Is the Eucharist suppose to be CHEWED at mass?

[m134e5]

Why chew the host? If Jesus is only there while the host is recognizable, and chewing the host speeds up the process, don’t chew the host! Remember that you do not receive the crucified Jesus- you receive the Risen Lord. While you are in the most personal setting you can possibly be with Jesus in this life, think about the love God has for you, and appreciate the moment.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Several posters have referred to the word “gnaw” which is precisely correct. In John 6:54 we are told “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;…” The word that is translated as “eat” here is trogo and it does mean “to gnaw.” Through the rest of the passage on the Eucharist John uses *phago *which means “to eat, to consume.”

Although I, too, was taught not to chew, there is no reason not to chew the Eucharist. After all, Jesus reminds us: “…for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” (Jn 6:55) Since one normally chews “real food” there is no reason not to chew the Eucharist.

Deacon Ed

 

[Sir_Knight]

misericordie:

The Hosts is the Body of Christ, hence it is not chewed as if a cookie. It is to be dissolved in the mouth, plus one whole hour before Mass, one is not to drink or eat anything but WATER, unless one is elderly, or sick.

This very question was asked at a summer retreat that I was on and the priest answered by saying that Jesus said “Take and eat” NOT “take and dissolve”.

 

[misericordie]

Sir Knight:

This very question was asked at a summer retreat that I was on and the priest answered by saying that Jesus said “Take and eat” NOT “take and dissolve”.

In common language: the meaning of EAT is anything that ENTERS the mouth. That is why it was only after entering into ECUMENISM with protestants after 1968 that this fad entered some esctors of the Church.st you mention said that, others and well most say DISSOLVE, as has ALWAYS been the Catholic tradition since MASS was officially codified after the Council of Trent.

 

[rlg94086]

Peace of Christ to all,

misericordie:

In common language: the meaning of EAT is anything that ENTERS the mouth. That is why it was only after entering into ECUMENISM with protestants after 1968 that this fad entered some esctors of the Church.st you mention said that, others and well most say DISSOLVE, as has ALWAYS been the Catholic tradition since MASS was officially codified after the Council of Trent.

Huh? Lost in translation. If your saying it was laid down at the Council of Trent, was it dogma or discipline?

dumspirospero:

I am no expert, but I believe that in the past, it was not acceptable to chew the body, because by chewing it, you broke it, and you cannot break the body of Christ

dumspriospero,

This is the way I was taught…

CCC 1377 "…Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ."

Otherwise, Christ would have been divided by the Priest. Therefore, I don’t think chewing would divide Christ.

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.

Rebuke accepted, but the species are still host and wine. I think this is what’s meant by…

**CCC 1374…**In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist " the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, *the whole Christ is truly, really and substantially *contained." **This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, **but because it is presence in the fullest sense…

baltobetsy:

Jesus is present in the Host as long as the appearance of bread remains. If you let the Host dissolve completely, there is no longer the appearance of bread, so Jesus is no longer present. Best just to soften up the Host, then swallow, if chewing offends you.

Betsy

I’ve never heard this. Do you know where it is taught? Since Christ taught that his flesh is real food “indeed”, I’ve always assumed his body, blood, soul and divinity enter my digestive system and every cell of my body. I actually pray after receiving that Christ enter every one of my cells. I know that may sound kind of silly, but I really believe we are “filled” with Christ after receiving the Eucharist.

God Bless,

Robert.

 

[cyprian]

robertaf:

Greetings

Jesus said, “take and eat”, the priest says the same thing. That means chew. I would hope you would show common manners and not smack your lips. Simply chew and swallow and remember you are in public.

INDEED THE WORD EAT IN ARAMAIC MEANT MASTICATE OR *CHEW. *

 

[Sir_Knight]

dumspirospero:

… by chewing it, you broke it, and you cannot break the body of Christ…

That doesn’t make sense because during the mass the priest breaks the host and just before eating it himself, he holds up the broken host for all to see before chewing it – I see his jaw moving indicating that it is not being disolved. I’ve seen priests, Msgrs and even a Bishop do this.

 

[Mrs_P]

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!!!

don’t watch

 

[Stephen-Maguire]

I never chew, I just wait until the Host melts, we were told years ago not to chew.

Times change though and some do, but that is the way I was brought up here in Ireland, and old habits die hard.

