Mother Teresa and Holy communion

[LilyM]

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?

Her Lord and King is at one and the same time her dearly beloved and obedient son, the same son who was the baby she bore in her womb and in her arms, whose diapers she changed, who she rebuked when she found Him in the Temple. She can approach Him however she darn well wants!

Look at the Wedding at Cana - is she recorded as offering so much as a ‘please’ or a ‘thankyou’? She doesn’t just grovellingly request a favour, she almost demands it as her queenly due as if she already knows the prerogatives that belong to the King’s mother.

My Lord and King is also my loving brother - are we not heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ? Is not Mary the Queen our mother too? Does this not make us princes and princesses of the heavenly kingdom, and dare I say it, possibly with certain prerogatives of our own, rather than mere lowly no-account serfs?

While the utmost respect and reverence is due Him, such is not at all incompatible with closeness and familiarity - after all, isn’t God the Almighty Father, the awesome creator and all powerful judge, at one and the same time the One who Himself teaches us to call Him ‘Abba’, ‘Daddy’?

 

[Feedmysheep]

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?

What was the point of my post, Binx? Let me state it even more clearly.

You. Cannot. Judge. The. Content. Of. A. Person’s. Heart. By. The. Posture. Of. His. Body.

Is that clear enough? And if you DO insist on judging a person’s “level of reverence” by how they receive, then you also have to judge Our Lady by the same standards. Since I’m pretty sure that painting of Our Lady adoring her Son in the Blessed Sacrament has her standing. Can’t find the picture ATM, but I’ll look.

 

[NeedImprovement]

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?

I was injured in a work accident (in 1994) with permanent consequences. I was under a toppling scaffold structure. My spine and knees were injured. I did physiotherapy daily for more than one year attempting to return to work with 4 relapses. There was ample time to go to daily Mass.

I couldn’t kneel for almost a year, and each time I sat, especially in a pew, it aggravated the injury to the spinal column. I could hardly even bow my head a little at the consecration. Although I learned to “kneel in my heart” during this time, I sorely missed not being able to kneel physically at the consecration. I begged God not to take away my ability to pysically kneel before his Eucharistic presence. My prayer was granted…with some remaining degree of difficulty mind you, but it just gives me something else to offer Him.

Sitting can still be a problem. At my home parish, I stand at the back of the Church during weekly Mass to avoid sitting, making my way to the pew/kneeler for the beginning of the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

In my apostolate, I’ve seen patients who can’t walk literally crawl out of their wheelchairs on to the kneelers in the chapel so they could kneel before the Blessed Sacrament for several moments, or even for the Crucifixion during recitation of the Sorrowful Mysteries.

 

[Cat]

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?

Not necessarily. Everyone is different. Every injury or disability is different.

I can kneel on a kneeler for a minute, but not much longer or I won’t be able to get up. As for kneeling on a floor, especially concrete, tile, or wood–forget it. Even if I could get down (which I can’t without help), I can’t get up without help.

I hate this about myself. But it’s the way things are.

And it’s not always the old and fat. Sometimes people who are young and healthy-looking have disabilities that we can’t see.

And some of those disabilities are mental or emotional. I think we need to be so very very careful never, ever to judge someone based on their physical appearance or physical display of reverence. EVER! OK?

 

[James0235]

…There was ample time to go to daily Mass.

I guess you can always find a positive in every bad situation.
“All things work for good for those who love God” (Romans 8:28)

Although I learned to “kneel in my heart” during this time…

I like that line.

I was at daily Mass yesterday. It is a parish that still uses the altar rails. Most everyone kneels and receives on the tongue. If someone decides to stand or to receive in the hand they are not refused communion. But, that rarely seems to happen.

I was next to last in line for communion. I knelt in the last spot at the altar rail and a woman comes up and stands next to me. She was older (60s or older). She could either kneel on the floor or stand. She was standing. I offered to trade places with her so she could kneel on the cushioned kneeler and I would kneel on the floor. But she said that she stands for communion.

After communion I noticed that she was standing in the back of the Church for the rest of Mass. She had probably been standing for all of Mass.

I did not have the words to describe it yesterday but today I realize she was probably kneeling in her heart.

