Mother Teresa and Holy communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter eelpis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sancte_joseph said:
What do you mean “that is her problem” and “saint are not perfect”
Are you implying that she was wrong in thinking like this?

She wasn’t saying the church doesn’t allow it…of course bishops ALLOW this but in the end you got to see it for what it is…something that is ALLOWED!

If we knew how unworthy we were to recieve Jesus…our knees would buckle at sight of Jesus and we would fall on our knees
We would cry if we meditate on this great mystery and love that Jesus has for us
Click to expand...
Now, all this is prefaced by me saying that I only receive on the tongue. That I personally dislike reception in the hand, and that I am a layperson whose opinion on subjects like this matters very little.

That said: I would agree that once concession for reception in the hand was given many people lost the most immediate and familiar sign of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. However I don’t think that reception on the tongue is the only thing that keeps us aware of Who we’re actually receiving. I think that poor catechisis, secularism, and the influences of Protestantism in the Church also have their roles to play in the decay of our belief in the Real Presence.
And all that is sad. It is very, very sad.

But I’m going to make the bold statement that Mother Teresa was wrong in calling reception in the hand the “saddest thing”. Her obvious dislike of the practice may match up with my personal opinions, but it still is like closing the barn door after the horse got out. Reception in the hand is sad- but the loss of orthodox understanding and reverence of Who is there is the saddest thing.

I’m not convinced that if the practice of reception in the hand was abolished tomorrow that it would return people to a proper reverence, understanding, and love of the Real Presence.
 
sancte_joseph said:
If by Holy Mother Church you mean “us” the church then no…not everyone truly understands
Yes they may be taught that it is Jesus but do they(we) truly truly believe it

as Ghandi said about the Blessed Sacrament:
“If I believed that was God I would be on my face”
Click to expand...
No, I do not mean “us.”

I mean the Holy Mother Church, which is under the Authority of Jesus Christ, and managed here on earth by His vicar, the Pope, and the Magisterium.

The Pope and the Magisterium have given permission for bishops in the U.S. to allow Communion in the hand. They speak for Christ.
 
I’m currently reading Mother Teresa’s writing. I believe that this was a spontaneous response to a spontaneous question. If you read her letters and her journal, the main concern in her writings are the absence of God from her soul, the formation of her sisters, and their work for the poor.

This answer is a personal reflection, which she is entitled to have. But it should not be taken out of the context of her entire life. Her entire life was focussed on satiating Christ’s thirst for souls through the poor.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I’m currently reading Mother Teresa’s writing. I believe that this was a spontaneous response to a spontaneous question. If you read her letters and her journal, the main concern in her writings are the absence of God from her soul, the formation of her sisters, and their work for the poor.

This answer is a personal reflection, which she is entitled to have. But it should not be taken out of the context of her entire life. Her entire life was focussed on satiating Christ’s thirst for souls through the poor.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
Don’t you think she might have meant that proper reverence for the Eucharist in the world could have done much to win souls to Christ?

I also find the quote slightly hard to take in light of the horrendous human suffering she witnessed daily, but some part of me says that that is a worldly reaction.
 
I have received “on the tongue” at the Tridentine mass.
I have received “from the spoon” at the Greek Byzantine mass.

Receiving Jesus in my hand is most humbling, reverant and awe inspiring!
I reach out my hands to Him and He comes to me - to be with me and part of me.

How can you not see the incredible beauty of this act?
Of course I am unworthy to receive Him.
Whether I receive on the tongue or from the spoon or in the hand - I will never be worthy.
Yet when I reach out to Him in all my unworthiness, He comes.to me willingly.
It assures me that yes, as I reach out to Him in each moment, He will come to me.

“For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost.” Luke 19:10

Go with Love, Go with God
 
sancte_joseph said:
If we knew how unworthy we were to recieve Jesus…our knees would buckle at sight of Jesus and we would fall on our knees
We would cry if we meditate on this great mystery and love that Jesus has for us
Click to expand...
I think the fact that we don’t see this reaction in hardly anyone - ever - shows us just how fragile our understanding really is of the mystery of the Eucharist, whether receiving in the hand or on the tongue. Our minds just can’t wrap themselves around it.

I also think our culture in general has stripped us of our awe of the supernatural. We find we are sceptical about most things spiritual, even if we don’t mean to be or want to be. It is a struggle to keep our spiritual eyes sharp and our hearts soft in such a world.
 
Paul_Folbrecht said:
Don’t you think she might have meant that proper reverence for the Eucharist in the world could have done much to win souls to Christ?

I also find the quote slightly hard to take in light of the horrendous human suffering she witnessed daily, but some part of me says that that is a worldly reaction.
Click to expand...
This is as good a speculation as any. It’s just difficult to prove from he writings. Her writings to her spiritual directors and confessors, which have just been made public, make no mention of this event. That’s what makes me think that she spoke very spontaneously. In her writings she does speak about her work for life, over and over. He also dedicates a great deal of time writing her confessors and her superiors about her Dark Night and her voices.

Mother was a very spontaneous person. She often responded to questions as the answers came to her, without rehearsal or preparation. This is part of her holiness and simplicity.

