the greatest sin of our times

  • Thread starter Thread starter operaboz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

operaboz

Guest
I was told that mother Threasa of Calcutta said that the greatest sin of ourtimes was recieving the holy Host in our hands.

Can someone please tell me if this was accually said by mother Threasa and if so to whome.🙂

thank you…
 
operaboz said:
I was told that mother Threasa of Calcutta said that the greatest sin of ourtimes was recieving the holy Host in our hands.

Can someone please tell me if this was accually said by mother Threasa and if so to whome.🙂

thank you…
Click to expand...
I read it in a biography of hers.

And I must say I agree with her that recieving communion in the Hand is a horrible evil.

Though Im not sure if it constitutes a sin.
 
operaboz said:
I was told that mother Threasa of Calcutta said that the greatest sin of ourtimes was recieving the holy Host in our hands.

Can someone please tell me if this was accually said by mother Threasa and if so to whome.🙂
Click to expand...
Missa_Solemnis said:
I read it in a biography of hers.

And I must say I agree with her that recieving communion in the Hand is a horrible evil.

Though Im not sure if it constitutes a sin.
Click to expand...
A brief web search leads me to believe that she did not say it was the greatest “sin” of our times. Rather she said it was the thing that made her “saddest”. Still a strong statement, but not as strong. She apparently made the statement to a certain Fr. Rutler in a personal discussion. Now. Whether that statement has been correctly reported is another thing. If she did, she is of course, entitled to her opinion. But the Church’s Magisterium seems to think otherwise. And saint though she may (soon) be, she is not the one to whom my obedience is due.

Now, regarding the statement that receiving our Lord “in the hand is a horrible evil”. Again, you are entitled to your opinion as to whether it is prudent to allow the faithful to receive in the hand. However, the Magisterium of the Church allows it. So to call it a “horrible evil” is really a little much. In fact, it would be erroneous. And it is most certainly not a sin.
 
If you are familiar with Church history, you’d know that the tradition of receiving communion in the hand was practiced for the first 1000 years of the Church’s existence.

It always amazes me that people see this as a “new” invention.
 
Missa_Solemnis said:
I read it in a biography of hers.

And I must say I agree with her that recieving communion in the Hand is a horrible evil.
Though Im not sure if it constitutes a sin.
Click to expand...
That’s a ridiculous thing to say. Receiving in the hands was done at the Last Supper, was allowed in the early Church and is allowed now. To say it is an evil is blatant disrespect to the Church and absolutely untrue. You should think before you speak!!
 
elvisman said:
If you are familiar with Church history, you’d know that the tradition of receiving communion in the hand was practiced for the first 1000 years of the Church’s existence.

It always amazes me that people see this as a “new” invention.
Click to expand...
WRONG. It was condemned as an abuse ny the Synod of Bishops in Rouen in 650 AD.

You will find the re-introduction of it was done illegally if you read history - by disobedient clergy who were mimicking Protestant practice.

And the first re-introduction of it was done by the Protestant Reformers - they knew “The way we worship shows what is believed” - it is a rejection of the Real Presence and the Catholic Priesthood to them.

It is allowed as an indult because of how widespread it had become and unable to be stopped.

Ken
 
thistle said:
That’s a ridiculous thing to say. Receiving in the hands was done at the Last Supper, was allowed in the early Church and is allowed now. To say it is an evil is blatant disrespect to the Church and absolutely untrue. You should think before you speak!!
Click to expand...
YOU GO AND FIND OUT how and WHY it was re-introduced illegally back in the 1960’s- and see how the Church tried so hard to stop it- yet failed.

Read about it and then see.

Ken
 
returning to actual question in OP, about a statement attributed to Mother Teresa (rather than personal opinions of forum members) this question was asked a couple of weeks ago, here and on EWTN site, and the answer then was that she denied making this statement attributed to her. She stated, according to this answer, that she personally preferred to receive on the tongue but accepted Church discipline in the matter and would never criticize someone else for receiving in the hand if the Church permits.

a more useful way of initiating this discussion might be to hold to forum rules, produce the actual quote and its source (if it exists) and then start talking.

doing something the Church permits cannot be called the greatest sin of our times by faithful Catholics. Dissent from Church teaching based on personal preference is in my opinion the greatest sin of our times committed by Catholics, whether it is disobedience to Church law on marriage and contraception, doctrine on the male priesthood, or obedience to the actual (not purported) V2 documents.
 