 

[Catholic_Tom]

wow, I never knew I would start quite the discussion…,…it’s evident though that there are really 2 trains of thought here…i asked my friend who is an RCIA teacher yesterday, and he said that of course it is ok to chew and he said, if you are taking Jesus into you, enjoy it, if chewing makes it natural and enjoyable, do so respectively…

 

[WhiteDove]

Well, my priest definately chews. You can hear it all too well because of that microphone attached to his vestments.

 

[atsheeran]

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 have heard admonitions like this before. A good point is being made because it is true that what we receive is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Chrst. No bread or win remain. However, it is proper to distinguish between the species with the words “bread” and “wine”.

Note that even the Code of Canon Law uses this terminology:
“Can. 925 Holy communion is to be given under the species of bread alone or, in accordance with the liturgical laws, under both species or, in case of necessity, even under the species of wine alone.”

Besides, distinguishing between the species as “body” and “blood” is somewhat lacking because we know the church teaches that when we receive either species we are receiving the whole Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity.

 

[manualman]

I think this is one of those Vatican II things that tend to divide us.

It is a noble intention that meditates on the true presence and draws implications about how His body and blood should be treated. So I can respect where that camp comes from.

However, I think one of the proper intentions of V2 was to correct an imbalance that had been developing for some time. That is to so emphasize the Divinity of Jesus as to deny the full humanity of His incarnation.

I chew. Jesus used that word. And I think it was on purpose and was intended to SHOCK me/us by the very seeming inappropriateness of it all. Our natural tendancy is to veer off true understandings and into distortions. It is not healthy to so focus on Christ’s divinity as to unconciously begin to forget, even doubt His full humanity too. Likewise, some need to remember that He was no mere compassionate teacher who came to make us feel good and remind us to be just to our neighbors!

The Incarnation is SUPPOSED to be hard to fathom.

 

[Fergal]

But that is the very point. We do receive both the humanity and the divinity of Christ. One compliments the other. One shuld never deny the other. In fact we receive the total Christ. Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
This is called the “law of concomitance.” The word concomitance means “existing together.” Theologians use the word to express the fact, expounded above, that where one part of the Sacred humanity is, there also are the other parts accompanying it; because the humanity is an inseparable and indivisible whole. Hence, although the special gift of the first element in the Sacrament is our Lord’s Body, or Flesh as He calls it in St. John’s Gospel, and the special gift of the second element is His Blood, yet where the Body is the Blood is also, and the Soul; and similarly, where the Blood is, there also is the Body and also the Soul; likewise the Divinity by virtue of the Hypostatic Union as it is called. That means the inseparable union of the Divinity with the Humanity in the One Person of the Eternal Son.

Christ is present in the Eucharist as He exists now in heaven, that is, in His glorified body. When Our Lord changed the bread and wine into His Body and Blood at the Last Supper, it was His mortal body, for He had not yet died and risen with His glorified body that was immortal. If there are on record miraculous cases where the Sacred Host has bled, that does not change the fact that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the glorified Christ. Our Lord could manifest this mark of His passion in this way to emphasize the fact that the Eucharist is a sacrifice (spiritually renewed at Mass) as well as a sacrament. Pope Leo XIII adds another reason:

• “In order that human reason may more willingly pay its homage to this great mystery, there have not been wanting, as an aid to faith, certain prodigies wrought in His honor, both in ancient times as in our own, of which in more than one place there exists public and notable records and memorials” (ibid.).

It is dangerous too only to see the Sacred Host in light of Jesus only. See the Sacred Host should always be seen in a Trinitarian light. If we restrict the Sacred Host only to Jesus, humanity and divinity, then we still see not the full picture.

The present Humanity of Christ i.e. His body and blood, is the product of transubstantiation and the Divinity of Christ is what causes & allows the Trinity to reside in each and every consecrated Host. So think about what you have just received. I prefer with these thoughts to refrain from chewing.

Remember from the Mass, Jesus, through the action of the Holy Spirit once again humbles himself to share in our humanity. Through our partaking of the Eucharist, in the state of grace, may we all come to share in His Divinity.

"In cruce latebat sola Deitas
At hic latet simul et humanitas."
(On the Cross was hidden only His divinity,
But here lies veiled also His humanity.)