This does not mean that communion in the hand did not bother her. What it means is that if it did, it was not a constant thought in her mind as was the plight of the poor. You can see this in her writings and her instructions to her religious congregation.

Also, Mother knew that it was approved by Bishops in many dioceses. It would be contrary to her personality to say anything to contradict those whom she considered her superiors. When making this statement, it is her soul speaking and it is not meant as a condemnation, but as something that she wishes were not happening. This is perfectly fine for anyone. Holiness does not mean that she had to agree with everything. She only had to obey and respect her superiors. This statement says nothing about those in authority who allowed communion in the hand. It is spoken in the first person.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
DarkNight said:
I have received “on the tongue” at the Tridentine mass.
I have received “from the spoon” at the Greek Byzantine mass.

Receiving Jesus in my hand is most humbling, reverant and awe inspiring!
I reach out my hands to Him and He comes to me - to be with me and part of me.

How can you not see the incredible beauty of this act?
Of course I am unworthy to receive Him.
Whether I receive on the tongue or from the spoon or in the hand - I will never be worthy.
Yet when I reach out to Him in all my unworthiness, He comes.to me willingly.
It assures me that yes, as I reach out to Him in each moment, He will come to me.

“For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost.” Luke 19:10

Go with Love, Go with God
Click to expand...
It was indeed the whole purpose of the Incarnation to bridge the gap between God and man. Christ is our bridge. And in spite of all our unworthiness, he bids us to come. He became one of us so we could come to him and partake of the Divine Nature.

So, although we cannot fully comprehend these things, maybe even less now than in previous times and cultures, because our minds are dull and our hearts are hard, He has chosen to be a bridge for us anyway and the bidding is still there, as much now as ever, to just come to Him and partake.

It is the most beautiful thing in the world.
 
Paul_Folbrecht said:
Don’t you think she might have meant that proper reverence for the Eucharist in the world could have done much to win souls to Christ?

I also find the quote slightly hard to take in light of the horrendous human suffering she witnessed daily, but some part of me says that that is a worldly reaction.
Click to expand...
I think your instinct here at the end is right. It is tempting to think that untold human suffering is an even sadder thing than Communion in the hand, but it isn’t. The unrequited love of the Sacred Heart trumps all human sadness. Communion in the hand is a visible sign of an invisible reality: love of Our Lord is fading from the earth.
 
JReducation said:
This is as good a speculation as any. It’s just difficult to prove from he writings. Her writings to her spiritual directors and confessors, which have just been made public, make no mention of this event. That’s what makes me think that she spoke very spontaneously. In her writings she does speak about her work for life, over and over. He also dedicates a great deal of time writing her confessors and her superiors about her Dark Night and her voices.

Mother was a very spontaneous person. She often responded to questions as the answers came to her, without rehearsal or preparation. This is part of her holiness and simplicity.
Click to expand...
I think you know her better than I. I would point out that the statement being spontaneous does not really lesson it’s ‘impact’ or meaningfulness in any way.
This does not mean that communion in the hand did not bother her. What it means is that if it did, it was not a constant thought in her mind as was the plight of the poor. You can see this in her writings and her instructions to her religious congregation.
Click to expand...
She is certainly known for her crusading for the poor and disadvantaged above all things! There’s no doubt about that.
Also, Mother knew that it was approved by Bishops in many dioceses. It would be contrary to her personality to say anything to contradict those whom she considered her superiors. When making this statement, it is her soul speaking and it is not meant as a condemnation, but as something that she wishes were not happening. This is perfectly fine for anyone. Holiness does not mean that she had to agree with everything. She only had to obey and respect her superiors. This statement says nothing about those in authority who allowed communion in the hand. It is spoken in the first person.
Click to expand...
Certainly, obedience is completely paramount. I am always reminded of how Padre Pio suffered the indignations he did from his enemies in the heirarchy in complete humility and without question. And how Christ told St. Faustina to obey her superior ahead of Him! So, I agree that this is certainly not an item she would have regaled publicly and repeatedly on.

I’d imagine she would have and maybe did speak out about gross unorthodoxy in the Church if she did encounter it, however.
 
I had a tendency to quote Mother Theresa of Calcutta without being able to provide a reference sometimes. This thread is a good reminder for me to substantiate my quotes.

That being said, and also what made her the saddest being said;
At her Nobel Peace Prize Lecture on December 11, 1979 , Mother Theresa said "abortion is the greatest destroyer of peace in the world."

nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/teresa-lecture.html

I was pleasantly surprised to find that link was provided by Wikipedia, at this link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa
 
SHEMP said:
Sounds like the proverbial “Friend of a Friend” Quote!

My bishop says its ok for me to receive in the hand. My bishop is in communion with the local Church, the Holy Father and the Magisterium. If that is an actual quote from Mother Teresa then that is her problem. Saints are not perfect!

I respectfuly submit to the authority of my bishops who legaly set the norms in this local Church. If the Holy Father requires that I receive on the tongue then I will submit to his authority and obey. Mother Teresa was the model for obedience!
Click to expand...
The bishop in question does not require you to recieve in the hand he’s recieved an indult via his episcopal conferance that allows you to deviate from the norm, that is communion on the tongue.

