B
- Status
L
Like
Guest
Clarification about Mother Teresa’s alleged saying: “The thing that makes me the saddest …”
Regarding receiving Holy Communion, the Church states:
“Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.
(From the CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENT - INSTRUCTION Redemptionis Sacramentum; On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist)
Mother Teresa would not have contradicted the Church. On the mode of receiving Holy Communion, she wrote to her sisters: “This is like the permission of the Bishops given some years ago for receiving Holy Communion in the hand. It is allowed, but not an order, … as M.C.s, we have chosen to receive Holy Communion on the tongue. If questioned about [it], do not enter into discussion – “let every spirit praise the Lord” – but let us pray that all be done for the greater glory of God and the good of the Church.”
You quoted “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.” This statement does not seem authentic to us. We have never heard Mother Teresa saying these words nor read them in her writings. One thing that Mother Teresa used to repeat very often was: “…The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself… the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.”
motherteresa.org/08_info/ReceivingC.html
Mother Teresa Center
524 West Calle Primera,
Suite #1005N
San Ysidro, CA 92173
M
maurin
Guest
obtusely? wrong adjective. ‘obnoxiously’ maybe. c’mon julia, if you’re gonna go for something, get it right!
“Eucharisted” wants to stir the pot here on the Traditional forum. He has come to “set us straight” teach a little “Catholic truth” as he claims in the OP. and I’m “obtuse?” ya think?
this thread is more appropriate for the liturgy forum, not this one.
M
maurin
Guest
Neither did the early Christians find slavery odd. St. Paul even taught slaves to be obedient to their masters. Should we not find it odd if Christians of today wanted a return to slavery?The early Christians don’t seem to have found it odd - a number of early Church Fathers and other early Christians refer to reception in the hand without exhibiting your attitude of puzzlement. Most often mentioned is St Cyril of Jerusalem, of course, but there are others - St John Damascene for one.
No reason anyone should find it odd that some want to practice as these good early Christian folk obviously did.
What on earth is your point?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
That if the practice was patristic, perhaps even Apostolic, it cannot be said to be irreverent or wrong or bad or any of the perjoratives so often used in these fora. This is a disciplinary matter, not a matter of faith and morals. St. Paul’s teaching that slaves should be obedient to their masters is not necessarily a moral commentary on slavery, is it? Might it not be a commentary on accepting one’s cross? If he had taught that slavery of itself was morally acceptable, we would have been bound, for all these centuries, to have positively upheld it as an institution deemed a moral good by Apostolic authority.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
The early christians also made public confessions. Given penances that depending on sin could take years to perform and could not receive Holy Communion until they accomplish the penance. This was also done in the “early” Church. Would you find it “odd” if a priest today told you to stand in front of the congregation --spill every misdeed you have – give you a lengthy penance – and withhold Holy Communion until such time that you finished the penance — all because the “early” Church did it that way.The early Christians don’t seem to have found it odd - a number of early Church Fathers and other early Christians refer to reception in the hand without exhibiting your attitude of puzzlement. Most often mentioned is St Cyril of Jerusalem, of course, but there are others - St John Damascene for one.
No reason anyone should find it odd that some want to practice as these good early Christian folk obviously did.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
I wonder maurin. I’ve heard of “vanity” threads. Starting a thread --to “toot their own horn”. Would this thread qualify as such–plus of course --the stirring of the pot.
M
maurin
Guest
I’m not commenting on whether the protestant practice which the modernists adopted of receiving Communion in the hand is right or wrong, although my opinion should come as no surprise…Using “well the early Christians did it” as an example why it should be allowed now is the weakest of arguments for it. It’s also the argument the protestants used. If the example I chose wasn’t a good one, ok, I can accept that–I don’t agree with you, but I accept that it may not be the finest example to give.
Walking Home’s example is more difficult to argue with, but I’m sure you’ll find a way kirk
so I repeat my question to Lily: what on earth is your point?
M
maurin
Guest
stirring the pot is “Eucharisted’s” main idea here. There is a forum devoted to Liturgy and the Sacraments.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I agree, “antiquairanism” is a mistake all around. It’s probably as big a mistake to insist on doing it the way we did it in ancient times as it is on insisting that it MUST be done as we did it in the reign of HH Pope St. Pius X. The fact remains, however, that the practice of communion in the hand may (as the practice of public confession may have also) have come down from the Apostles (and it is equally possible that it did not). If so, we can hardly call it bad or impious (which we can’t anyway, since the Church cannot in Her disciplines lead the faithful into impiety). If it did come from the Apostles (and as public confession might have done as well), that is no reason that the Church cannot modify the practice one way or another, since it is patently a matter of discipline (as Walking Home rightly observes She did in the case of confession and penance).I’m not commenting on whether the protestant practice which the modernists adopted of receiving Communion in the hand is right or wrong, although my opinion should come as no surprise…**It is not inherently Protestant if it has antecedents in our own history. Obviously, IF it’s a part of our history stretching back into the Patristic (and again, possibly Apostolic) era, it also isn’t modernist. Why, then, use this words? **Using “well the early Christians did it” as an example why it should be allowed now is the weakest of arguments for it. It’s also the argument the protestants used. If the example I chose wasn’t a good one, ok, I can accept that–I don’t agree with you, but I accept that it may not be the finest example to give.
Walking Home’s example is more difficult to argue with, but I’m sure you’ll find a way kirk
so I repeat my question to Lily: what on earth is your point?