First 15 years of my life, I had receive the communion by tongue; then when I came to the U.S; I started to receive by hand when seeing other people doing the same thing.

After 10 years, I am back to the old way - using tongue.

I don’t think Mother Teresa said it was the greatest sin though.

The greatest sinful way to receive the communion is when you are in state of mortal sin.
 
water said:
First 15 years of my life, I had receive the communion by tongue; then when I came to the U.S; I started to receive by hand when seeing other people doing the same thing.

After 10 years, I am back to the old way - using tongue.

I don’t think Mother Teresa said it was the greatest sin though.

The greatest sinful way to receive the communion is when you are in state of mortal sin.
Click to expand...
WRONG!

The worst way to recieve is taking communion in the hand while in a state of mortal sin. 😃
 
Well the magisterium allows it so I’m not going to speak against it. Still, I miss receiving on the tongue.
 
kleary said:
WRONG. It was condemned as an abuse ny the Synod of Bishops in Rouen in 650 AD.

You will find the re-introduction of it was done illegally if you read history - by disobedient clergy who were mimicking Protestant practice.

And the first re-introduction of it was done by the Protestant Reformers - they knew “The way we worship shows what is believed” - it is a rejection of the Real Presence and the Catholic Priesthood to them.

It is allowed as an indult because of how widespread it had become and unable to be stopped.

Ken
Click to expand...
  • Pope Paul VI allowed it - see Memoriale Domini (he *expressed a preference *for reception on the tongue; but he did allow r. in the hand)
  • Paul VI is now Venerable Paul VI
  • If he was legitimising an abuse, it is atrocious that he should even be considered for canonisation
  • If it was not an abuse for St.Cyril of Jerusalem in c. 350, it can, of itself, hardly be an abuse in 650.
    If it is such a bad thing, the Pope had no business to allow it - how can someone who tolerates sacrilege & heresy & error be reckoned a Saint ? Saints fight profanations & sacrileges - they don’t use their authority to let those committed to their care perpetrate them, but resist them tooth and nail.
There is a dilemma here - *either *the Church is prepared to honour men guilty of great crimes (which is a horrible thing): or, those seeming crimes were perfectly allowable because they were, in fact, not crimes at all.

And if r. in the hand is so bad - what were the bishops doing over the next 36 years by not suppressing so great an evil ? If they are that negligent & idle, what does that say about the judgement of the Popes who allowed them to be bishops ? And if Popes are so useless as to allow so great an evil to prevail over so long a time and so great a part of the Church - then what is the use of the Papacy ? Why not abolish it, or kick out such useless men and elect faithful men instead, who will suppress these evils ?

Why trust the Church at all, if it is so incompetent or so idle or so hopeless that it allows such evils to spread for so long ?

That is the logic of rejecting communion in the hand as wrong even in principle. And it needs to be spelled out.

[Cause Proceeds for Beatification of Pope Paul VI (Missing Page Redirect | Catholic Culture)

**MEMORIALE DOMINI **Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion. Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship ##
 
rtconstant said:
Well the magisterium allows it so I’m not going to speak against it. Still, I miss receiving on the tongue.
Click to expand...
You miss it? Why don’t you just stick out your tongue when you go up to receive? They can’t legally refuse you if you do.

Peace and God bless!
 
I second this - you are absolutely allowed and entitled to receive on the tongue if that is your wish.

Just open up and say aaah (don’t know why, but receiving on the tongue always reminded me of going to the dentist for some reason 😉 )
 
Communion may be received either in the hand or on the tongue. Around the year A.D. 390, Cyril of Jerusalem indicated that the early Church practiced Communion in the hand when he instructed his audience: “Approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is on the eve of receiving the King. And having hallowed thy palm, receive the body of Christ, saying after it, ‘Amen.’ Then after thou hast with carefulness hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the holy body, partake thereof; giving heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou losest is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if anyone gave thee gold dust, wouldst thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss?” (Catechetical Lectures 23:22).

The Congregation of the Sacraments and Divine Worship permitted the U.S. Bishops’ Conference to authorize reception of Communion in the hand on July 25, 1977, provided the local bishop implements the practice in his diocese. Once implemented, the option to receive Communion either in the hand or on the tongue always remains with the communicant. No priest, deacon, acolyte, or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may refuse a communicant Communion on the tongue. Likewise, once the local bishop has introduced Communion in the hand, none may refuse a communicant Communion in the hand (except when Communion is being given by intinction, in which case it must be given on the tongue).
Catholic Answers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top