacon, as being nigh to the priestly order, has a certain share in the latter’s duties, so that he may dispense the blood; but not the body, except in case of necessity, at the bidding of a bishop or of a priest. First of all, because Christ’s blood is contained in a vessel, hence there is no need for it to be touched by the dispenser, as Christ’s body is touched. Secondly, because the blood denotes the redemption derived by the people from Christ; hence it is that water is mixed with the blood, which water denotes the people. And because deacons are between priest and people, the dispensing of the blood is in the competency of deacons, rather than the dispensing of the body.

That teaching of St. Thomas is in perfect accord with the teaching of the 1917 Code of Canon law that I quoted in the last post.

I’m curious why you believe that the Deacon is the ordinary minister of Holy Communion, and that the only reason a Priest or Bishop can distribute it is because they were once ordain a Deacon. Where did you get that?

 

[JReducation]

JR,

Where did you get that? Where did you get the idea that the only reason a Priest or Bishop (who are higher than a Deacon), can distribute communion is because they were once ordained a deacon? Can you provide a source for that statement?

What if a Priest was ordained without being ordained a Deacon first? Would he not be permitted to distribute communion at his own Mass?

Redemptionis Sacramentum says that Priests, Bishops and Deacons are the ordinaty ministers.

“Redemptionis Sacramentum,” No. 154: “As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest” Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon, to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass”.

****The 1983 Code of Canon law says this:

"Can. 910 §1. The ordinary minister of holy communion is a bishop, presbyter, or deacon".**

The 1917 Code taught this:**

Canon 845, par. 1… “The ordinary minister of holy communion is only the priest.”

Canon 845. par. 2. “The extraordinary minister of holy communion is the deacon, with permission of the local bishop or the parish priest, only to be granted for a serious reason, which may legitimately be presumed in a case of emergency.”

One cannnot be ordained a priest without being a deacon. See the Code of Canon Law of 1983 on the Sacraments. It’s all there. Whatever the Code of 1917 said regarding ordination, it’s no longer in force.

In addition, a Deacon’s hands are not consecrated, that was the point I was trying to make. We cannot use the consecrated hands as the reason for not receiving on the hands.

The question is whether touching the Eucharist should be limited to the clergy.

JR

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

One cannnot be ordained a priest without being a deacon. See the Code of Canon Law of 1983 on the Sacraments. It’s all there. Whatever the Code of 1917 said regarding ordination, it’s no longer in force.

In addition, a Deacon’s hands are not consecrated, that was the point I was trying to make. We cannot use the consecrated hands as the reason for not receiving on the hands.

The question is whether touching the Eucharist should be limited to the clergy.

JR

I was responding to you statement that the Deacon is THE ordinary minister of Holy Communin, and that the only reason a Priest and Bishop can distribute Holy Communion is because they were once ordained a Deacon.

And the reason I quoted the 1917 Code is to show the progression. At that time the Deacon was an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion (like a Eucharistic minister today). That was modified in the 1983 Code to make him an ordinary minister, along with the Priest and Bishop.

The 1983 Code of Canon law says this:

“Can. 910 §1. The ordinary minister of holy communion is a bishop, presbyter, or deacon”.

Where did you get the teaching that the Deacon is the ordinary Minister of Holy Communion, and that the only reason a Priest and Bishop can distribute is because they were once ordarined a Deacon?

 

[Binx]

My suggestion is this. Let’s assume for the sake of avoiding an argument that she made this statement,

Why would we assume otherwise? It’s been reported. It’s not so strange; lots of people feel the same way. What’s so shocking about it?

like she made many other statements. Remember the statement that she made. “It doesn’t matter if you’re a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or a Christian. A Muslim must be a good Muslim. A Jew must be a good Jew, a Hindu a good Hindu, and a Christian a good Christian.”

So you do accept that she made this one?

If we take these statements as formal teaching statements we’re on the wrong track,

Why would anyone outside of her order take Mother Teresa’s words as formal teaching anyway?

because they never repeat themselves in any of her writings, spiritual directions with her directors, letters to her superiors, conferences to her sisters or speeches that she made around the world. Therefore, it’s safe to assume that these were colloguial statements, not well thought out.

