Mother Teresa and Holy communion

[Lepanto]

It’s my understanding that all members of the Missionaries of Charity (Mother Teresa’s congregation) are taught to ONLY receive communion on the tongue.

The actions by the MCs that I had personally seen at Mass or on televised Masses were consistent with this.

If anyone has ever seen an MC take communion in the hand, please let us know.

 

[JReducation]

It’s my understanding that all members of the Missionaries of Charity (Mother Teresa’s congregation) are taught to ONLY receive communion on the tongue.

The actions by the MCs that I had personally seen at Mass or on televised Masses were consistent with this.

If anyone has ever seen an MC take communion in the hand, please let us know.

I have never seen one. I have seen them stand, but always take communion on the tongue.

However, the most important part is Mother’s Eucharistic theology.

JR

 

[Binx]

I belive that we’re getting off topic here.

I can’t see it, as all the posts leading up to yours make direct reference to the question raised in the OP.

The title of the thread is Mother Teresa and Holy Communion.

Yes, and here is the very short, very focused OP in its entirety: **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?**

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

So say you, but the original poster was interested in this “less significant” statement.

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.

Perhaps you could start another thread.

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.

You know this, how?

What she believed and taught about the Eucharist is true reverence.

Would this include her statement referenced in the OP?

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.

Could it be that Mother Teresa’s understanding of the suffering Christ is directly correlated to her dismay over the indignities he continues to suffer by way of his perpetual exposure to unconsecrated hands?

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.

The poorest of the poor is the Son of Man himself. In the Eucharist, we should see no other.

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.

Any time we truly see the love of Christ in the Host–whether it be for the materially poor, the poor in spirit, or anybody else–then we are likely to be compelled internally to be reverent, which is a dear consolation. Of course we cannot manufacture insight or emotions or other interior states every time (or, in my case, hardly any times) we receive; nevertheless, we can always do what is under our external control by making an act of reverence that aligns clearly with what we believe by the grace of faith to be happening in reality.

 

[SHEMP]

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

It just sounds disrespectful to the Holy Father and the Bishops.

 

[SHEMP]

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 am not saying nasty things about you for receiving on the tongue. You are right that this is the norm. But receiving in the hands is allowed by our bishops. The pope and the magisterium have allowed the local bishops to make these rules. Until they say otherwise, it would be wise to show some respect.

Saints are not right about everything. You do not have to show devotion to any saint. You have to submit to the authority of hour bishop, the magisterium and the pope.

 

[KingAlfred]

I love Mother Theresa, but sometimes she strikes me as a bit of an enigma. I used to read her works voraciously, but one day realized that her teachings really don’t apply very much to my life. I don’t want to sound heartless, but her ‘charity at all costs’ philosophy simply isn’t possible for the average person. If I treated my students the way she treated her flock, for example, they’d eat me alive, so to speak. Once I made this realization, I felt less drawn to Mother Theresa’s work.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I love Mother Theresa … I don’t want to sound heartless, but her ‘charity at all costs’ philosophy simply isn’t possible for the average person… (

Without grace, we could never hope to accomplish what the saints did. Even then, I believe it was Cardinal John Henry Neuman who said (paraphrasing here): I can’t ask for more sufferings/crosses like the some of the great saints did; I can only ask for the grace to bear the ones God sends me.

I know it’s a little off topic, but although Mother Theresa said abortion is the greatest destroyer of peace in the world, according to the following of her quotes the disruption of the peace of the world begins with a lack of charity at home :

"Jesus taught us how to forgive out of love, how to forget out of humility. So let us examine our hearts and see if there is any unforgiven hurt – any unforgotten bitterness! It is easy to love those who are far away. It isn’t always easy to love those who are right next to us. It is easier to offer food to the hungry than to answer the lonely suffering of someone who lacks love right in one’s own family. The world today is upside down because there is so very little love in the home, and in family life. We have no time for each other. Everybody is in such a terrible rush, and so anxious … and in the home begins the disruption of the peace of the world. "

(I’m not posting the link where I found this quote because it looks pretty commercial - they’ll try to sell you stuff w/the quote)

 

[Beachcomber]

I love Mother Theresa, but sometimes she strikes me as a bit of an enigma. I used to read her works voraciously, but one day realized that her teachings really don’t apply very much to my life. I don’t want to sound heartless, but her ‘charity at all costs’ philosophy simply isn’t possible for the average person. If I treated my students the way she treated her flock, for example, they’d eat me alive, so to speak. Once I made this realization, I felt less drawn to Mother Theresa’s work.

