Real Wine?

[Through_Him]

I’m sorry if this is slightly off topic, but something that has been bothering me lately is when does the bread and wine become the body/blood. I always thought it was once you receive it and “swallow”. Also, is it wrong to chew the bread?

God Bless,

Jessica

No it is not wrong to chew,everyone does a little.

From the encyclopidia

When we speak of consecration without any special qualification, we ordinarily understand it as the act by which, in the celebration of Holy Mass, the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. It is called transubstantiation, for in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine do not remain, but the entire substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the entire substance of wine is changed into His blood, the species or outward semblance of bread and wine alone remaining. This change is produced in virtue of the words: This is my body and This is my blood, or This is the chalice of my blood, pronounced by the priest assuming the person of Christ and using the same ceremonies that Christ used at the Last Supper. That this is the essential form has been the constant belief and teaching of both the Eastern and Western Churches (Renaudot, "Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio, I, i).

 

[Spirithound]

I’m sorry if this is slightly off topic, but something that has been bothering me lately is when does the bread and wine become the body/blood. I always thought it was once you receive it and “swallow”. Also, is it wrong to chew the bread?

God Bless,

Jessica

The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ when the priest says “This is my Body”, and “This is the cup of my Blood”.
Chewing is just fine. Jesus knew what He was getting into

 

[JAGCath28]

Thanks! That makes sense.

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m sorry if this is slightly off topic, but something that has been bothering me lately is when does the bread and wine become the body/blood. I always thought it was once you receive it and “swallow”. Also, is it wrong to chew the bread?

God Bless,

Jessica

It “becomes” during the Eucharistic Prayer and many would specify the words of institution during that prayer.

Not wrong to chew the bread.

 

[Heath_Bar]

Taking and receiving are two very different things. Taking means that you are reaching out and grabbing something on your own initiative. Receiving means that you are being giving something, or, in this case, Someone, by another person.

When it’s Christmas time or your birthday, or some other important event, I doubt that you will take your presents, right? You don’t just grab the gifit from the person who is trying to hand it to you. Rather, you receive it.

Precisely because we have new folks visiting the forums we should make every effort to use the correct terminology with the proper understanding of things, otherwise we continue to perpetuate misunderstandings.

I understand what you are saying, “taking the Eucharist” is an action phrase while “receiving the Eucharist” is a passive phrase. However, it is still splitting hairs when they are understood to mean basically the same thing. For instance, if a parishioner said, “I’m going to go to take communion from my friend, who is a Eucharistic Minister. After mass, I am going to see Father Jones about going to confession.” Any Catholic worth his salt knows exactly what they are saying and never thinks twice about it. However, some people get so caught up in making sure that every little label is in its proper place and every T is properly crossed. They would pick that statement apart. “First of all, you do not ‘take communion’, you ‘receive the Eucharist’. Second, it is not a Eucharistic Minister, it is an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Third, you do not go to confession, you attend the Sacrament of Reconciliation”. To all but the most academic of Catholics, there is no misunderstanding the meaning of the first phrase, even though the technically correct version would be the second phrase. Maybe it is just where I come from, but I just talk like a simple country boy and it is a pet peeve of mine when someone gets all mangled up in technicalities. That’s why lawyers make so much money, they take basic language and make it incomprehensible to regular people. And, some Catholics do the same. I love the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but I swear you have to have a dictionary handy because the heady language can go over the top. Anyway, that’s my two cents worth, from a plain-talking, flowery language detesting guy.

 

[benedictgal]

I understand what you are saying, “taking the Eucharist” is an action phrase while “receiving the Eucharist” is a passive phrase. However, it is still splitting hairs when they are understood to mean basically the same thing. For instance, if a parishioner said, “I’m going to go to take communion from my friend, who is a Eucharistic Minister. After mass, I am going to see Father Jones about going to confession.” Any Catholic worth his salt knows exactly what they are saying and never thinks twice about it. However, some people get so caught up in making sure that every little label is in its proper place and every T is properly crossed. They would pick that statement apart. “First of all, you do not ‘take communion’, you ‘receive the Eucharist’. Second, it is not a Eucharistic Minister, it is an Extoidinary Minister of Holy Communion. Third, you do not go to confession, you attend the Sacrament of Reconciliation”. To all but the most academic of Catholics, there is no misunderstanding the meaning of the first phrase, even though the technically correct version would be the second phrase. Maybe it is just where I come from, but I just talk like a simple country boy and it is a pet peeve of mine when someone gets all mangled up in technicalities. That’s why lawyers make so much money, they take basic language and make it incomprehensible to regular people. And, some Catholics do the same. I love the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but I swear you have to have a dictionary handy because the heady language can go over the top. Anyway, that’s my two cents worth, from a plain-talking, flowery language detesting guy.

