Do you "take" or "receive" Communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter baltobetsy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anna Elizabeth:
PS I forgot to mention: Al Kresta repeatedly says, “Take Communion.” I have tried to no avail to reach him by phone or email to request that he get it straight. If anyone knows how to reach him, I’d certainly appreciate a clue. :confused:

Thanks,
Anna
Click to expand...
I certainly know how to get a hold of him, since he works at the local Catholic radio station and is a member of the same parish as I. However, I see no need to ask him to get it straight, for, if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.

Perhaps you could make a post about the issue over at the message boards for his radio program. avemariaradio.net
 
Anna Elizabeth said:
:yup: “Take” is so sophisticated. It shows that we are cosmopolitan Catholics and in charge. WE ACT. Nothing passive here!

Thanks so much for the opportunity to comment on this unfortunate new invention. Here’s another thought: When reading news reports or editorials, let the use of “take” be our red flag. The writer is not Catholic or is a wanna-be-elite media type. It qualifies everything in the article.

As Panis Angelicas has said, “Words mean things.” “Take” is a small but loaded word.

Anna
Click to expand...

There are 20 definitions for the transitive verb “to take” in the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

As I already posted, one of those definitions is a passive one that is synonymous with receive.

Since this definition is found in the dictionary, it means that it is a correct way to use the word.

I think it is wise to give the benefit of the doubt to others, until proven guilty. In this case, I think it would be wise to allow that people such as Al Kresta are using definition number 12 (as posted previously.)
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
There are 20 definitions for the transitive verb “to take” in the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

As I already posted, one of those definitions is a passive one that is synonymous with receive.

Since this definition is found in the dictionary, it means that it is a correct way to use the word.

I think it is wise to give the benefit of the doubt to others, until proven guilty. In this case, I think it would be wise to allow that people such as Al Kresta are using definition number 12 (as posted previously.)
Click to expand...
Dictionaries reflect current usage; not correct usage. 🙂
 
To “receive” is generally understood as a more docile stance than to “take”. One tends, for example, to receive a present, than to “take” it from the giver, even if one physically takes it up in the process of being handed the gift.

I receive communion, exclusively on the tongue. The traditional stance, on the knees, makes so plain how it should be. It is only a very recent question, that belies the problem with modernist approaches, which create so many confusions in their wake.

One could coin uses with varying connotations: for example, I “take” medicine, and Our Lord in the Eucharist is the medicine of eternal salvation. Despite all the ways in which the words can be used, the most rational stance is to emphasize that we are unworthy, and we do not “take”. We “receive”, and we do so on the tongue to show Our Lord our docility and our respect for His presence, that we do not fumble, cause crumbs, or handle Him flippantly or hastily.

I receive, reverently, on the tongue.
 
Even though you are correct that “to receive” is what “take” can mean, that is rather unimportant.

In this case, we are speaking about the impression the word gives, for instance if you say, “This flower smells”, you could mean that it has a pleasant odor, but if you were to say, “This flower is fragrant” people understand that it smells good.

We want people to get the right first impression, in this case.

In Him, through her,
Pio Magnus
 
Anna Elizabeth:
BINGO! That’s just what I fear! :tsktsk:

Anna
Click to expand...
If the word “to take” comes to mean “to receive”, what exactly are you fearing?
 
40.png
PioMagnus:
Even though you are correct that “to receive” is what “take” can mean, that is rather unimportant.

In this case, we are speaking about the impression the word gives, for instance if you say, “This flower smells”, you could mean that it has a pleasant odor, but if you were to say, “This flower is fragrant” people understand that it smells good.

We want people to get the right first impression, in this case.

In Him, through her,
Pio Magnus
Click to expand...
It would seem then that this issue is more prudence than the use of an incorrect word, but that is not how some in this forum have approached it. I can see how it might be more wise to say “receive”, but a failure to do so should not bring with it some sense of wrongdoing, especially since that could be a matter of personal judgment. I for one do not use language full of pietistic expressions when talking about Mary with my non-Catholic family members, because I have deemed it imprudent. However, such language is correct and it is certainly appropriate in some circumstances.
 
40.png
csr:
To “receive” is generally understood as a more docile stance than to “take”. One tends, for example, to receive a present, than to “take” it from the giver, even if one physically takes it up in the process of being handed the gift.

I receive communion, exclusively on the tongue. The traditional stance, on the knees, makes so plain how it should be. It is only a very recent question, that belies the problem with modernist approaches, which create so many confusions in their wake.