James

 

[NeedImprovement]

@ Cat: I hear you about hard floors. Half the Masses I attend I have to serve (actually more than just serve when helping a patient who is an extremely handicapped priest celebrate the Mass). It’s either a concrete floor (w/tiles) or a marble one…really nice on the knees…NOT!!

We may have missed a point about Mother Theresa. Some saints (not trying to precede the Church here) are kind of prophetic in their thinking…ie they can anticipate the next stage or stages of certain trends.

It is recounted that in the biography of Blessed Brother André (founder of St. Joseph’s Oratory here in Montreal) when he would see some of the fashions women were wearing in his day, he would weep. Considering he died in 1937, one could justly ask what was there to weep about in women’s fashions then. The author explained that brother André was not weeping about the current clothing of the day as much as he was able to anticipate what the next stage(s) were going to be…this from a man of very little education. Figuratively speaking, he could see what was coming down the pipes.

So Mother Theresa may have been contemplating/anticipating particular abuses which would materialize (perhaps we could say)
with greater facility as a consequence of Holy Communion being given/received in the hand.

Gestures are indeed important. In the Church they are meant to point to God, to give and preserve a sense of the sacred. I always wear an alb when I serve Mass…to visually state clearly that there is Someone and something very Holy happening on the altar.

Ponder it a second: The concise definition of a Sacrament is a sense perceptible sign which effects what it signifies. Why is it sense perceptible if not so we can see it, touch it, feel it, hear it, eat it ? And did you ever notice that a sign always points to Someone or something else?

Just my opinion, but taking away all sacred signs and gestures is like stripping our beloved Jesus of his garments all over again.

 

[NeedImprovement]

To clarify:Holy Communion can be reverently received in the hand.

Commonly when one receives Holy Communion in the hand , one is asked to show a sign of respect (usu. a slight bow of the head).
Receiving on the tongue is already considered an act of respect.

From the same document “permitting” reception of Communion in the hand:
**Memoriale Domini **May 29, 1969, under Pope Paul VI

(speaking of Communion on the tongue here)
…In addition, this manner of communicating, which is now to be considered as prescribed by custom, gives more effective assurance that Holy Communion will be distributed with the appropriate reverence, decorum, and dignity; that any danger of profaning the Eucharistic species, in which “the whole and entire Christ, God and man, is substantially contained and permanently present in a unique way,” (9) will be avoided; and finally that the diligent care which the Church has always commended for the very fragments of the consecrated bread will be maintained: “If you have allowed anything to be lost, consider this a lessening of your own members.” …(10)

Notice in this next document excerpt (which also confirms Holy Communion may be received reverently in the hand) that Pope John Paul II used the same word as Mother Theresa - “sad”, when referring to the abuses that have come about as a result of giving Holy Communion in the hand, and that how in the first paragraph quoted below, he initially stresses the importance of the clergy’s acts and gestures when dealing with/handling the Blessed Sacrament:

**Dominicae Cenae **February 24, 1980 , under Pope John Paul II

…It is from this admonition that the priest’s attitude in handling the bread and wine which have become the body and blood of the Redeemer should draw its inspiration. Thus it is necessary for all of us who are ministers of the Eucharist to examine carefully our actions at the altar, in particular the way in which we handle that food and drink which are the body and blood of the Lord our God in our hands: the way in which we distribute Holy Communion; the way in which we perform the purification…

In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the ***sad ***phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized…

I’d read at EWTN that just as the Church has permitted reception of Communion in the hand, She could also revoke it at some time in the future if there were grave cause. One Vatican Official has been observing the consequences for a while. His opinion is given very briefly at the following link:

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=56354

 

[Beachcomber]

Mother Theresa worked among the poorest of the poor and saw undescribable suffering. However, if the saddest thing to her was communion in the hand; well, she can feel that way but I think the suffering of people she encountered on an hourly basis is far worse.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Mother Theresa worked among the poorest of the poor and saw undescribable suffering. However, if the saddest thing to her was communion in the hand; well, she can feel that way but I think the suffering of people she encountered on an hourly basis is far worse.

Irreverent behavior towards the Eucharist is much worse than any human suffering. It is in a class of evil all by itself. Mother Theresa’s comment probably stemmed from seeing people walk up to receive communion, stick out their hand, and walk away with no external signs of reverence or devotion.