If a saint says that communion on the tongue is better, I listen, she knows what she 's talking about. I stick to the normal way of recieving communion. Not the one invented in Holland by extreme liberalists.
 
I think we have to be careful not to depend on an emotional experience as our gauge of whether or not we are reverent and respectful in our soul towards Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

Some people are emotional and when they see Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, they fall on their knees and hide their face in their cloak.

That’s fine, but it doesn’t mean that the person who doesn’t have an emotional response is irreverent. Reverence is a state of the soul and a choice to give God the respect that is due to Him. This respect may or may not be expressed through a body position. The respect may be expressed through a choice to walk away and do good in the world.

And please, always keep in mind that many people can’t “fall on their knees” or kneel even if they want to due to limitations of their body. Are these people less reverent because they remain standing or sitting in the Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament?
 
Cat said:
And please, always keep in mind that many people can’t “fall on their knees” or kneel even if they want to due to limitations of their body. Are these people less reverent because they remain standing or sitting in the Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament?
Click to expand...
It goes without saying that people who are infirm and can’t kneel due to the limitations of their body are NOT being irreverent. However from a physiological point of view, wouldn’t it be harder for them to remain standing rather than sitting or kneeling?
 
eelpis said:
When she was asked. What do you consider the worlds greatest problem?

She said: “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people take communion in the hand.”

Was she wrong to feel that way?
Click to expand...
Hmmm…wow. Did she really say that? It doesn’t correspond with her work in saving the most miserable of the miserable, in terms of physical suffering.
 
eelpis said:
If a saint says that communion on the tongue is better, I listen, she knows what she 's talking about.
Click to expand...
Really? St Augustine and St Catherine of Siena, both Doctors of the Church mind you, both spoke against Mary’s being immaculately conceived. St Catherine claimed that Mary had revealed her non-immaculate status to her in a vision, if memory serves. Yet both were undoubtedly saintly, and both in spite of their badly mistaken (but sincere) notions are now in heaven.

What makes you think Mother Teresa knew, in this instance, any more what she was talking about than they did? Saints are holy and admirable people, to be sure, but they are not infallible teachers.
 
LilyM said:
Really? St Augustine and St Catherine of Siena, both Doctors of the Church mind you, both spoke against Mary’s being immaculately conceived. St Catherine claimed that Mary had revealed her non-immaculate status to her in a vision, if memory serves. Yet both were undoubtedly saintly, and both in spite of their badly mistaken (but sincere) notions are now in heaven.

What makes you think Mother Teresa knew, in this instance, any more what she was talking about than they did? Saints are holy and admirable people, to be sure, but they are not infallible teachers.
Click to expand...
Mother Teresa is a far better guide than extreme liberalists and clamorers for womenpriests-the one’s who illegaly introduced communion in the hand first in Holland, the Holy See then approved a fait accompli.

Communion in the hand is NOT the norm it’s a deviation from the norm-an allowance is not a reccomendation.
 
Cat said:
I think we have to be careful not to depend on an emotional experience as our gauge of whether or not we are reverent and respectful in our soul towards Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

Reverence is a state of the soul and a choice to give God the respect that is due to Him. This respect may or may not be expressed through a body position. The respect may be expressed through a choice to walk away and do good in the world.

And please, always keep in mind that many people can’t “fall on their knees” or kneel even if they want to due to limitations of their body. Are these people less reverent because they remain standing or sitting in the Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament?
Click to expand...
Not only this, but I’m wracking my brains here, and I’m pretty sure that the majority of images I’ve seen of Our Lady holding the Infant show her either sitting or standing. If the very Mother of God held Him in her hands (and while standing, no less), then maybe it’s not entirely fair to judge the condition of one’s heart toward Our Lord entirely by posture.

And yes, yes, Our Lady is in a class entirely unto herself vis a vis the rest of the human race, but my point stands- if one is going to judge a human’s heart by how they receive Our Lord, then one must eventually come to the uncomfortable application of those same criteria to Our Lady.
 
Feedmysheep said:
Not only this, but I’m wracking my brains here, and I’m pretty sure that the majority of images I’ve seen of Our Lady holding the Infant show her either sitting or standing. If the very Mother of God held Him in her hands (and while standing, no less), then maybe it’s not entirely fair to judge the condition of one’s heart toward Our Lord entirely by posture.

And yes, yes, Our Lady is in a class entirely unto herself vis a vis the rest of the human race, but my point stands- if one is going to judge a human’s heart by how they receive Our Lord, then one must eventually come to the uncomfortable application of those same criteria to Our Lady.
Click to expand...
Of course she couldn’t hold him on her tongue in a kneeling position, nor would it have made any sense to do so, since her vocation was to be his mother and therefore to hold his incarnate body whole in her arms.

A more useful way, perhaps, to seek guidance from the Blessed Virgin regarding the reception of the Eucharistic Christ is to imagine her as a communicant any time after the Ascension. Knowing what she knew, how would she approach her Lord and King?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top