I agree with you. It isn’t possible for the average person; and then, of course, that’s why people are called to sainthood in different ways. I think that in whatever state of life we are, we are called to sanctity. It’s just different for each person.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

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”

Poor Bapu…

Anyway, Mother Theresa was right. Communion in the hand is terrible and leads to irreverence, in my opinion.

 

[JReducation]

I can’t see it, as all the posts leading up to yours make direct reference to the question raised in the OP.

Yes, and here is the very short, very focused OP in its entirety: **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?**

So say you, but the original poster was interested in this “less significant” statement.

Perhaps you could start another thread.

You know this, how?

Would this include her statement referenced in the OP?

Could it be that Mother Teresa’s understanding of the suffering Christ is directly correlated to her dismay over the indignities he continues to suffer by way of his perpetual exposure to unconsecrated hands?

The poorest of the poor is the Son of Man himself. In the Eucharist, we should see no other.

Any time we truly see the love of Christ in the Host–whether it be for the materially poor, the poor in spirit, or anybody else–then we are likely to be compelled internally to be reverent, which is a dear consolation. Of course we cannot manufacture insight or emotions or other interior states every time (or, in my case, hardly any times) we receive; nevertheless, we can always do what is under our external control by making an act of reverence that aligns clearly with what we believe by the grace of faith to be happening in reality.

Ok, here’s the deal. You want to focus on something that Mother said in a spontaneous moment and ignore what she wrote all her life concerning the Eucharist.

The comment was one that the Church calls a colloquial comment. Her writings the Church calls formal writings. You want to put more stress on her colloguial statemen than on her formal theology of the Eucharist, go ahead.

That’s your right. But you’re missing a great deal of spiritual wealth that she has to offer the Church.

Pray for me.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[eelpis]

I am not saying nasty things about you for receiving on the tongue. You are right that this is the norm. But receiving in the hands is allowed by our bishops. The pope and the magisterium have allowed the local bishops to make these rules. Until they say otherwise, it would be wise to show some respect.

Saints are not right about everything. You do not have to show devotion to any saint. You have to submit to the authority of hour bishop, the magisterium and the pope.

You make it sound as if all are required to recieve in the hand, that’s as absurd as everyone was required to attend the indult mass. (before SP) I’ve never said anything to the effect that communion in the hand is not allowed.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Ok, here’s the deal. You want to focus on something that Mother said in a spontaneous moment and ignore what she wrote all her life concerning the Eucharist.

He is discussing the topic of the thread. Here’s the OP

**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?**

The thread is not discussing her Eucharistic theology, which, hopefully, was not any different than the Eucharistic theology of the Church.

Why are you criticizing Binx for staying on topic?
JR:

The comment was one that the Church calls a colloquial comment. Her writings the Church calls formal writings. You want to put more stress on her colloguial statemen than on her formal theology of the Eucharist, go ahead.

That’s your right. But you’re missing a great deal of spiritual wealth that she has to offer the Church.

Your missing the point. Her statement is the topic of the thread. Why are you trying to divert the subject away from the topic and onto her Eucharistic theology? Is it because you receive communion in the hand and are uncomfortable with what she said?

 

[eelpis]

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.

That’s why you’re not Mother Teresa.

 

[SHEMP]

You make it sound as if all are required to recieve in the hand, that’s as absurd as everyone was required to attend the indult mass. (before SP) I’ve never said anything to the effect that communion in the hand is not allowed.

No I didn’t. I said that receiving on the tongue is the norm but receiving in the hand is allowed! Using harsh words to describe the practice of receiving in the hand when my bishops say this is ok and the pope and magisterium allow it is rather rebellious and shows a lack of humility.

 

[KingAlfred]

Without grace, we could never hope to accomplish what the saints did. Even then, I believe it was Cardinal John Henry Neuman who said (paraphrasing here): I can’t ask for more sufferings/crosses like the some of the great saints did; I can only ask for the grace to bear the ones God sends me.

I know it’s a little off topic, but although Mother Theresa said abortion is the greatest destroyer of peace in the world, according to the following of her quotes the disruption of the peace of the world begins with a lack of charity at home :

"Jesus taught us how to forgive out of love, how to forget out of humility. So let us examine our hearts and see if there is any unforgiven hurt – any unforgotten bitterness! It is easy to love those who are far away. It isn’t always easy to love those who are right next to us. It is easier to offer food to the hungry than to answer the lonely suffering of someone who lacks love right in one’s own family. The world today is upside down because there is so very little love in the home, and in family life. We have no time for each other. Everybody is in such a terrible rush, and so anxious … and in the home begins the disruption of the peace of the world. "

(I’m not posting the link where I found this quote because it looks pretty commercial - they’ll try to sell you stuff w/the quote)

Praise God. I identify with your passion for Mother Theresa. I love her work. The problem is that if I reveal that kind of loving care to my students, they’ll take advantage of me and wreck the entire classroom environment. Mother Theresa was able to treat people the way she did precisely because she was a Catholic missionary to the sick and dying. I guarantee she didn’t treat her students the same way (she was a teacher at one time).