While our reflection of Christ in the Eucharist centers mainly around his sacred humanity, it is a divine Person that we receive in Holy Communion, the only-begotten Son of the Father. Yet, the divine Word is never alone, for the Father abides in the Son and the Son in the Father, and both are united in the Holy Spirit, all possessing the same divine nature (Jn.14:11). Thus the divine Trinity of Persons, of whose vision is the beatitude of heaven, abides with the Word in the Eucharist Host.
Yet, our primary attention to Christ in the Eucharist will always be centered on Him in His sacred humanity, precisely because He took on our human nature to live and suffer the torturous death that He did - to show us the love of the Father for mankind, and to teach us by word and example how to return that love. In receiving this sacrament we receive Him who is infinite Love, and all the gifts and blessings of the Incarnation and Redemption are made available to us in the measure that is proportionate to our eagerness to receive them. That is to say, the love (not necessarily an emotional disposition) with which we receive our Eucharistic Lord will determine the extent to which this sacrament produces its principally intended effect, namely, transforming the soul into the likeness of Christ.

 

[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?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

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?

Bill, you and I got the same word – and it was wrong when we got it. We were misled in our youth because of an exaggerated sense of piety associated with the Blessed Sacrament. Jesus chose a prosaic food – bread – to be used for the Eucharist expecting that we would do what we normally do with bread – eat it. Instead, we were afraid that, somehow, chewing would be “disrespectful” and yet we never considered the effects of stomach acid on the Blessed Sacrament.

Feel free to chew if you wish, or to allow the Blessed Sacrament to dissolve if you wish. It’s your call when the Blessed Sacrament is in your mouth!

Deacon Ed

 

[Bill_A]

I am not going to chew. I am fine with piouty.

This is a good lesson in how things change and sometimes we need to make up our minds for ourselves.

I am more worried about other things going on and whether or Not I been to confession and, if a glass pitcher that was not poured on the altar, nor the priests hands washed and if the ECHM sent down to the communion rail constitutes liturgical abuse.

Ill just sit in my pew and pray. Hopefull soon some of us here wont be Deacons and lay people any more and we can give people some good advice ojn how to deal with things.

It is good to be pious and prayerful at church. I will avoid chewing the holy Eucharist. It takes about 30 seconds for it to disolve? It is small enough. Really I am much happier with a broken piece. I see a shared piece more like communion. We should share more.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Bill,

You write:

Hopefull soon some of us here wont be Deacons and lay people any more and we can give people some good advice ojn how to deal with things.

But I’m not sure what you mean. I will always be a deacon, and I try to give the best advice I can in line with Church teaching. Could you please clarify what you intended to say?

Deacon Ed

 

[MaggieOH]

Deacon Ed:

Several posters have referred to the word “gnaw” which is precisely correct. In John 6:54 we are told “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;…” The word that is translated as “eat” here is trogo and it does mean “to gnaw.” Through the rest of the passage on the Eucharist John uses *phago *which means “to eat, to consume.”

Although I, too, was taught not to chew, there is no reason not to chew the Eucharist. After all, Jesus reminds us: “…for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” (Jn 6:55) Since one normally chews “real food” there is no reason not to chew the Eucharist.

Deacon Ed

Like Deacon Ed, I was taught not to chew the host. However, when I have thought about the instruction of Jesus to “take and eat” and that we must “eat my flesh and drink my blood”, I have gradually relaxed and where necessary have chewed the Eucharist that I have received.

However, as mentioned by others, because my parish offers the Blood of Christ, and I partake of this offering, I do find that this supplies enough moisture to allow me to swallow withiout too much chewing.

In overcoming some of the old superstitious attitudes I have not abandoned my belief in what I am receiving when I receive the Eucharist. One can give reverance to Christ through the Eucharist and at the same time follow what Jesus told us, that is “take and eat”, and “eat my flesh and drink my blood”.

MaggieOH

 

[MaggieOH]

Sir Knight:

This very question was asked at a summer retreat that I was on and the priest answered by saying that Jesus said “Take and eat” NOT “take and dissolve”.

A priest responded to me on a slightly different question that Jesus said to “Take and eat” NOT “stick out your tongue”.

Again how we receive the Eucharist is a matter of personal preference. In my parish there is a very high proportion of people who receive on the tongue.

MaggieOH