I can understand your point. Regarding confession, that is still the correct term. It also goes by the names of Reconciliation and Penance.

Nonetheless, we need to use the terms that the Church gives us. A lot of misuse breeds confusion, like the two examples that you cited. The term Eucharistic Minister is reserved to the priest and bishop because only they can confect (cause to happen-consecrate) the Holy Eucharist. The ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the bishop, priest and deacon. The deacon is added here by virture of his ordination. The laity who assist with the distribution are called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion because our funciton is out of the ordinary.

Even the terms bread and wine are mixed and matched. The issue that the OP brings up talks about the matter being used for the Holy Sacrifice. However, after the consecration, the matter used becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. Thus to say that Catholics received bread and wine is wrong. The form may resemble and taste like bread and wine (the accidents), but the matter is now (at this point) the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Nonetheless, we need to use the terms that the Church gives us.

That brings up an interesting question, though, doesn’t it? Does the Church prescribe use of the language “receive” instead of “take” communion? Certainly the Church does not allow us to take the Eucharist . . . whether you describe Holy Communion as taking or receiving. But, aside form Cardinal Arinze’s quote above, do we have any other guidance?

VC

 

[benedictgal]

Here are the references where the word “receive” appearas in Redemptionis Sacramentum as it relates to Holy Communion:

83.] It is certainly best that all who are participating in the celebration of Holy Mass with the necessary dispositions should **receive **Communion. Nevertheless, it sometimes happens that Christ’s faithful approach the altar as a group indiscriminately. It pertains to the Pastors prudently and firmly to correct such an abuse.

And again:

85.] Catholic ministers licitly administer the Sacraments only to the Catholic faithful, who likewise receive them licitly only from Catholic ministers,

And again:

[88.] The faithful should normally receive sacramental Communion of the Eucharist during Mass itself, at the moment laid down by the rite of celebration, that is to say, just after the Priest celebrant’s Communion.

And, once more:

[89.] “So that even by means of the signs Communion may stand out more clearly as a participation in the Sacrifice being celebrated”,174 it is preferable that the faithful be able to receive hosts consecrated in the same Mass.175

[90.] “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”.176

There are many more references, but, I think you get my drift on where this is headed. Thus, the term here is “receive” and not “take.”

 

[DevotedCatholic]

---

As I have stated before, I am new at this and I have heard others use the word take when I thought it was was recieve and apparently I got a little confused and mixed up, so forgive me if it did no come out right. I am not going to say anyone is Jumping down my throat or anything but I am learning and it is going to take some time , I dont feel like a Catholic but I am. So I would in all respect ask for everyone to cut me a little slack.

 

[Heath_Bar]

---

As I have stated before, I am new at this and I have heard others use the word take when I thought it was was recieve and apparently I got a little confused and mixed up, so forgive me if it did no come out right. I am not going to say anyone is Jumping down my throat or anything but I am learning and it is going to take some time , I dont feel like a Catholic but I am. So I would in all respect ask for everyone to cut me a little slack.

Devoted Catholic,
The Catholic Church is so beautiful, yet very complex. Do not let some of the "legalese" shake you up. Whether we say "take" the Eucharist or "receive" the Eucharist is completely and entirely meaningless. What is meaningful, and why the Catholic Church is so wonderful, is the Eucharist itself. The body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. That is all that matters. That is what is important, and keep that in your heart. Whether you say take or receive is simply window dressing. I love you as a fellow member of Christ. We all have been new in our faith, especially us converts, and you will never learn all there is to know. You can only put your trust in Jesus and do all you can to grow in your love for Him. I don't think he cares whether we "take" Him or "receive" Him, as long as we get Him. You are at least trying to do your best, and that is good enough for me. There are a whole heck of a lot of Catholics who never bother to try to learn more about their faith, so the fact that you are here is a blessing, and we are blessed by your thirst to learn more.:thumbsup: I pray that God keeps you in His sight and pray that he continues to nurture you in your search for Truth.

 

[TheDoctor]

Do not let some of the “legalese” shake you up. Whether we say “take” the Eucharist or “receive” the Eucharist is completely and entirely meaningless…

No, it is not. Quite the contrary my dear friend, it has everything to do with meaning.

We “take” things of nominal value, sometimes even as part of sinning. We take a number at the deli counter, we take someone’s money, we take candy from a child.