Earlier someone in this thread said something to the effect of *“you can’t see the devition of the heart through external actions”. *That is not completely true. While it is true that a person can fake internal devotion through a pretended external devotion, lack of external devotion is a pretty good sign of a lack of internal devotion, since internal devotion usually manifests itself exteriorly.

In fact, it would seem to me to be extremely rare (if not impossible) for a person be internally recollected and devout, while externally appearing to be irreverent. External irreverence would seem to be incompatable with internal devotion.

 

[catharina]

Not necessarily. Everyone is different. Every injury or disability is different.

I can kneel on a kneeler for a minute, but not much longer or I won’t be able to get up. As for kneeling on a floor, especially concrete, tile, or wood–forget it. Even if I could get down (which I can’t without help), I can’t get up without help.

I hate this about myself. But it’s the way things are.

And it’s not always the old and fat. Sometimes people who are young and healthy-looking have disabilities that we can’t see.

And some of those disabilities are mental or emotional. I think we need to be so very very careful never, ever to judge someone based on their physical appearance or physical display of reverence. EVER! OK?

Such a good point. A dear friend of mine died a few years ago. She was an 84-yr-old Daughter of Charity at the the time of her death. Over her final years, from time to time, we would discuss her health. She confided at one point that she had to sit for most of the Mass. I said — oh, I’m so sorry; you can’t kneel anymore? — Quick as a wink, she answered — oh, I can kneel. I just can’t get up from kneeling. — (Yes, such impediments can be quite humbling.)

 

[catharina]

Irreverent behavior towards the Eucharist is much worse than any human suffering. It is in a class of evil all by itself. Mother Theresa’s comment PROBABLY stemmed from seeing people walk up to receive communion, stick out their hand, and walk away with no external signs of reverence or devotion.

That's a very questionable PROBABLY. (We have no idea.)

 

[catharina]

Irreverent behavior towards the Eucharist is much worse than any human suffering. It is in a class of evil all by itself. Mother Theresa’s comment PROBABLY stemmed from seeing people walk up to receive communion, stick out their hand, and walk away with no external signs of reverence or devotion.

That’s a very questionable PROBABLY. (We have no idea.)

 

[Cat]

Irreverent behavior towards the Eucharist is much worse than any human suffering. It is in a class of evil all by itself. Mother Theresa’s comment probably stemmed from seeing people walk up to receive communion, stick out their hand, and walk away with no external signs of reverence or devotion.

Earlier someone in this thread said something to the effect of *“you can’t see the devition of the heart through external actions”. *That is not completely true. While it is true that a person can fake internal devotion through a pretended external devotion, lack of external devotion is a pretty good sign of a lack of internal devotion, since internal devotion usually manifests itself exteriorly.

In fact, it would seem to me to be extremely rare (if not impossible) for a person be internally recollected and devout, while externally appearing to be irreverent. External irreverence would seem to be incompatable with internal devotion.

Ever heard of Tourette?

We have a gentleman in our parish who suffers from this. The first time I saw him–forgive me–I thought he was acting out and I wondered why the ushers didn’t ask him to leave. Then I realized what was going on. He can’t look reverent if he tries.

Other possibilities are ADHD, any kind of nervous disorder, clinical depression, and exhaustion. These physical conditions can make a person look like they have no reverence at all, but in reality, they are very reverent in their heart.

I’ll say it again–we need to be very VERY careful not to judge someone’s reverence by their external appearance.

IMO, if we are noticing other people during reverent times, then we ourselves are guilty of irreverence toward Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

There’s an old hymn, “Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus,” and one of the lines is, “And the things of earth will grow strangely dim in the light of his glory and grace.”

 

[catharina]

I’ll say it again–we need to be very VERY careful not to judge someone’s reverence by their external appearance.

IMO, if we are noticing other people during reverent times, then we ourselves are guilty of irreverence toward Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. "

Again, YES - and my very point about Mother Teresa’s distractibility: quite UNlikely.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Mother Theresa worked among the poorest of the poor and saw undescribable suffering. However, if the saddest thing to her was communion in the hand; well, she can feel that way but I think the suffering of people she encountered on an hourly basis is far worse.

We could probably draw a parallel here:

Mother Theresa could see Christ in the poorest of the poor [Matthew 25:40].

