Do you "take" or "receive" Communion?

[Lance]

I am a convert from Methodist. I always thought of it as receiving even as a protestant. Don’t know why, I just did.

 

[Pug]

Honestly, I don’t think in either terms. Either I “go up” or I don’t go up that day. I suppose that comes from thinking of the altar rail, and going up and kneeling there. But there is no altar rail now. But we still go up. I pray for Jesus to come into my heart, clean it up, and stay there forever.

 

[Jason_Hurd]

Peace-bwu:

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.

Thank you for being the very voice of sanity. I also have said “take” when meaning “receive”, and as God knows what is in our hearts I’m sure I won’t be censured for it on the last day. I used to be a card-carrying member of the grammar police, but the many legalistic and unforgiving responses on this thread have made me turn in my badge. I agree that words have meaning; of course they have. But what is in our hearts is so much more important! That’s what God sees and is truly interested in. I sometimes think it would be a good thing for all of us to take a vow of silence(including posting on the Net!)in order to re-evaluate our attitudes, and to help us try and avoid needless misunderstandings in future.

 

[rwoehmke]

Take or Receive amounts, I think, to the same thing. Each word has its own connotations with regard to ones intent, but many use take or receive because they learned from their parents either one or the other. My Irish mother-in-law, may God rest her soul, always took communion. So it has a lot to do with family background, immigrant status, education level and so forth. I don’t really thinjk that anyone but a purist or an English major stops to think before3 uttering either word.

 

[marytk]

I was going to say that I receive. Because I do nothing to earn it and do not deserve it, While that is still true I also thought that we do have to actively receive, We have to accept it. God could have force fed us but he does not do it that way.

Also I am surprised that noone brought up that Jesus told us to TAKE and eat for this is My Body.

 

[Teresa9]

I would have thought it is obvious you cannot take without receiving and you cannot receive without taking xxx

 

[jimmy]

baltobetsy:

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 recieve because the Eucharist is something that is a gift to us. It is not something that we just take.

 

[Jason_Hurd]

You know, there is a simple solution to this which no one has yet proposed. Instead of “I take Communion” or “I receive Communion”, we could say “I communicate”. The verb “to communicate”, in its intransitive form, carries the ecclesiastical definition of participating in Communion. That way, we avoid the division and one-up-manship that arises from separating into “take” and “receive” camps.

 

[Teresa9]

The Blessed sacrament is a sacrifice as you know, this is the gift to God and in turn he returns the gift of the Eucharist we offer to Him back to us, it is a perfect offering in this manner. You have to ‘take’ by taking you realise what is offered and you have to ‘receive’ by receiving you realise what is offered is a gift, a gracious gift. You are not passive in your Eucharist, you offer, recieve and take, it is an active sacrifice which is Christ himself and you participate actively, you are not just a passive receiver.