Mother Teresa and Holy communion

[JReducation]

Blessed Mother Teresa was “looking” at people receiving Communion and was “sad”. Sounds like a judgement to me. If she meant that this indicated that the person was not receiving Jesus with the appropriate respect and love then yes this was the worst king of judgement. Christ commanded us not to judge others.

If you read Mother’s private journal, notes from her spiritual directors and confessors, her religious superiors and her sisters you will find that the idea of Mother being judgmental is inconsistent with her spirituality and her character. It is more likely that she is referring to external or observable issues, not internal dispositions.

Mother was known for being very tough on herself and others on externals that she could observe, not on their internal dispositions, unless they shared them with her.

When people, holy or otherwise are quoted out of context, it’s always good to know something about them as persons. We usually find that the comment that has been quoted was not meant the way we take it without an understanding of the total person.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[palmas85]

I heard that this was taught by someone (bishop?) who later got excommunicated!!!

He taught to many things that were against what the church taughtBASICLY HERESY!..so…i wouldn’t really use this as an excuse to receive on the hand

Cyril did have some problems with both his superiors. He lived during the time of the Arian heresy and his superior was an Arian as was one of the emperors during his life. Cyril was removed as a Bishop by a council called by this Arian superior. However he was accepted back into the Church when that Bishop was deposed, Then a while later, the superior was back and Cyril was gone again. He came back when a non Arian emperor came into power and was again deposed when an Arian emperor came back into power. When the winds again changed with a new non Arian emperor, he was back to stay. The official reason given for his exile was that he sold Church property. It appears to be though that since he was not supporting Arianism, he was kicked out.

Cyril adhered pretty staunchly to the ideas put forth by the Council of Nicea in 325.

He is perhaps best known by most today for his description of how to receive Holy Communion. He described the manner in which it was received in HIS CHURCH, the Church at Jerusalem, which was not the way it was received everywhere although some places undoubtedly did receive in the same fashion.

 

[SHEMP]

Are you saying that I am judging others by receiving the Body of Christ by mouth?

This is my way of showing respect to my Lord Jesus Christ by receiving him by mouth.

Others want to hold him in their hands.

I am just giving my opinion.

I don’t want to take any chances of dropping(particles that are unseen and seen) by holding him in my hand.

No I am not judging you. I admire your love for the Eucharist. I am cautioning those in this thread to be careful about judging those who obey their bishop and receive the Lord in an accepted manner based on the rules of their local Bishops.

 

[SHEMP]

If you read Mother’s private journal, notes from her spiritual directors and confessors, her religious superiors and her sisters you will find that the idea of Mother being judgmental is inconsistent with her spirituality and her character. It is more likely that she is referring to external or observable issues, not internal dispositions.

Mother was known for being very tough on herself and others on externals that she could observe, not on their internal dispositions, unless they shared them with her.

When people, holy or otherwise are quoted out of context, it’s always good to know something about them as persons. We usually find that the comment that has been quoted was not meant the way we take it without an understanding of the total person.

Fraternally,

JR

I agree completely.

 

[palmas85]

I could come up with many reasons that one could want to do it.

I will give one reason: In order to emulate the early Christians who were closest to Christ.

‘Catechetical Lectures’, ca. 350 AD: *“In approaching, therefore, do not come up with your wrists apart or with your fingers spread, but make of your left hand a throne for the right, since you are about to receive into it a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it the AMEN.” *

Here is the USCCB with a general review about posture and the liturgy:

usccb.org/liturgy/girm/bul3.shtml

And of course you know that the practice in those days was to consume a small portion at Mass and take the rest of the Eucharist home with you and consume it during the week.

So receiving in the hand made perfect sense at that time. In fact, you probably couldn’t have received it in any other way.

We don’t bring the Eucharist home anymore, and haven’t for quite some time actually. Well most of us don’t anyway. Apparently some do

So the whole reason for receiving it that way, in the hand, is really non existent these days.

 

[Walking_Home]

palmas85;4063590]

---

palmas85–your PM box is full–can’t send message.