That’s assuming too much. They may or may not have been well thought out. You have no way of knowing.

She was being honest and spontaneous.

Yes.

Her writing and her dialogues which she wrote for the purpose of formally communicating her faith and the faith of the Church contain neither of these quotes. The theme that repeats herself is her desire to do whatever God asks her, to bring Christ to the poor and satiate his soul for souls, and to live the poverty of “the man from Assisi” as she calls her spiritual father. This is repeated over and over again for 87 years.

To try to turn this statement into a position statement from Mother then one must also turn her other statements into position statements. We know from her spirituality, her life and those who knew her that those statements are not position statements, because they do not fit into the puzzle of her life.

What exactly about her CITH statement does not fit the puzzle of her life? As far as the ecumenical statement goes, I don’t know–did she ever deny it? Did she ever say there was no salvation outside the Church?

Like all great mystics and saints,

Mother Teresa has not yet been declared a saint, let alone a great one. I know you didn’t actually say this, but your phrasing implies it.

the greatest quality they have is spontaneity, even if they later realize that they may have come across the wrong way.

What???

There is a story about Teresa of Avila. She was cooking and she could feel a rapture coming on. Her spontaneous response was “Lord, sometimes you pick the most inconvenient times. Not now, the soup will burn.” No one takes this to heart, because we know how much she loved God and her time with him in rapture. But the saints are very spontaneous, even if they sound off to others.

Does something about Mother Teresa’s statement regarding CITH sound off to you?

 

[JReducation]

1. Mother Teresa’s statement about communion on the hand does not seem to be a concern that took up a great deal of her time and reflections, as it does not repeat itself again in any of her spritual writings, teachings or communications.
2. Formal statements are those that are repeated, developed and taught for the purpose of being followed, such as what she taught her Society and what the Church authorized her to teach publicly. In Mother’s case, she always focussed on the same theme: Christ’s thirst for souls, Christ’s presence in the poorest of the poor, bringing Christ to others through love and free service, which is the fourth vow of the Society of Missionaries of Charity and the motherhood of Mary about which she writes extensively in her journals and letters. She also wrote extensively about obedience to the Church and the dignity of the unborn child. Those are formal statements, because she meant them to be teachings for all to hear.
3. A person does not need to be canonized to be a saint. There are two traditions in the Church that are still in effect. The frist is what is called the Episcopal Canonization, where a bishop or Major religious superior approves the public veneration of a Blessed in his diocese or religious congregation. Mother Teresa has received such approval for all of the dioceses in India and the Franciscan family. Her feast day is September 5.
4. A person need not be a canonized saint to teach with authority. For example, Blessed Duns Scotus wrote the definitive explanation of the Immaculate Conception, which was adopted by the Church and his words were later used to declare the infallible dogma.
5. As to Mother’s statement regarding the Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Christian being good Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Christians this was a public statement that she made in front of the cameras and is still around. However, Cardinal Ratzinger never refuted it or commented on it. If it had been a serious issue it was his job to do so, as he was the Defender of the Faith. In addition, if Mother had intended it to be a formal teaching, she would not have been beatified, because it needs clarification. I recently read an apologist on CAF who said that if a person did not have the gift of faith, then the best thing that one would wish for him or her was that he or she live a closely as possible to the good that they know. According to this apologist Mother’s statement speaks to this situation, people who have not received the gift of faith.

Fraternally,

JR

Pray for me.

 

[CradleCath]

CradleCath,

That doesn’t seem to verify the quote to me. What you posted is a (at least) 3 times removed from the source, but quite likely more.

(Alleged) Mother Teresa to Fr. Rutler ----> Fr. Rutler to audience at St. Agnes (recorded) —> Recording to transcriber —> Transcriber to internet.

At any of these steps there could have been either a communication error, transcription error, or an error in comprehension.

