Is the Eucharist suppose to be CHEWED at mass?

[dbaseII]

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?

Not misled. But each Vatican and Church council clarifies (not changes) things. Like you can view TV better on today’s color TV but TV is essentially the same as it was in the 50’s when the state of the art was b & w 10 inch… think of now as just a clearer picture than before.

When I converted in the 1960’s I quickly swallowed the Host but I think they were smaller Hosts back then. Now I chew it because I have an esophageal stricture and cannot swallow well. (I am 60 years old). It does get in your teeth but if you hold it in your mouth, it will also disappear completely. (I did that once) We must remember it looks like bread but is no longer bread in any way except outer looks.

As I chew, I think of the woman touching Jesus’ robe and asking for a healing. I too ask for healing and serenity and peace as I touch Our Lord in the Eucharist.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

So far as I know, there is no requirement that the hosts be made in such a way that they will simply dissolve on your tounge - just that they are made of wheat flour and water. It is possible, and practiced in some places, to make hosts that are very dense and really need to be chewed. So I would recommend doing whatever your personal sense of piety and upbringing say is appropriate, although might I suggest that if you happen to visit a parish that uses more “substantial” hosts that you not try to swallow it whole, lest you choke, nor hold it in your mouth for an hour waiting for it to dissolve.

 

[romano]

[snip]
… 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… 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.

I think it’s important to remember the context here. Judas has just left
the room. Christ’s time is short. He wishes to have a last opportunity
to commune with his Father in prayer before the coming ordeal of his
arrest, trial, torture, and crucifixion.

The word “eat” occurs only in Matthew 26.26:

 LABETE PHAGETE, TOUTO ESTIN TO  SOMA MOU
 Take   eat      this  is    the body of me

PHAGETE is related to PHAGOS which means ‘a voracious man,’ and the
voracious do not chew their food in a leisurely fashion - they eat
rapidly. I think the best solution to what is going on has been
provided by Kenneth S. Wuest in his ‘The New Testament - An Expanded
Translation’ (1961) who translates as follows:

“Take at once. Eat at Once. This is my body.”

There is a sense of urgency here. Christ is in a hurry. He is telling
his disciples to eat quickly. But since we ourselves, when at Mass
today, are not (as yet) in imminent danger of arrest and persecution, a
leisurely chewing or even more leisurely dissolving of the host seems
best. But if you insist on chewing, please let your chewing be a holy chewing.

God Bless!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

romano:

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.

This is absurd. We in the Byzantine Churches us levaned bread, there is no way that we can do this.

Seems that most who seem to think it is more reverent to not eat the Eucharist do not know of the Byzantine Churches.

 

[Evan]

wannabee:

Please folk be more careful with your terminology – you are not partaking of wine at Communion.

At Communion you receive the Most Sacred Body and the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord and Saviour.

I know there is a tendance to use the term wine. I think it is acceptable, although consecrated wine would be more proper. The consecrated wine is not the the ‘Blood of Christ’ it is the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of wine. That seems a bit long to say when a one sylable word would do. What we need is something like ‘host’ to identify consecrated wine and we should reserve the word ‘host’ to the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread. Before it is consecrated, I suppose, we should refer to it a bread (or matzah?) or unlevened bread.

 

[Evan]

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?

I was told something similar 30 years ago, but even then the priest chewed the host. For at the end of most masses, he would consume all the remaining hosts.

As an EMHC we occationally have to consume 1 or 2 or 20 remaining hosts after communion. Our count is not perfect and our bishop has asked us to consume all the hosts prepared at a mass [unless extra were purposely prepared for deposition in the tabernacle] as a more complete sign of a eucharistic feast (no leftovers).

Also with the use of the large host, the broken pieces are sometimes quite large and our priest will even bite the pieces to get them small enough to fit in his mouth.

So in 30 years, I have seen priests chew the hosts even though I was instructed to not chew. But I always believed that was just a pius action, never a church discipline.

 

[Prometheum_x]

romano:

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.

I think the key thing is that we are actually eating the host and that we do it in a reverent manner. We should neither eat it as if it were a hamburger nor let it dissolve as if it were a cough drop. Each of us is individually responsible for the attitudes of our own hearts. So, if you cannot chew with reverence, then by all means, don’t. Of course, one might want to figure out how to do so in case the misfortune of only having access to leavened hosts at an Eastern church befalls them. . .

I think that in a matter such as this the following Scripture passage is quite applicable:

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. . . . Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. " (Rom 14:1-8, 13a NIV)

 

[romano]

ByzCath:

This is absurd. We in the Byzantine Churches us levaned bread, there is no way that we can do this.

Seems that most who seem to think it is more reverent to not eat the Eucharist do not know of the Byzantine Churches.

I’m not in the Byzantine Church. I’m a Roman Catholic, and the host wafers served up in my church are so insubstantial you’d find very little to chew on.

 

[romano]

[snip]
I think the key thing is that we are actually eating the host and that we do it in a reverent manner. We should neither eat it as if it were a hamburger nor let it dissolve as if it were a cough drop…

I agree with the first part but not with second. Are there really souls so hardy they can actually allow a cough drop to dissolve in the mouth? I can never resist the temptation to crunch mine!

