Ever since reading this comment by Mother Teresa around the time that I was confirmed, I have decided to only receive Holy Communion on the tongue. The priests hands are the only ones that should touch the Eucharist and sacred vessels like the chalice.
From St. Thomas Aquinas:
"Out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency" (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 3).
Mother Teresa's words:
When Mother Teresa was asked by Fr. George Rutler, "What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?" she replied without a moment’s hesitation: "Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion-in-the-hand."
11 comment(s):
While it's certainly not authoritative, I would refer you to this website:
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html
sorry: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html
Excellent posting.
perhaps it's because I'm a former protestant but I just can't get past the scripture passage where Jesus tells us to "Take eat, this is my body." (Mark 14.22, Matthew 26.26)
I fully respect those who take communion on the tongue and praise their reverance for the Lord, however I don't believe I'm showing any less reverance by following the Lord's admonition to "take" and "eat."
I agree with her: that's the devil at work. We're not pure to touch the body.
What are your views on lay paople bringing the Eucharist to the home bound.
Kelly
I personally opposed lay people bringing the Eucharist to the home bound, but I am much more against Communion in the Hand at Mass:
http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2007/07/mission-restore-eucharistic-reverence.html
I find it sad that comments/ articles on reception of the Eucharist so often come down to "on the hand" or "on the tongue", and to divorced/ co-habiting etc. Why do we so rarely judge ourselves on the issues contained in Matt.25:31-46 or Luke18:9-14 which seem to deal with the really grave sins in the eyes of Jesus?
Jesus said,"Take and eat this is my body..." He said to whom?... to His apostles (priest, bishops, cardinal or pope this people have annointed hands by God) not to the ordinary people!
what Jesus commanded to take and eat his body were his disciples and not ordinary people like us. The 12 disciples who were with Jesus are the Popes and cardinals of our time. They are the only ones who have the right to touch the body of Jesus because Jesus gave them the right not only to touch him but also to give forgiveness to those who confess to them!
While the stand that the sinner can directly confess to God and not through a priest to receive forgiveness for sins could and does undermine the gravity of sins and tries to absolve oneself without any reparations, we should not forget that it is a Pharisaic proposition that we quote when we try to hide ourselves behind the words, "Who can forgive sins, but God" and not Jesus' Words that say, "Whosoever sins you forgive, they will be forgiven in heaven and whosoever sins you retain, they will be retained in heaven". The words of Thomas Aquinas "...Lo, o’er ancient forms departing, Newer rites of grace prevail..." still merit the prayerful intercession to believe all that Christ has proposed to us in the New, in fulfilment of all that is in the Old. If we should still insist that we follow Jesus to the letter when when quote "Take and eat...", we might even muse on what Jesus would mean if he would quote Psalm 86:10f, "Open your mouth wide, I will fill it. But my people did not listen..."
Mag-post ng isang Komento