Do you "take" or "receive" Communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter baltobetsy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

baltobetsy

Guest
I am surprised by the number of people on this forum who refer to “taking” Communion, a term which I have always associated with our Protestant brothers and sisters. I was taught to say that we “receive” Communion. How about you? And what is your background?

Thanks,
Betsy
 
I was born and raised Catholic.

I always heard the phrase “receive communion” used by Catholics and I’ve also thought “take communion” was mainly used by protestants. Hearing the phrase “take communion” has always grated on me, kind of the way a grammar mistake does. But I don’t recall ever hearing that one phrase was preferable or more correct than the other.
 
I never heard of taking communion, it has always been “receiving” or “partaking in” communion as a Baptist and then a Catholic.
 
I voted other. I am a convert from protestantism, and I say both “receive” and “take”.
 
As a cradle Catholic, I’ve always been taught and heard others speak of “receiving” Holy Communion.

I’ve only heard non-Catholics speak of “taking” communion.

Although I find the term rather annoying, I must admit, Jesus did say, “Take this, all of you, and eat it…” :o

Pax Christi. <><
 
Note that only Bishops and priests take the Host. All others must be given it by a minister.
 
40.png
pnewton:
I never heard of taking communion, it has always been “receiving” or “partaking in” communion as a Baptist and then a Catholic.
Click to expand...
I’m a former Baptist as well and it was as you said,“receiving or partaking”.🙂
 
For me, the Eucharist is a gift, one which I receive at Mass.

“Taking” seems to imply some sense of entitlement, and does not reflect my belief that the Eucharist is a gift given to us by God.

God Bless,
Iguana
 
I am a cradle Catholic who receives Communion. I was about to make the point made by Joe Kelley, “Note that only Bishops and priests take the Host. All others must be given it by a minister.” I belive recieving applies also to the Permanent Deacon who is an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion, and it most certainly applies to the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
Many people don’t speak precisely, and may say “take” when they mean “receive.” Unfortunately, I have been in Catholic Churches where I have seen the Extradinary Ministers “take” Holy Communion. So it is not just the language that gets abused.

Charlie
 
I receive communion but admit where I grew up in Pgh. I heard many Catholics say “take” but then Pittsburgers said other strange things too, like “rid up the house” and “stair steps” and “bare naked”. but they always “worshed” their hands before they “took” communion;)
 
When you walk up to the person distributing communion and RECEIVE it on your tongue, you are ‘receiving’ communion. Whn you extend you open hand and the communion is placed in your hand and you then TAKE your other hand to place it in your mouth, you are ‘taking’ communion.

To answer the original question … I do both. If the person distributing communion is a priest or deacon, I will RECEIVE communion as an open sign of respect for the person giving it to me showing that I acknowkedge that their fingers were blessed to hold the body of Christ and mine were not.

When the person distributing communion is not a priest or deacon, I will TAKE communion also as an open sign of respect to the person giving it to me as they MAY feel uncomfortable in placing the host on my tongue and/or accidentially touching my tongue in the process.
 
Take can be used as a synonym for receive:

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

12 : to receive or accept whether willingly or reluctantly

Definition of “take”

Therefore, when used in this passive sense of the word, it is entirely appropriate to use “take” in reference to Communion.
 
Well, we seem to have many more “receivers” than “takers!” So much for that theory! Thanks for your replies.

Betsy
 
What word you use socal relevancy must be taken into consideration. We don’t say Holy Ghost anymore becasue socally it would be mis-understood, just as now in our country Lord is reserved for Jesus where in Brittian they have the house of lords which would be a great sacrliage to Americans.

Words don’t really matter to God, intent does…now everyone is really arguing the intent of the words rather than the words themselves…and for now everyone seems to agree that Communion is a gift given, not an object that can be gotten by will alone.
 
Words mean things.

We should be careful in their usage.

Pax Christi. <><
 
: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
 
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
 
I would say that I should receive, but sometimes I take.

for instance,

If I am not in a state of grace, I pray for the strength to not take communion, as I feel as though I am forcing my will on Christ.

If I am in a state of grace, I thank God for allowing me to receive Him.

I would also say that in a large number of cases the people are taking communion, either through ignorance, or embarrasment, or simple disregard for Christ.

In Him, through her,
Pio Magnus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top