With the eyes of faith she could have most likely seen Him in the Blessed Sacrament too.

Again, my point is that it was more likely **the abuses facilitated by Communion in the hand rather than the reception of Communion in the hand itself which saddened her **(as it would seem it saddened Pope John Paul II).

 

[Binx]

Her Lord and King is at one and the same time her dearly beloved and obedient son, the same son who was the baby she bore in her womb and in her arms, whose diapers she changed, who she rebuked when she found Him in the Temple. She can approach Him however she darn well wants!

Yes, but that is because what she wants is proper to her state. She cannot, for instance, approach him however you darn well want her to, nor it seems would she want to.

Look at the Wedding at Cana - is she recorded as offering so much as a ‘please’ or a ‘thankyou’? She doesn’t just grovellingly request a favour, she almost demands it as her queenly due as if she already knows the prerogatives that belong to the King’s mother.

As the son of her flesh, Jesus wills to be obedient to her. As her creator and savior, Christ is her Lord and King. Mary was and is the model of humility. Indeed, in the Eucharistic context, it is a strain to imagine her any other way–such as demanding her “queenly due” and the “prerogatives that belong to the King’s mother.” All things are given to Mary by way of her humility and not by presumption, no matter how much, in her particular case, the presumption might be justified.

My Lord and King is also my loving brother - are we not heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ? Is not Mary the Queen our mother too? Does this not make us princes and princesses of the heavenly kingdom, and dare I say it, possibly with certain prerogatives of our own, rather than mere lowly no-account serfs?

If you are indeed a princess and I a prince, it would be much better for us not to think so in this life, especially if thinking so would lead us to take for ourselves certain public prerogatives. True royalty have the manners–the exterior dispositions–appropriate to the dignity of their office, and they always know when they are in the presence of the King, and their outward demeanor is reflective of this knowledge.

While the utmost respect and reverence is due Him, such is not at all incompatible with closeness and familiarity - after all, isn’t God the Almighty Father, the awesome creator and all powerful judge, at one and the same time the One who Himself teaches us to call Him ‘Abba’, ‘Daddy’?

Yes, and that is well put. Intimacy is not incompatible with reverence. Nonchalance, however, is.

 

[catharina]

We could probably draw a parallel here:

Mother Theresa could see Christ in the poorest of the poor [Matthew 25:40].

With the eyes of faith she could have most likely seen Him in the Blessed Sacrament too.

Again, my point is that it was more likely **the abuses facilitated by Communion in the hand rather than the reception of Communion in the hand itself which saddened her **(as it would seem it saddened Pope John Paul II).

Any abuses of the Holy Eucharist are indeed saddening and horrific to all of us. You could well be 100% correct in your guess as to the rise of such abuse since the changes in reception.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Any abuses of the Holy Eucharist are indeed saddening and horrific to all of us. You could well be 100% correct in your guess as to the rise of such abuse since the changes in reception.

The prayer the Angel of Fatima taught the three children in 1917 is evidence that abuse of the Blessed Sacrament existed before Communion in the hand, yet at the same time the prayer confirms what you say catharina, as to the gravity of such abuse.

According to Pope John Paul II there was/is also a deepening of love for Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament present at the same time in the world…also from the document Dominicae Cenae:

“The encouragement and the deepening of Eucharistic worship are proofs of the authentic renewal which the Council set itself as an aim and of which they are the central point.”

                      ***********************

Here’s the rank of importance St. Peter Julian Eymard gave to reverence of the Blessed Sacrament:

“Let us never forget that an age prospers or dwindles in proportion to its devotion to the Holy Eucharist. This is the measure of its spiritual life and its faith, of its charity and its virtue.”

 

[Binx]

What was the point of my post, Binx? Let me state it even more clearly.

You. Cannot. Judge. The. Content. Of. A. Person’s. Heart. By. The. Posture. Of. His. Body.

Is that clear enough? And if you DO insist on judging a person’s “level of reverence” by how they receive, then you also have to judge Our Lady by the same standards. Since I’m pretty sure that painting of Our Lady adoring her Son in the Blessed Sacrament has her standing. Can’t find the picture ATM, but I’ll look.

Sorry to have offended you, Feedmysheep.