 

[SHEMP]

And of course you know that the practice in those days was to consume a small portion at Mass and take the rest of the Eucharist home with you and consume it during the week.

So receiving in the hand made perfect sense at that time. In fact, you probably couldn’t have received it in any other way.

We don’t bring the Eucharist home anymore, and haven’t for quite some time actually. Well most of us don’t anyway. Apparently some do

So the whole reason for receiving it that way, in the hand, is really non existent these days.

You have a good point but you don’t make the rules. The local bishops make the rules and in the US the rules say that you can receive on the tongue or in the hand. There are good arguments for both. Clearly most on this thread are convinced that the better arguments support getting rid of receiving in the hand. I will leave this to the discretion of the Holy Father and our bishops. I will try not to judge the heart of those who prefer to receive in the hand.

 

[CradleCath]

Or is it first wrong to believe that Mother Teresa ever said it, with no citation given?

It usually doesn’t take long to verify a quote. This one took about 2 minutes:

Father George William Rutler, Good Friday, 1989 in St. Agnes Church, New York City (a precise transcript taken from a tape of his talk available from St. Agnes Church)

Not very long ago I said Mass and preached for their Mother, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and after breakfast we spent quite a long time talking in a little room. Suddenly, I found myself asking her – don’t know why – ‘Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?’ She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on.

"Without pausing a second she said, 'Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.’"

"

 

[CradleCath]

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!

Have you delved into the history of CITH? As Catholics we are bound to inform ourselves & our consciences. Some of our Bishops & Archbishops believe that protecting the name of the Church & their own reputation is more important than obeying the laws of the land re sexual abuse of young boys:

marysanawim.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/holy-communion-in-the-hand-the-true-story/

 

[CradleCath]

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

Absolutely. Mother Teresa’s whole life was given to Christ through ministering to the "least of His brethren. I’m wondering if she didn’t mean that CITH, & the lack of reverance it shows, LED to the sin of infidelity that is so prevelent today, within our Universities, our laity & our clergy. One must also wonder about what this practice has done to the priests who administer the Eucharist in the hand of the communicants.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

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

 

[JReducation]

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

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

If we take these statements as formal teaching statements we’re on the wrong track, 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. She was being honest and spontaneous.

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.

Like all great mystics and saints, the greatest quality they have is spontaneity, even if they later realize that they may have come across the wrong way.

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.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[SHEMP]

Have you delved into the history of CITH? As Catholics we are bound to inform ourselves & our consciences. Some of our Bishops & Archbishops believe that protecting the name of the Church & their own reputation is more important than obeying the laws of the land re sexual abuse of young boys:

marysanawim.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/holy-communion-in-the-hand-the-true-story/

I am not arguing whether it is better to receive in the hand or on the tongue. I am arguing that I do not have the authority to set the rules and I should not judge others who obey the rules. The bishops do not have the authority to make the abuse of children an acceptable form of church practice. They do have the authority concerning the proper posture for reception of the Most Holy Eucharist.

 

[SHEMP]

Absolutely. Mother Teresa’s whole life was given to Christ through ministering to the "least of His brethren. I’m wondering if she didn’t mean that CITH, & the lack of reverance it shows, LED to the sin of infidelity that is so prevelent today, within our Universities, our laity & our clergy. One must also wonder about what this practice has done to the priests who administer the Eucharist in the hand of the communicants.

“the lack of reverance it shows”:

You can show reverance and receive in the hand. You can be disrespectful and receive on the tongue. In addition the meaning of certain postures have changed over time and within different cultures.

In regard to what Blessed Mother Teresa’s meant by the statement (if she said it): I do not know her heart. She was not the Virgin Mary. She did go to confession. Presumably she did confess sins.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

“the lack of reverance it shows”:

You can show reverance and receive in the hand. You can be disrespectful and receive on the tongue. In addition the meaning of certain postures have changed over time and within different cultures.

This thread needs another opinion like I need, well, a hole in the head, but I agree with you. I think it is entirely possible to receive in the hand with utmost reverence. I did so for a great deal of time. And so did most of the earliest Christians, probably.

