Is the Eucharist suppose to be CHEWED at mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Tom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The issues I have with the people who say that it is more reverent to allow the host to disolve in the mouth is that they really do not know much about the Church.

In the Byzantine Churches we use levaned bread. Yes we recieve by intinction, so it is dipped into the precious Blood (the Melkite way) or it is placed into the Chalice and distributed by a golden spoon, but it will still take a long time to disolve.

And then there is the fact that we communion infants, when they start to take solid food they are given the Body as well. How do you tell them to let it disolve?
 
Interesting point, Deborah, but I’m not sure I can entirely agree. After all, when you think about the reality of the Eucharist (form/substance)–remember the case of the family that got upset because their daughter with celiac disease couldn’t receive a rice wafer? They just couldn’t understand it wasn’t a matter of the heart, but of objective, scientific reality. I may be misunderstanding your post, but it sounds a bit too much like what someone told me at our parish–I was sad that the doors to the church are always locked; also, that there’s not a great deal of interest in adoration, and the person said, well, Jesus is everywhere–he’s with you all the time, don’t worry about it. (the implication being that it doesn’t really matter).
I didn’t really know how to reply, because at the time I hadn’t read the Catechism, but it does say that in a way she was right–Jesus is present in all these other ways as well–but in his divinity. He’s only present in both divinity and humanity in the Eucharist. And for me, it’s a real physical longing. If it weren’t, I would have remained Protestant.
I don’t think I explained that very well…it just seems that–as a new convert, I am very sensitive to reverence for the Eucharist. And to me, that means guarding against a very prevalent tendency I see to, in the spirit of wanting to mend ecumenical fences, to blur the lines in a dangerous way, so that we all just become Protestant in our understanding of the Eucharist.

In short, even though the topic is about chewing, etc., I think to say all that matters is what’s in the heart isn’t quite doctrinally correct, you know?
This may not be what you were saying–as I say, I’m very over-sensitive about this (shows my own insecurity, being new in the Faith).
 
40.png
rwoehmke:
I understand that Jesus leaves when the host starts to be digested. Being made of starch this would start to take place in the saliva of the mouth which contains an enzyme that breaks starches down into sugars. Interesting topic but I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.
Click to expand...
Not quite, wheat is mostly a carbohyrdrate. I’m with ByzCath, as I am an Eastern Catholic (Syro-Malankara) as well, we normally receive the Body (leavened Host) within the Chalice, mixed with the Blood. It kind of resembles wheatgerm mixed with wine in texture and taste, then we sometimes have small shotcups of water on the side, just in case.
 
40.png
Lamb100:
Interesting point, Deborah, but I’m not sure I can entirely agree. After all, when you think about the reality of the Eucharist (form/substance)–remember the case of the family that got upset because their daughter with celiac disease couldn’t receive a rice wafer? They just couldn’t understand it wasn’t a matter of the heart, but of objective, scientific reality. I may be misunderstanding your post, but it sounds a bit too much like what someone told me at our parish–I was sad that the doors to the church are always locked; also, that there’s not a great deal of interest in adoration, and the person said, well, Jesus is everywhere–he’s with you all the time, don’t worry about it. (the implication being that it doesn’t really matter).
I didn’t really know how to reply, because at the time I hadn’t read the Catechism, but it does say that in a way she was right–Jesus is present in all these other ways as well–but in his divinity. He’s only present in both divinity and humanity in the Eucharist. And for me, it’s a real physical longing. If it weren’t, I would have remained Protestant.
I don’t think I explained that very well…it just seems that–as a new convert, I am very sensitive to reverence for the Eucharist. And to me, that means guarding against a very prevalent tendency I see to, in the spirit of wanting to mend ecumenical fences, to blur the lines in a dangerous way, so that we all just become Protestant in our understanding of the Eucharist.

In short, even though the topic is about chewing, etc., I think to say all that matters is what’s in the heart isn’t quite doctrinally correct, you know?
This may not be what you were saying–as I say, I’m very over-sensitive about this (shows my own insecurity, being new in the Faith).
Click to expand...
The most important thing is the heart, but that in no way eliminates the importance of the physical reality.
 
40.png
Bill_A:
I was told to avoid chewing, here we are 30 years later we are being told to Chew? Why are things constantly changing? Are we being misled?
Click to expand...
Changing once in 30 years is hardly “constantly” changing.
 
