Is it bad to bite the Eucharist?

[ConstantineTG]

Hello, English is not my mother tong so thank you for the explanation. i thought that bite means beaking a thing that is whole.

Neither it is mine, I’m Filipino. Don’t worry about it. Its just good that its clear. I guess most people already understood what you meant. Unfortunately there are some people who do bite off the Eucharist which should be avoided, if ever done at all.

 

[Morwenna]

It may be interesting to consider that the Greek word used in John 6:54-58 is not the usual word for “eat” (phagon) but a word specifically meaning to “crunch or gnaw” (trogon).

 

[kmbeck]

Personally I am not a chewer, but as long as it’s done reverently (or at least as reverently as chewing can be done) then I see no issue with it. When I receive the Body I place it in my mouth and press it to the roof of my mouth while it softens and then receive the Blood. The Blood helps the Body soften so I can swallow it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Personally I am not a chewer, but as long as it’s done reverently (or at least as reverently as chewing can be done) then I see no issue with it. When I receive the Body I place it in my mouth and press it to the roof of my mouth while it softens and then receive the Blood. The Blood helps the Body soften so I can swallow it.

Keeping your mouth closed is as reverent as I can think off. If your mouth is open you risk having part or all of the Eucharist fall off.

 

[seanflynn]

I always receive under both species, but in the rushing that seems to take place I feel forced to either chew and swallow the Host very quickly without much thought or reverence, or to keep the Host in my mouth while receiving the Blood. I worry that this isn’t the appropriate way for me to be receiving Christ as it is rushed and awkward.

I usually receive both species as well. I can’t even fathom consuming the host completely before receiving from the cup. My parish uses larger chunks of more bready bread than the usual thin circle hosts. When I have a meal, I might have a sip of water while the steak is still in my mouth, then swallow it all together. So I believe I am acting in accordance with Jesus’ teaching from John 6 when I drink the Precious Blood and eat the Body of Christ at the same time.

The thing I find most awkward is when several people consecutively choose to receive from the cup and a long line forms and is in danger of holding up the line to recieve the Body.

Also, I’m tempted to judgment of those receiving under “only” one species. I always felt like some people love Jesus enough to eat His Body, but others of us actually love Jesus enough to eat His Body and drink His Blood. I recommend that none of you fall into this trap. Theologically speaking, which would be accurately speaking in this case, both the bread and the wine are transubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. So one who receives the former bread still receives the Blood of Christ.

I have, however, heard from a priest (on CAF or Catholic Answers Live if my memory is correct) suggest that we not receive both species except on special occasions. I forget the reason, but remember thinking it made a lot of sense.

 

[callmeChris]

I dont take communion, I RECIEVE communion.
Dont bite the Eucharist into oblivion, remember it is the Body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ himself, it’s NOT a cracker. What I do Is let the host dissolve a little bit in my mouth, (At times if it’s taking a while I ‘fiddle’ it around my mouth to quicken the process) and I swallow it whole.

 

[Phemie]

I don’t take communion, I RECEIVE communion.

I always see that on these boards but as far as I’m concerned that distinction is an exercise in semantics.

If someone gives you something you take/receive it. It means the same thing.

 

[curlycool89]

Also, I’m tempted to judgment of those receiving under “only” one species. I always felt like some people love Jesus enough to eat His Body, but others of us actually love Jesus enough to eat His Body and drink His Blood. I recommend that none of you fall into this trap. Theologically speaking, which would be accurately speaking in this case, both the bread and the wine are transubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. So one who receives the former bread still receives the Blood of Christ.

I have, however, heard from a priest (on CAF or Catholic Answers Live if my memory is correct) suggest that we not receive both species except on special occasions. I forget the reason, but remember thinking it made a lot of sense.

I receive under both species most of the time. When I’m feeling a little under the weather though I’ll take a pass on the Precious Blood out of respect for others.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I always see that on these boards but as far as I’m concerned that distinction is an exercise in semantics.

If someone gives you something you take/receive it. It means the same thing.

Right. In scripture Jesus even directs the Apostles to “take, eat.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

I receive under both species most of the time. When I’m feeling a little under the weather though I’ll take a pass on the Precious Blood out of respect for others.

It could be a practice here in our archdiocese that the Cup is withheld except on Easter Vigil. Although our former parish priest does offer the Cup on weekday Mass, perhaps due to the low number of Mass goers.