One could coin uses with varying connotations: for example, I “take” medicine, and Our Lord in the Eucharist is the medicine of eternal salvation. Despite all the ways in which the words can be used, the most rational stance is to emphasize that we are unworthy, and we do not “take”. We “receive”, and we do so on the tongue to show Our Lord our docility and our respect for His presence, that we do not fumble, cause crumbs, or handle Him flippantly or hastily.

I receive, reverently, on the tongue.
Click to expand...
One who is unworthy does not receive either – that we can is a great grace of God – “Lord I am not worthy to receive you. . .”

I take communion, receiving it in my hand, showing my Lord my docility and respect for His presence, neither fumbling, causing crumbs, nor handling him flippantly or hastily.

I receive, reverently, on the hand, and sometimes on the tongue.
 
I do not think this is just a matter of semantics. The Priest either places the consecrated host on your tongue or on your palm, thus you receive. I have seen a few people actually take the host from the Priest… against the rubics. You take something you have a right to, you receive a gift.
 
40.png
DeniseTOCarm:
I do not think this is just a matter of semantics. The Priest either places the consecrated host on your tongue or on your palm, thus you receive. I have seen a few people actually take the host from the Priest… against the rubics. You take something you have a right to, you receive a gift.
Click to expand...
There is a large difference between saying:

“to take communion”

and

“to take the communion elements”

The latter refers to “grasping the host and removing it from the Priest”; the former refers to “going to the priest and receiving the host from him”. The latter refers to the immediate action; the former refers to the event in general.

Contrasting “to receive” and “to take”, as used by many, including myself:

“To receive” emphasizes the fact that everything in Communion is given as a gift – we can only have it if it is given to us; we cannot obtain it on our own.

“To take” emphasizes the fact that, though it is all given to me by Jesus through the priest, it is I who must stand up and go to the priest. It is I who says “Amen” when he says, “The body of Christ.” It is I who must open my mouth and my heart and choose to receive Him.
 
I receive communion and I always try to sit where I can receive it from the priest himself.

ORA,
Michaela
 
Although I consider myself to “receive” Communion, I have often said “take” without meaning it literally, simply because that is what my family said, so it became a part of my vocabulary. If you are asking whether I consider myself to “Take” or “receive”… literally and technically speaking we “receive” so that is probably the term we should be using…however try to be patient and not condemn people on a technicality in their speech, they may not be saying it it on purpose and actually have the correct theology in mind during Communion.
 
H(name removed by moderator)of3:
I receive communion and I always try to sit where I can receive it from the priest himself.

ORA,
Michaela
Click to expand...
Thats nice, but just remember that it is the same Body of Christ (which was consecrated by Christ through the priest) Taking it from the priest or a layperson doesn’t make it any more or less the Body of Christ.
 
No but it does encourage the excessive use of EMHC which is

Redemptionis Sacramentum:
[151.] Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. Such recourse is not intended for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity but rather, by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional.[252] Furthermore, when recourse is had out of necessity to the functions of extraordinary ministers, special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a Priest for the service of the community and raise up an abundance of vocations to sacred Orders.[253]
Click to expand...
See also

[252] Cf. Congregation for the Clergy et al., Instruction, Ecclesiae de mysterio, Practical Provisions, art. 8 § 2: AAS 89 (1997) p. 872.

[253] Cf. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 32: AAS 95 (2003) p. 455.
 
No but it does encourage the excessive use of EMHC which is to be avoided

Redemptionis Sacramentum:
[151.] Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. Such recourse is not intended for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity but rather, by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional.[252] Furthermore, when recourse is had out of necessity to the functions of extraordinary ministers, special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a Priest for the service of the community and raise up an abundance of vocations to sacred Orders.[253]
Click to expand...
See also

[252] Cf. Congregation for the Clergy et al., Instruction, Ecclesiae de mysterio, Practical Provisions, art. 8 § 2: AAS 89 (1997) p. 872.

[253] Cf. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 32: AAS 95 (2003) p. 455.
 
I’m with Joey I have only heard of a priest taking communion. We have always received. Note: If you are taking communion to the sick then you are taking communion.😉
 
We take, or accept, communion. We receive communion as a gift of grace. And we also give. We give thanks fo God for all he has given us, and we offer ourselves as a sacrifice to God. As in the anciect Hebrew sacrifices we give back to God that which belongs to God. We offer ourselves in service to God and one another.

I am particularly struck by a line that appears in the Second Eucharist Prayer:

“We thank You fou counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you.”

Pax et Bonum!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top