40.png
WhiteDove:
I prefer not to chew. If the blood is available, it’s perfect for softening and washing down the host! 🙂
Click to expand...
I was told secondhand by a reliable source that this is not licit in the Roman Rite, as it is akin to self-intinction.
 
Bobby Jim:
I was told secondhand by a reliable source that this is not licit in the Roman Rite, as it is akin to self-intinction.
Click to expand...
What is it you are saying is illicit? Receiving under both species? It is allowed.

From the Catechism:
1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of the Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.”
Click to expand...
 
40.png
atsheeran:
What is it you are saying is illicit? Receiving under both species? It is allowed.
Click to expand...
No, what I was referring to was the practice of keeping the host in your mouth and then using the Precious Blood to soften it up and swallow it or “wash it down”.

I have since asked my source, and was told that was spelled out as illicit in an earlier draft of REDEMPTIONIS SACRAMENTUM, but didn’t make the final version - perhaps they realized it was not so practical to insist that you have completely swallowed the host before receiving the Precious Blood.
 
Bobby Jim:
No, what I was referring to was the practice of keeping the host in your mouth and then using the Precious Blood to soften it up and swallow it or “wash it down”.

I have since asked my source, and was told that was spelled out as illicit in an earlier draft of REDEMPTIONIS SACRAMENTUM, but didn’t make the final version - perhaps they realized it was not so practical to insist that you have completely swallowed the host before receiving the Precious Blood.
Click to expand...
This is not intinction. Intinction is taking the host by hand and dipping it into the Precious Blood that is in the Chalice. Only self intinction is prohibited.

Co-mingling of the Body and Blood within the mouth is not illict as even if you chew the host there will be particles left in your mouth when you partake of the Chailce, so not matter what they will co-mingle.
 
I also was taught not to chew, let it dissolve. But it seems, EVERYONE else chews! I see the priests chew and the congregation chew. I’m not sure how I feel about it, but I continue to do as I was taught, figuring I have the Lord’s Real Presence with me that much longer!

Ave Maria!
Amy FTI
 
The entire purpose for our receiving the Eucharist is that we might *eat *it, for that is what one does with nourishing, life giving substances. The Eucharist goes into our mouth in order for us to eat it; if that were not the case, we would merely hold it in our hands, or clasp it to our chest near our heart so that He might remain with us in this particular manifestation of his presence for as long as possible.
 
Catholic Tom:
I have always been taught, as have my parents, that you are NOT to chew the Eucharist, but to put it on your tongue and let it disolve. Yet I have noticed the Deacon, and the Bishop at a recent mass chewing the Eucharist and it honestly made me sick to my stomach to watch.

Help!!!
Click to expand...
Very interesting point. I too find the chewing that one sees going on disturbing. I haven’t read all of the posts in this thread but I wonder if anyone has pointed out that Jesus, when saying “Take and eat, this is my body,” was not referring to a thin modern Communion wafer which easily dissolves respectfully in the mouth, but to unleavened bread which is much more substantial and which takes a certain amount of chewing to get down.
 
40.png
romano:
Very interesting point. I too find the chewing that one sees going on disturbing. I haven’t read all of the posts in this thread but I wonder if anyone has pointed out that Jesus, when saying “Take and eat, this is my body,” was not referring to a thin modern Communion wafer which easily dissolves respectfully in the mouth, but to unleavened bread which is much more substantial and which takes a certain amount of chewing to get down.
Click to expand...
What, specifically, is respectful about letting the Communion wafer dissolve in the mouth? As well, what is disrespectful about not letting it dissolve in the mouth? If the chewing required by the bread used by Jesus in the Lord’s Supper was not disrespectful, why would it be disrespectful now? Is it not the same presence of the same Lord?
 
40.png
ByzCath:
This is not intinction. Intinction is taking the host by hand and dipping it into the Precious Blood that is in the Chalice. Only self intinction is prohibited.

Co-mingling of the Body and Blood within the mouth is not illict as even if you chew the host there will be particles left in your mouth when you partake of the Chailce, so not matter what they will co-mingle.
Click to expand...
Obviously they came to agree with you in the final document. I also found the idea of equating that with self-intinction wrong-headed, for the reason you cite, and others. Whoever thought that should be in the document must have been overruled or convinced otherwise - the Holy Spirit guiding the Church?
 