 

[Seatuck]

The Apostles who were priests may ‘take’ and eat as Jesus instructed them. We laity must receive. This is why even the EMHC’s must be given the chalice or the ciborium from the priest and not “take” it themselves from the altar.

 

[MarkThompson]

The Apostles who were priests may ‘take’ and eat as Jesus instructed them. We laity must receive. This is why even the EMHC’s must be given the chalice or the ciborium from the priest and not “take” it themselves from the altar.

As noted above, this is just an issue of semantics. A standard definition of “take” is “to receive into one’s body (as by swallowing, drinking, or inhaling) <take a pill>.” That’s the sense in which it’s generally meant to “take Communion.”

Moreover, there is an element of “taking,” in the more active sense you have in mind, to Holy Communion. Not in that we go up to the ciborium and take a host, but in that, inasmuch as the Eucharist is a gift that Jesus gives us, he does not force it down our throats. “Receiving Communion” cannot be a purely passive thing; one must make the conscious choice to accept the gift that is given.

Like I said, just semantics, really. Going up to the altar and grabbing a host is definitely not okay, but using the phrase “to take Communion” is entirely acceptable as a semantic matter.

 

[David2010]

I had a priest who was a real stickler for all the rules and he stated that the host was supposed to be chewed. After all, we were told to eat Christ’s body, not lick it or suck it or let it dissolve on the tongue. So I usually take it and chew it up quickly while it is still crunchy.

 

[HCC]

Now this going to sound scrupulous, but if one chews and it gets stuck in the teeth and then you have particles in your teeth and lets say you brush your teeth and those particles come out onto the toothbrush and fall into the sink, etc…what should you do?

 

[MarkThompson]

Now this going to sound scrupulous, but if one chews and it gets stuck in the teeth and then you have particles in your teeth and lets say you brush your teeth and those particles come out onto the toothbrush and fall into the sink, etc…what should you do?

I eat bread all the time; can’t say this has ever happened to me.

 

[ConstantineTG]

As noted above, this is just an issue of semantics. A standard definition of “take” is “to receive into one’s body (as by swallowing, drinking, or inhaling) <take a pill>.” That’s the sense in which it’s generally meant to “take Communion.”

Moreover, there is an element of “taking,” in the more active sense you have in mind, to Holy Communion. Not in that we go up to the ciborium and take a host, but in that, inasmuch as the Eucharist is a gift that Jesus gives us, he does not force it down our throats. “Receiving Communion” cannot be a purely passive thing; one must make the conscious choice to accept the gift that is given.

Like I said, just semantics, really. Going up to the altar and grabbing a host is definitely not okay, but using the phrase “to take Communion” is entirely acceptable as a semantic matter.

I think people react negatively because it is forbidden to “take for oneself”. Since the word “take” is part of that instruction, people just avoid using the word “take” at all. I guess this sort of mentality has evolved given the way we’ve been bombarded by Protestants with our use of terminology. Before, using “worship” to refer to adoring and honoring the saints was okay. Today we can’t do that anymore. I think that mentality is what drives this “take” vs. “receive” argument about the Eucharist.

 

[MarkThompson]

I think people react negatively because it is forbidden to “take for oneself”. Since the word “take” is part of that instruction, people just avoid using the word “take” at all. I guess this sort of mentality has evolved given the way we’ve been bombarded by Protestants with our use of terminology. Before, using “worship” to refer to adoring and honoring the saints was okay. Today we can’t do that anymore. I think that mentality is what drives this “take” vs. “receive” argument about the Eucharist.

You may be right; I don’t know much about Protestant communion techniques, which I gater vary widely. Usually, though, people around here who huff about “receive, not take” are using it as code language for COTT vs. CITH. I couldn’t say I sensed that motivation in Seatuck’s post, though the fact remains, as a matter of English usage, that a person who kneels, closes his eyes, sticks out his tongue, and has the Host placed on it can perfectly well be said to be taking Communion.

I seem to recall looking once, in a previous discussion on this topic, at the Latin verbs used in the relevant places, and finding that verbs of taking as used interchangeably with verbs of receiving. I can’t guarantee that without checking again, which I’m not interested enough to do, but I can guarantee that the word “receive” comes from Latin capio, meaning “seize, snatch, capture, grab.”