Isn’t this quote contested? I’ve seen *other *things on the internet (great, more unverifiable hearsay! ) that has Fr. Rutler himself recanting the impression he gave. But even that is contested, and some say that Fr. Rutler is trying to retroactively soft pedal what he previously relayed.

Basically it’s a mess. What do you think?

VC

Since you asked , I believe that Mother Teresa said those words. I don’t think that Fr. Rutler or anyone else erred about this…don’t believe that Fr. Rutler or anyone else doctored the tape that proves that & I don’t think she approved of the practice on CITH.

 

[elts1956]

Was she wrong to bemoan communion in the hand?

Or was she wrong to allow that event to make her* the saddest she ever was*, to consider it the “world’s greatest problem”?

Two very different questions.

I don’t think she was wrong to bemoan communion in the hand.
I think that equating it with the world’s BIGGEST problem, particularly in light of abortion, rape, war, famine, etc. etc. is a bit like my 6 year old saying that her brother wrecking her fort is “the worst thing ever!” Does it stink? Yes. The stinkiest thing ever? C’mon.

But then, we should consider and really think about what that little piece of wafer is. I think the choice of receiving communion in the hand, or on the tongue is a choice to be made. The biggest consideration is to meditate on whether we are worthy to receive Christ’s body in our human hands. Apparently Mother Theresa didn’t think she, or anyone else is. Perhaps the bottom line is how humble are we?

 

[Jacafamala]

If I’m receiving Communion from a Eucharistic minister, I almost invariably receive by hand now. Not because I prefer receiving by hand, but because most Em’s are sooooo sloppy with tongue reception and I wouldn’t want to risk dropping the Eucharist. If the US churches would bring back the patten, it would really help.

But yeah, I feel much better not handling the Eucharist. Handling the Eucharist makes the Body of Christ appear to be more of a thing. Reception on the tongue prevents this from happening.

 

[SHEMP]

But then, we should consider and really think about what that little piece of wafer is. I think the choice of receiving communion in the hand, or on the tongue is a choice to be made. The biggest consideration is to meditate on whether we are worthy to receive Christ’s body in our human hands. Apparently Mother Theresa didn’t think she, or anyone else is. Perhaps the bottom line is how humble are we?

Are you really worthy to receive the body of Christ on your tongue??? How humble are you?

Obediance shows humility. Christ commanded you to take and eat. The bishops set the procedural rules. I wouldn’t judge the humility of others (nor should Blessed Mother Teresa) just because they receive in the hand.

 

[NeedImprovement]

If I’m receiving Communion from a Eucharistic minister, I almost invariably receive by hand now. Not because I prefer receiving by hand, but because most Em’s are sooooo sloppy with tongue reception and I wouldn’t want to risk dropping the Eucharist. If the US churches would bring back the patten, it would really help.

But yeah, I feel much better not handling the Eucharist. Handling the Eucharist makes the Body of Christ appear to be more of a thing. Reception on the tongue prevents this from happening.

I’ve had that experience of sloppy extraordinary ministers too. One lady had extremely long fingernails. When I went up to receive on the tongue - I ended up getting a mouth full of fingernails…didn’t stop me receiving on the tongue though (except from her).

 

[Jacafamala]

I’ve had that experience of sloppy extraordinary ministers too. One lady had extremely long fingernails. When I went up to receive on the tongue - I ended up getting a mouth full of fingernails…didn’t stop me receiving on the tongue though (except from her).

Yeah, I just don’t want any accidents.

On several occasions, EMs have placed the Eucharist half on, half off my tongue. I’ve never had a priest do that at either the TLM or NO. They always place the Body of Christ right square on the tongue.

I think that the EM’s might be trying to avoid getting any salvia on their fingers. Strange, because then we all go ahead and partake of the Precious Blood out of one chalice. Go figure.

Most people walk up, take the Eucharist with one hand and then consume Our Lord as they walk off back to their seats… Chomp, chomp, chomp. Oh, I can’t even look anymore. It’s too painful.