40.png
misericordie:
one whole hour before Mass, one is not to drink or eat anything but WATER, unless one is elderly, or sick.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. The fast is not measured from when Mass starts but from when you receive Communion. You are to fast one hour before Communion. If at your parish Communion is distributed 45 minutes after Mass begins, then your fast has to start no later than 15 minutes before Mass begins.
 
Karl Keating:
This is incorrect. The fast is not measured from when Mass starts but from when you receive Communion. You are to fast one hour before Communion. If at your parish Communion is distributed 45 minutes after Mass begins, then your fast has to start no later than 15 minutes before Mass begins.
Click to expand...
I have always wondered about this.

But then my personal practice is to keep the 12 hour fast before reception of the Eucharist at Sunday Divine Liturgy. For Holy Days, seeing that our Divine Liturgy is at 7pm, I eat nothing after lunch.
 
Catholic Tom:
I have always been taught, as have my parents, that you are NOT to chew the Eucharist, but to put it on your tongue and let it disolve. Yet I have noticed the Deacon, and the Bishop at a recent mass chewing the Eucharist and it honestly made me sick to my stomach to watch.

Help!!!
Click to expand...
With all due respect to the good folks in this thread who have been
arguing for ‘chewing’ and ‘gnawing’ and other literal interpretations of
Christ’s “eat this,” perhaps an analogy might be in order.

Because, on another occasion, Christ told a rich youth to sell all
he had and give it to the poor, it doesn’t follow from what he said
that everyone who is rich should do the same. There is a correct use of
wealth that does not involve giving it all away. In other words, Christ
was not establishing a principle that would be valid for all men and
women at all times; he was speaking to a particular youth in a
particular situation.

Similarly, Christ’s “eat [gnaw?] this” was spoken to a specific group of
individuals at a unique moment in history. Perhaps for us today, folks
who are very different individuals in a very different situation, there
is a more appropriate way of dealing with the host than ‘chewing’ or
‘gnawing’ it, one that does not involve a strictly literal
interpretation of Christ’s words.

In other words, if anyone wants to ‘gnaw’ the host that’s fine,
providing they have first sold all they have and given it to the poor
😉
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
What, specifically, is respectful about letting the Communion wafer dissolve in the mouth? As well, what is disrespectful about not letting it dissolve in the mouth? If the chewing required by the bread used by Jesus in the Lord’s Supper was not disrespectful, why would it be disrespectful now? Is it not the same presence of the same Lord?
Click to expand...
We chew hamburgers, automatically, reflexively, without giving much thought to it. But since allowing something to slowly dissolve in the mouth is such a different way of eating, it serves to remind us that what we are eating here is something very different, something sacred. As such it can be conducive to the feeling of awe and respect and reverence that ought to accompany our consumption of the host. Or so it seems to me.
 
40.png
romano:
With all due respect to the good folks in this thread who have been
arguing for ‘chewing’ and ‘gnawing’ and other literal interpretations of
Christ’s “eat this,” perhaps an analogy might be in order.

Because, on another occasion, Christ told a rich youth to sell all
he had and give it to the poor, it doesn’t follow from what he said
that everyone who is rich should do the same. There is a correct use of
wealth that does not involve giving it all away. In other words, Christ
was not establishing a principle that would be valid for all men and
women at all times; he was speaking to a particular youth in a
particular situation.

Similarly, Christ’s “eat [gnaw?] this” was spoken to a specific group of
individuals at a unique moment in history. Perhaps for us today, folks
who are very different individuals in a very different situation, there
is a more appropriate way of dealing with the host than ‘chewing’ or
‘gnawing’ it, one that does not involve a strictly literal
interpretation of Christ’s words.

In other words, if anyone wants to ‘gnaw’ the host that’s fine,
providing they have first sold all they have and given it to the poor
😉
Click to expand...
So, you think at the last supper everyone let the Eucharist provided by Our Lord dissolve in their mouths? I doubt it. They probably chewed as they normally would at a Passover meal. They didn’t have small, thin hosts. If it was important, don’t you think Jesus would have said something? He was right there…

“Hey, that’s Me your chewing! You should let Me dissolve!”

Sorry if that sounds irreverant, but I think the argument for dissolving is without merit. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done, but I do believe either method is fine.

God Bless,

Robert.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top