One does not “take” Communion; one receives it, and that doesn’t matter whether it is the EF or the OF.
You are making several assumptions. The first is that what the OP spoke of, that is, what the person distributing the ashes said, was either incessant, or an innovation. To add one statement to the distribution of ashes hardly qualifies as “incessant”, but more important, it is judgmental to say that it was an innovation. Odds are extremely strong that the individual distributing ashes may have never done it before; the likelihood is also extreme that they had about 2 minutes training and simply garbled the statement. That would certainly be a more charitable assessment than attributing to that person “incessant innovations”.
Semantics. This isn’t an EF vs NO issue. The Church and the Pope(s) are very clear on this so it does matter.
This is a linguistic matter, not one of disrespect. There are parts of the country where someone might say “I don’t take the newspaper” – meaning that they don’t have the local paper delivered, not that they don’t steal it from a newsstand. In this sense “take” is equivalent to “receive,” and it’s not intended to indicate that someone grabs the Eucharist.
Actually the Latin word is not “recipere” nor “capere” but **“accipite” ** of which “accept” is the English cognate but can be “take” or “receive” as well. It seems in the English “take” is a little more crude but heck it’s only English.
I said nothing about you kneeling for Holy Communion. My post was concerning you not receiving from an EMHC (hat tip to you, PV - if I wore one)).
This particular scolding on these boards has got to stop. Like other English words ‘take’ has many meanings. Two in particular, “to receive into one’s body (as by swallowing, drinking, or inhaling)” and “to partake of” apply perfectly to Communion. %between%
I think you are being a little harsh to the OP. He didn’t “demand” anything.
It wasn’t referenced to the OP.
Yes, but I bet she never envisioned that you would have to “offer up” the things that happen in an orthodox Catholic Church. I think “offering it up” is supposed to be for the slings and arrows of the world, not our own Church…
Hi Bluecake,
As was pointed out in a different thread–for the first nine centuries the norm was to receive on the hand while standing. I guess it is lucky you were not alive then. I ask–has your tongue been consecrated and are you implying that the Church for it’s first 900 years was committing a sacrilege because it distributed Holy Communion on the hand to those standing? Had you grown up in the early Church receiving on the hand while standing and late in your life that was changed to on the tongue while kneeling–do you think you might have objected to that change–do you think you might have had a whole list of reasons why what had been done since the time of Christ was preferable? I guess I just want people to receive with a proper disposition and in a reverent manner–and I am not convinced that one cannot do that while receiving on the hand and standing.
You are right that the Pope and the Church are clear on the matter, which is why I pointed it out to you. Taking is a positive action; it is specifically forbidden. "Receiving is passive as Communion is given to you. And it is hardly just semantics.
I understand that it may be area specific to use certain terms; however, when we are talking about the reception of Communion, it really isn’t that much of a sacrifice to use correct terminology; it is easier than having to explain that you were really saying 'receive" but used a local colloquialism for it. I take most people here to be reasonably intelligent; and it is a sign of intelligence to use correct terminology. Perhaps it was having endured my junior and senior years of high school under Jesuits, who were on us constantly to use correct terms and to define what we meant. Sloppy use of terms leads to sloppy thinking.
(Sigh) and I expected better of you…Actually the Latin word is not “recipere” nor “capere” but **“accipite” ** of which “accept” is the English cognate but can be “take” or “receive” as well. It seems in the English “take” is a little more crude but heck it’s only English.
No, it kind of feeds the public’s need to work and support themselves at various jobs that do not or cannot allow an hour break for a Mass.
At one time I would have taken your side. Despite the fact that Polish is my native tongue, I received the Excellency in English award at my high school, probably because I was schooled in both U.K. and U.S. English. But let’s face it, the language has deteriorated to the point where half say “between you and I” and half say “between you and me” (amongst a whole lot of other things) and the sad part is that there’s no one but a few purists to “correct” them. Seems to me it’s already too late to worry about “take” and “receive” since the now official English translation is “Take and eat” right there in the Eucharistic Prayer. If I had it my way, I’d ban English in the liturgy altogether (they used to burn English translators at the stake) but like they tell me, offer it up.(Sigh) and I expected better of you…
During the early Church, Holy Communion was received in the hand, but it was not touched by the fingers. From the way Bishop Schneider explains it, the process was very different and the person would actually bend their body down to their hand to consume the Eucharist off the palm. I also do not remember it being for the first 900 years of the Church. The means of reception was reformed before that for fear of abuse.