Would it not be more effective to argue the notion of “fuller sign?” The Servant of God HH Pope John Paul II reiterated the teaching of the Church that when the faithful received the Sacred Species Who’s accident is bread, they received both the Most Sacred Body and the Most Precious Blood in that Sacred Species and they were not required to receive the Most Precious Blood in Its seperate Sacred Species. It was, however, according to the Pope, a “fuller sign” if they also received the Most Precious Blood from the Chalice. I should think that the same argument MIGHT apply to how one receives the Most Sacred Body in Its accident of bread: to receive on the tongue and kneeling may be a “fuller sign” of our understanding of and faith in Our Lord in the Most Holy Eucharist. Because the standard arguments about our hands being unworthy (our tongues aren’t? Our Lord and Saint Paul might take exception to that argument) or Holy Communion in the hand in procession being inherently evil, etc. don’t seem to wash according to our own theology (given historical antecedents in both the Western and Eastern Church).
N
nohamaria
Guest
Hi to all,
The christians in the early church made communion
in the hand. But at that time the Holy Spirit
was working in abondance with beleivers and
we can say that the 99.99% of christians were
Saints and Martyrs.
Nowaday , our church count the remainder of it
as 0.01 percent of christians can be considered Saints,
maybe less.
In the communion by Hand, our very pure and unfortunate
Jesus, The Host, has to pass through 3 unpure things:
The hand, the tongue , and finally inside the heart.
In the communion in tongue there are only 2:
the tongue and the heart.:rolleyes
I think it reduces the suffering of our Host
to acomodate himself with us.:stretcher:
Therefore , I choose the communion in tongue,
I can’t be more sadictic with our Lord.:takethat:
To speak truly , The communion in tongue is
more respectful , more humble, than the other way.
Nohamaria
The christians in the early church made communion
in the hand. But at that time the Holy Spirit
was working in abondance with beleivers and
we can say that the 99.99% of christians were
Saints and Martyrs.
Nowaday , our church count the remainder of it
as 0.01 percent of christians can be considered Saints,
maybe less.
In the communion by Hand, our very pure and unfortunate
Jesus, The Host, has to pass through 3 unpure things:
The hand, the tongue , and finally inside the heart.
In the communion in tongue there are only 2:
the tongue and the heart.:rolleyes
I think it reduces the suffering of our Host
to acomodate himself with us.:stretcher:
Therefore , I choose the communion in tongue,
I can’t be more sadictic with our Lord.:takethat:
To speak truly , The communion in tongue is
more respectful , more humble, than the other way.
Nohamaria
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
How do you know Our Lord suffers in the Host when It is consumed?Hi to all,
The christians in the early church made communion
in the hand. But at that time the Holy Spirit
was working in abondance with beleivers and
we can say that the 99.99% of christians were
Saints and Martyrs.
Nowaday , our church count the remainder of it
as 0.01 percent of christians can be considered Saints,
maybe less.
In the communion by Hand, our very pure and unfortunate
Jesus, The Host, has to pass through 3 unpure things:
The hand, the tongue , and finally inside the heart.
In the communion in tongue there are only 2:
the tongue and the heart.:rolleyes
I think it reduces the suffering of our Host
to acomodate himself with us.:stretcher:
Therefore , I choose the communion in tongue,
I can’t be more sadictic with our Lord.:takethat:
To speak truly , The communion in tongue is
more respectful , more humble, than the other way.
Nohamaria
J
juliamajor
Guest
I was trying to be diplomatic.I actually did not know that the Traditional forum was limited to traditionalists only-live and learn(that’s sarcasm).
L
LilyM
Guest
I would think the contrary if anything - after all, Jesus said He ‘longed’ or ‘earnestly desired’ to share the Last Supper with His Apostles, no?
As for you, maurin - my point was that it should not surprise you that anyone argues for CITH in terms of its being patristic practice.
It may not strike you as being a particularly GOOD line of reasoning, but even as a bad line of reasoning, again, it certainly shouldn’t strike you as odd. That is my point!
M
maurin
Guest
So glad that you explained that. It was as subtle as an m-80 going off in a lavatory. Some of the more obtuse members of the forum might not have gotten it. And an attempt at diplomacy is not an excuse for poor word-choice. You were just trying to show-off–c’mon, Lily, admit it. You were trying to impress us with your vocabulary!!!
Actually, the Traditional Forum by virtue of it’s definition by the CA staff is for the discussion of Traditional “Spirituality.” Communion in the Hand does not meet such a high and noble standard. Like I said, there is a Liturgy and Sacraments Forum.
M
maurin
Guest
In all fairness, how do you He doesn’t?
(I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist. I was taught when I attended a NO Parish that the Greek word of St. John’s Gospel used for “eat”–as in "eat my flesh–translated more properly as gnaw, or rip the flesh from with one’s teeth–think of biting a piece of meat off the bone. I don’t know if that is correct or not, but it has made me wonder about the admonition not to chew Our Lord in the Eucharist.)
M
maurin
Guest
were you wagging your finger at me when writing that?
your line of reasoning is weak. and for the record, I am neither wagging my finger at you, nor condescending to you. I am merely making a statement.
M
maurin
Guest
kirk, there’s much that I agree with inside this post. Of course there’s also much I do not agree with. But I’m glad you posted it. A couple of facts remain though: The Traditional posture endured for many many centuries longer than the ancient posture and the posture the modernists initiated in imitation of the protestants of the 16th century.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Tell me JKirkLVNV — which mode of reception expresses the fuller sign according to our own doctrine–that our Lord is complete (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity and all Grace) in just one species.
M
maurin
Guest
at the root of it all, WH, having the Laity receive from the Chalice–for centuries reserved to the Priest alone, is just one more way to further blur the line between the Ministerial Priesthood, and that of the faithful. I suspect that it really is just that simple.
- Status