 

[nice2000]

Most people walk up, take the Eucharist with one hand and then consume Our Lord as they walk off back to their seats… Chomp, chomp, chomp. Oh, I can’t even look anymore. It’s too painful.

I had to laugh out loud when I read your post.

It’s funny because I feel the same way too.

I thought I was the only one feeling this way. lol !

I refuse to chew the body of christ. I let my Jesus dissolve somewhat and then swallow it whole.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I had to laugh out loud when I read your post.

It’s funny because I feel the same way too.

I thought I was the only one feeling this way. lol !

I refuse to chew the body of christ. I let my Jesus dissolve somewhat and then swallow it whole.

Where I work as an autonomous (volunteer) chaplain’s assistant and special lay assistant to a severely handicapped priest, in a large palliative care institution, the patients commonly suffer from dysphagia in varying degrees. We are able to obtain a special kind of host (made by some nuns in a neighboring province,) which dissolves more easily. As an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion to the sick and dying, I can tell you it’s a very humbling thing to see - a person who has difficulty swallowing want so badly to receive Holy Communion.

Often I have to break off a small morsel for them to consume - no tongue or teeth stipulations here, just consume.

We also have severely dysphagic patients who sometimes choke on their own saliva. Most are equipped with a PEG
*[PEG, or Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy, is a quick and safe procedure done to insert a feeding tube into the stomach without the need for an operation. A standard gastroscope, the type used to examine the stomach, is used to place a tube through the wall of the stomach and abdomen.

This tube, made of flexible silicone, allows liquid feeds to be put directly into the stomach*].

I’ve seen some who have stayed this way for more than 12 years.

The majority of these type of patients receive a tiny crumb of Holy Communion(smaller than the lead point of a sharpened pencil), sometimes on the tongue, but also between the lip and the teeth to be dissolved by the saliva, or under the tongue.

There are a rare few who can’t even receive this way, though they would dearly love to.

Being in this kind of environment repeatedly weekly, makes me grateful to be able to receive Holy Communion period.*

 

[nice2000]

Where I work as an autonomous (volunteer) chaplain’s assistant and special lay assistant to a severely handicapped priest, in a large palliative care institution, the patients commonly suffer from dysphagia in varying degrees. We are able to obtain a special kind of host (made by some nuns in a neighboring province,) which dissolves more easily. As an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion to the sick and dying, I can tell you it’s a very humbling thing to see - a person who has difficulty swallowing want so badly to receive Holy Communion.

Often I have to break off a small morsel for them to consume - no tongue or teeth stipulations here, just consume.

We also have severely dysphagic patients who sometimes choke on their own saliva. Most are equipped with a PEG
*[PEG, or Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy, is a quick and safe procedure done to insert a feeding tube into the stomach without the need for an operation. A standard gastroscope, the type used to examine the stomach, is used to place a tube through the wall of the stomach and abdomen.

This tube, made of flexible silicone, allows liquid feeds to be put directly into the stomach*].

I’ve seen some who have stayed this way for more than 12 years.

The majority of these type of patients receive a tiny crumb of Holy Communion(smaller than the lead point of a sharpened pencil), sometimes on the tongue, but also between the lip and the teeth to be dissolved by the saliva, or under the tongue.

There are a rare few who can’t even receive this way, though they would dearly love to.

Being in this kind of environment repeatedly weekly, makes me grateful to be able to receive Holy Communion period.*

Wow !
That is amazing.
Thanks for sharing.
I learn something new everyday.

 

[elts1956]

Are you really worthy to receive the body of Christ on your tongue??? How humble are you?

Obediance shows humility. Christ commanded you to take and eat. The bishops set the procedural rules. I wouldn’t judge the humility of others (nor should Blessed Mother Teresa) just because they receive in the hand.

Well Shemp. That is another way to look at it. Are any of us really worthy to receive the body of Christ in either manner? By the way, I am not judging, no one can judge another’s reverence when receiving the host in either manner. Sorry if I gave that impression.

 

[Jacafamala]

nice2000: I had to laugh out loud when I read your post.

It’s funny because I feel the same way too.

I thought I was the only one feeling this way.