 

[romano]

Prometheum_x:

I think the key thing is that we are actually eating the host and that we do it in a reverent manner. We should neither eat it as if it were a hamburger nor let it dissolve as if it were a cough drop. Each of us is individually responsible for the attitudes of our own hearts. So, if you cannot chew with reverence, then by all means, don’t. Of course, one might want to figure out how to do so in case the misfortune of only having access to leavened hosts at an Eastern church befalls them. . .

I think that in a matter such as this the following Scripture passage is quite applicable:

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. . . . Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. " (Rom 14:1-8, 13a NIV)

Hi Prometheum_x:

Very nice post! You almost had me convinced. . . . But wasn’t
Christ’s ‘Cleansing of the Temple’ a “passing of judgement”? -
a justifiable indignation at unseemly behavior? An indignation
similar to that of the initiator of this thread?

God bless.

 

[Prometheum_x]

romano:

Hi Prometheum_x:

Very nice post! You almost had me convinced. . . . But wasn’t
Christ’s ‘Cleansing of the Temple’ a “passing of judgement”? -
a justifiable indignation at unseemly behavior? An indignation
similar to that of the initiator of this thread?

God bless.

Do not pass judgment on disputable matters: “Which is the better way to eat, dissolving or chewing?” If it is necessary to pass judgment, do it instead on those who eat the Eucharist irreverently, whichever eating method they employ. It is neither chewing nor dissolving which causes it to be unseemly behavior, but irreverence.

So, in a matter such as this, allow each individual the responsibility of determining which eating method would be most reverent for them.

 

[Lost_Found]

Chew, dissolve - either way, not a deal-breaker - as long as you treat the host with complete reverence, because this is one of the most sacred practices of our tradition.
Like some of the posters, I can’t seem to bring myself to chew the host. I won’t even allow it to touch my teeth.

 

[Conster74]

chew, don’t chew – whats the point??? Why don’t we just wear the Host on our foreheads and walk around with Jesus on our minds all day?
To me, this is about the same lines as “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” The only logical answer is: Who cares. Myself, I don’t like to chew – I have weird teeth (bad, broken, misaligned, rotting, there’s even a bicuspid and a molar that are switched around) I’m paranoid that Jesus is going to be stuck between my teeth all day so I try to not chew. But really – do you think for one minute that He cares about your teeth??? He’s more interested in your heart – if you love him as you say you do. If you’re that worried about it go get a Coke and drink it after Mass. And get checked up by the dentist for Pete’s sake. It’s more important that your SOUL is ready to receive him. Don’t worry about your teeth…

 

[SyroMalankara]

Conster,
You should avoid that Coke like the plague, with your cracked and crooked teeth.

 

[Sean.McKenzie]

rlg94086:

I’m a convert, so I didn’t grow up with the “no chew” rule. However, I don’t usually need to after receiving the wine, and I certainly don’t smack my lips…

I heard Scott Hahn once discussing John 6:54-58, and he explained that one of the Greek works used for eat was literally translated as “gnaw”. That said, I guess an argument could be made that chewing is completely aok.

God Bless,

Robert.

PS Don’t pray out loud with your mouth full?

John 6: 54-58:

54 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

Dr. Scott Hahn is absolutely correct, you should be chewing it, because in thse verses Jesus uses the “trogo” term of eat whic mean to literally gnaw or bite. So clearly we must do what is commanded by our Lord when he means to gnaw or chew.

 

[una_fide]

Ok, I must first tell you that I read very few of the posts… so here goes.

I remember reading on the ewtn website Eastern Catholic Churches message board (or on the host’s web site) the he thought that it was kind of silly that some of the westerners don’t like to chew the Eucharist. He said something like ‘Chew all you want, and dont worry about some of It getting stuck in your teeth,(this is where I really need to paraphrase) you will be able to have physicle communion with Jesus longer.’ OK, please correct me if I got the paraphrase wrong.

 

[Romie]

Oh Boy!! I have been away for awhile and did not check the threads before I asked the question. I did in fact ask about Chewing, so sorry!!
But I have alway been told you do not chew the body of Christ.
It took me a very long time to receive in the hand and now chewing seems just as uncomfortable. So I guess we all go ahead and do our own thing. Romie

 

[Transformer]

Again, I find that chewing is a more ‘authentic’ form of eating. While, indeed, it seems strange and even seems disrespectful, the whole Incarnation is this way. What became of Jesus’ dirty laundry? Did His umbilical cord blood spill on a stable floor? Surely He beld profusely from His shredded back along the road to Calvary? God Himself became a man and suffered tremendous indignity as a consequence of coming to His fallen humanity.

Over time, I have concluded that He MEANT for the eucharist to be shocking. Scriptures show that many of His disciples were horrified and abandoned Him over the idea of ‘eating his flesh.’ I believe He WANTS us eat (chew, gnaw) His very flesh and blood. Had He been primarily concerned with His dignity, He could very well have chosen some more ethereal manner of conveying to us the grace of communion. But He did not. He choose the eucharist, a way that however carefully performed is not dignified enough to befit the God of the universe. It is acceptable only because HE instituted it. By merely human comprehension it is appalling however it is practiced.

Amen! I couldn’t agree more.

All these people who seem so shocked and appalled at someone’s actually chewing the host remind me very much of the people who said in John 6, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” The feeling of being shocked is the exact same.

In a way, it’s good that we feel that way, so that we don’t forget just how shocking the Eucharist - indeed, the whole Incarnation itself! - really is.