 

[NeedImprovement]

Praise God. I identify with your passion for Mother Theresa. I love her work. The problem is that if I reveal that kind of loving care to my students, they’ll take advantage of me and wreck the entire classroom environment. Mother Theresa was able to treat people the way she did precisely because she was a Catholic missionary to the sick and dying. I guarantee she didn’t treat her students the same way (she was a teacher at one time).

I hear you KingAlfred (many moons ago I used to be one of those students who could wreck an environment). Students need order first…without that nothing else works.

Kinda looks like the thread could use a little too (the subject were discussing [or attempting to] can get pretty heated).

It’s almost a given with this subject, that when it gets reduced to arguing sloely tongue or hand period (instead of discussing), we’re going to inadvertently cross some lines…like going so far as to speculate which way another receives Holy Communion. Maybe this type of bickering is part of what Mother Theresa anticipated that contributed to her being sad.

I’m in kind of a rare category: I receive both ways, on the tongue and in the hand … not at will, but because of circumstances beyond anyone’s control. I returned to receiving on the tongue 11 years ago, and this is my personal preference, even though I can handle or carry the Blessed Sacrament to the sick and dying as an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion for up to 6 or 7 hours (used to be longer) at a time.

But one of the aspects of my apostolate is also acting as a special lay assistant to an elderly handicapped priest.He is half paralyzed from a stroke and suffers from Parkinsons. For all intents and purposes,only one hand/arm works; and not very well. He is unable to celebrate the Mass on his own without my assistance. It takes everything he has left in order to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice. When I help him, it’s totally impractical and extremely difficult for him to be able to place the host on my tongue. So on those occasions, I receive Holy Communion in the hand.

On those occasions, I’m very grateful that the Church permits me to receive in the hand (it saves me from having to go through a ton of mental gymnastics).

Whichever way we receive Holy Communion, it’s a very personal thing and a very sacred time. It’s easy for someone to get riled if they feel we’re criticzing their way of receiving the Lord. Does that make sense to most ?

 

[catharina]

It’s almost a given with this subject, that when it gets reduced to arguing sloely tongue or hand period (instead of discussing), we’re going to inadvertently cross some lines…like going so far as to speculate which way another receives Holy Communion. Maybe this type of bickering is part of what Mother Theresa anticipated that contributed to her being sad.

That’s a powerful thought.

 

[DarkNight]

What I find most “interesting” is that no one has been able to cite Mother Teresa directly as making this statement.
The only “documentation” is second hand and does not provide the context within which the statement was supposedly made. (See post # 17)

What amazes me is that some people use this supposed statement as a weapon to denigrate reception in the hand.

Is it any wonder that we are losing credibility with the rest of the world, and even within the Catholic community, when we base our arguments on undocumented statements and imply the statements are true and can not be refuted because they were said by a saint?

I don’t know if Mother Teresa felt this way about communion in the hand much less why she would have felt this way.

What I do know is that holding out my hands in supplication and having Jesus willingly lay Himself in them is both humbling and awesome and brings His peace to my soul.

Go with Love, Go with God

 

[nice2000]

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?

No, she wasn’t wrong to feel that way.

I’m sure she was truly sadden in her heart to watch people receive communion in the hand.

She was asked a question and she humbly and honestly answered how she felt.

She was very respectful and obedient of the Body of Christ.

 

[SnorterLuster]

Was she wrong to feel that way?

According to the Pope and his MC, she was certainly not wrong. My comment is in the bold face in the following quote:

“The form used by Benedict XVI tends to underline the force of the valid norm for the entire Church,” clarified Monsignor Marini. (Holy Communion on the tongue.)

The master of papal liturgical ceremonies said receiving Communion on the tongue, “without taking anything away from the other [form],(he says that, but then goes ahead and tells why receiving on the tongue is better) better highlights the truth of the real presence in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful, and introduces more easily the sense of mystery. Aspects which, in our times, pastorally speaking, it is urgent to highlight and recover.” (note, that it is urgent to recover the truth of the real presence, devotion of the faithful & the mystery of the Eucharist.)

Go to the link for the context if you are interested. I think the quotes I have lifted reflect the gist of the article.

zenit.org/article-23028?l=english