I understood the point you were attempting to make the first time. I merely noted that your analogy does not hold.

Here is what I understood you to be saying:
If we judge that Communion in the hand is lacking in reverence, then we must also say that Mary was irreverent by holding Jesus in her arms. Since we would never say this of her, neither can we say it of those who receive the Blessed Sacrament in the hand.

What I then tried to point out, perhaps ineffectively, is that our relationship to the Eucharistic Christ is categorically different from Mary’s relationship to the incarnate Person who was her son by flesh and blood, thereby gifting her the unique role of human motherhood with him. Because of this categorical difference in the nature of the two relationships you are comparing, your conclusion does not follow.

Contrary to what you seem to assume, I quite agree with you regarding our inability to judge the inner reverence possessed by particular communicants, regardless of their postures. It seems to me, though, that Mother Teresa’s statement is not meant to be a condemnation of individual communicants so much as it is a global observation, a sweeping visual sign that represents in general the world’s gradual drift from faith, an apparent loss of love for its Savior–at least by all outward appearances.

 

[JReducation]

I belive that we’re getting off topic here. The title of the thread is Mother Teresa and Holy Communion.

First, to readdress her statement, there are times when great saints will make statements that the Church considers colloquil statements. These are statements that are spontaneous and usually arise in conversation (colloquy). There are other times when saints make formal statements. These are statements that they make with intention of being observed, believed or put into practice.

When Mother spoke about Jesus thirst for souls she was making a formal statement. How do we know this? Because it is repeated formally in her constitution to the Society that she founded; because she left a religious order to found a Society to bring the souls of the poor to Christ; because she discussed these things at great length with her superiors, spiritual directors and confessors and we have the documents to prove it. The reference to communion in the hand is not included in her documents, at least none of the ones that have been open for public reading.

Second, Mother does speak a great deal about the Eucharist in her writings and in her talkss to her Society. But her talks on the Eucharist are always about communion with the Lover, Jesus Christ. In her talks about communion she also speaks a great deal about finding the poor in the Eucharist. She focuses the Eucharist toward the poor.

She wrote “We will try to spread through the slums the love and the true devotion to the Blessed Sacrament in thanksgiving for our Society.” This was in a letter that she wrote the the Archbishop of Calcutta regarding the Eucharist and the mission of her Society. The love for the Eucharist was to be shared with the poor. The sharing was an act of thanksgiving.

When she was very sick and near death she told one of her sisters, “Jesus is asking a bit too much.” The next day she said to the same sister, “I want Jesus”. The chaplain was summoned to celebrate mass for the sisters and Mother was able to receive a few drops of the Precious Blood through a tracheal tube. This was in 1996. The year before she died.

She shared with her sisters that she wanted believers and non believers to see that her strength to hang on, despite everything that the Lord was asking for came from the Eucharist.

In her mind, suffering is what Christ takes from humanity as a gift to him and the strength to accept suffering is what Christ gives to humanity through the Eucharist as a gift to man.

Her theology of the Eucharist is a formal statement. It was her intention that it be recorded for posterity and taught to others.

We are focussing on one of her less significant statements and missing her Eucharistic theology.

In fact, Mother always received on the tongue, but did not always kneel to receive. She taught her Society to be flexible. There are pictures of her receiving communion, even from our Holy Father John Paul II, standing.

Maybe we need to focus more on what she teaches about the Eucharist itself, rather than the hand or tongue. What she has to say about the Eucharist is formal teaching. The other was a spontaneous response from the gut, but not a major concern through her life. What she believed and taught about the Eucharist is true reverence.

Finally, remember that Mother was a Franciscan. She subscribed to Francis’ teaching that no matter how sinful the priest or circumstances, it was only through the priest that they could perceive any visible sign of Christ in the world. Notice how their focus is on Christ’s visible presence. The rest is important, but not so important as to forget the presence of Christ and his connection to suffering and poverty.

Sometimes we place too much importance on the question of hand or tongue and forget that the Christ in the Eucharist is suffering in the world around us. We may be receiving communion with great reverence on our tongue while kneeling and not revering Christ for we do not see the souls of the poor in the host. Mother Teresa did. She also saw thirst of Christ for the poor in the host. That vision is the greatest act of reverence when receiving the Eucharist.

Fraternally,

JR