I came to have a problem with CITH due to the disobedience involved in getting it approved more than anything else. A serious mistake is made by those who say “the Church allows it, therefore it is fine”: the Papacy did not have complete control over the American bishops when this matter started and was eventually Ok’d (so as to take the masses of faithful who were engaging in it out of official if innocent disobedience, probably). So, it’s just not that simple.

JR, FWIW, I’ve really liked your posts on this subject.

 

[KingAlfred]

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.

 

[palmas85]

You have a good point but you don’t make the rules. The local bishops make the rules and in the US the rules say that you can receive on the tongue or in the hand. There are good arguments for both. Clearly most on this thread are convinced that the better arguments support getting rid of receiving in the hand. I will leave this to the discretion of the Holy Father and our bishops. I will try not to judge the heart of those who prefer to receive in the hand.

Of course I don’t make the rules. I merely point out things that many people are totally unaware of. You see most people these days and for some time now actually, have been taught that they are to receive in the hand and only in the hand. 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.

I remember once going to assist at a neighboring parish to give a talk on church history. I arrived as the DRO of that parish and the deacon were telling the candidates that the proper way to receive was in the hand. One of the candidates, a young Filipina asked if it was wrong to receive on the tongue because she said she had seen people do it when she was younger. They told her that people used to receive on the tongue but the rules had changed and the only proper way to receive was standing and in the hand. They brought up St Cyril for this and thoughtfully provided a printout of his discourse.

Well since my speech that night was on Church history, I tied the two together. When the candidates heard that the Eucharist was taken home in those days they were puzzled and wanted to know why it couldn’t be taken home now. So we went through the whole thing. After the class about half of those in the class came up and asked if it was legal to receive on the tongue. I told them it was, that there was an option and that either way was valid.

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.

 

[SHEMP]

Of course I don’t make the rules. I merely point out things that many people are totally unaware of. You see most people these days and for some time now actually, have been taught that they are to receive in the hand and only in the hand. 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.

I remember once going to assist at a neighboring parish to give a talk on church history. I arrived as the DRO of that parish and the deacon were telling the candidates that the proper way to receive was in the hand. One of the candidates, a young Filipina asked if it was wrong to receive on the tongue because she said she had seen people do it when she was younger. They told her that people used to receive on the tongue but the rules had changed and the only proper way to receive was standing and in the hand. They brought up St Cyril for this and thoughtfully provided a printout of his discourse.

Well since my speech that night was on Church history, I tied the two together. When the candidates heard that the Eucharist was taken home in those days they were puzzled and wanted to know why it couldn’t be taken home now. So we went through the whole thing. After the class about half of those in the class came up and asked if it was legal to receive on the tongue. I told them it was, that there was an option and that either way was valid.

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.

I agree completely

 

[SHEMP]

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.

I also think that receiving in the hand has less risk of exchanging saliva (tongue to hand to tongue). The preist often touches my tongue with his finger when I receive on the tongue.

The counter argument is that most preists are less adept at administering the Eucharist on the tongues since it is done so infrequently. I think that the are often caught of guard and then there is more risk of touching your tongue or having the Eucharist fall to the floor.

In the current situation I feel that I have less risk of the Eucharist falling to the floor if I receive in the hand.

All of these things go through my mind when I approach the priest to receive. I will vary from tongue to hand based on my belief of what will be the most respectful way to receive at that time.

 

[JReducation]

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.

Allow me to insert another point about consecrated people. A priest is a consecrated person only if he is a religious. If he is a diocesan priest he is an ordained person, but not a consecrated person. Religious are consecrated persons, because they are bound the the Consecrated Life through vows and a religious community. For example, Mother Angelica is a consecrated person, because she is a religious. Pope Benedict XVI is not a consecrated person, because he is not a religious. He is a secular priest. He is an ordained person.

Fr. Benedict Groeschel is consecrated and ordained. He is a friar AND a priest. You can be one without the other.

Fraternally,

JR