To “receive” is to wait for something, a gift, to be given to you. In some cases, a gift we don’t deserve. We receive praise, we receive hugs and kisses, we receive life from our parents.

The Eucharist is not a cookie to take from a bowl. It is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ given freely for all of us unworthy sinners through the agony of the cross. We could never, ever take anything from God and yet he gives us this most precious gift of himself out of his unbelievable mercy and love and all he asks is that we receive this gift reverently and love Him in return.

This is the reason we “receive” and don’t “take”.

 

[Heath_Bar]

I am not going to get into this debate again. I realize that the absolutely proper phrase to say is “receive”. But, I get sick and tired of people acting high and mighty because someone else might say “take”. Who cares? The Eucharist is what is important, not the language it is couched in. There is a proper way to correct and explain to someone about the proper term, but to make too big a deal about an action verb and a passing verb just tends to scare someone away, when the Eucharist itself, and the fact that it is Jesus’s body, blood, soul, and divinity is what the question was about. The question from the original poster was not whether we “take” or “receive” the Eucharist, it was about whether or not it was right to “receive” (there! I’ll grant you that one!) only one species or both species. Then, the legalists start making the OP start feeling ignorant because they may not use the proper grammar. Yes, “receive” is correct, but it is not a big deal to me of someone says “take”. The Eaucharist itself is what is important.

 

[benedictgal]

I am not going to get into this debate again. I realize that the absolutely proper phrase to say is “receive”. But, I get sick and tired of people acting high and mighty because someone else might say “take”. Who cares? The Eucharist is what is important, not the language it is couched in. There is a proper way to correct and explain to someone about the proper term, but to make too big a deal about an action verb and a passing verb just tends to scare someone away, when the Eucharist itself, and the fact that it is Jesus’s body, blood, soul, and divinity is what the question was about. The question from the original poster was not whether we “take” or “receive” the Eucharist, it was about whether or not it was right to “receive” (there! I’ll grant you that one!) only one species or both species. Then, the legalists start making the OP start feeling ignorant because they may not use the proper grammar. Yes, “receive” is correct, but it is not a big deal to me of someone says “take”. The Eaucharist itself is what is important.

No one is being high and mighty, but, what we need to understand is the meaning behind the words. It is not legalese to use the words that the Church wants us to use. We should not downplay this nor criticize those who are trying to use the correct terminology.

People come to these forums to learn. We just need to use the words that the Church uses.

 

[Heath_Bar]

No one is being high and mighty, but, what we need to understand is the meaning behind the words. It is not legalese to use the words that the Church wants us to use. We should not downplay this nor criticize those who are trying to use the correct terminology.

People come to these forums to learn. We just need to use the words that the Church uses.

I know that you mean well, but to someone who is new to the faith and is seeking an answer to a question, it can come across as being high and mighty sounding. There is plenty of time in one’s faith journey to start learning the difference between “taking” and “receiving” the Eucharist. The original post was not about this. If it were, then it would be perfectly proper to set the record straight. However, when they were not looking to find the answer on whether they “take” or “receive” the Eucharist, to suddenly start correcting their innocent mistake in phraseology can intimidate someone. It does come across as legalese, even if you mean well. We do not want to frighten new, sincere Catholics away from the faith because they think that they are being punished for making an innocent mistake. They will soon learn some of the proper terminology. I just believe that some on here were being too quick to criticize the original poster on an innocent mistake while asking a different question.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please, everyone, let’s not make this personal. The OP doesn’t need to be overwhelmed by people arguing back and forth about who should write about what. That’s my job to determine. So, let’s just stick to the topic, everyone. Thank you.

 

[Aramis]

The ability for the Bishop to permit mustum for communing the laity is an accommodation for individuals with celiac disease coupled with other disorders which require medication.

Severe celiac patients can’t even receive the species of the Body safely with the low-gluten hosts; for them, communion under the species of the Blood alone is permitted. Likewise for persons with their jaws wired shut, communion under the species of the Blood alone is permitted.

Many of those are also under medical care with medications that even tiny amounts of alcohol are notable; mustum has negligible alcoholic content (By law, less than 0.5% by volume, often less even than that).

I myself have been on meds that made the accidents of wine in the Blood profound. Dizzy and lightheaded from only a sip… and know that there are others far more sensitive than I. The permission for mustum is a pastoral provision that enables some of the profoundly sick and injured to receive safely.

I can see permission being granted for use of mustum in prisons, too, and in places where alcohol is forbidden by law.

 

[Through_Him]

The ability for the Bishop to permit mustum for communing the laity is an accommodation for individuals with celiac disease coupled with other disorders which require medication.

Severe celiac patients can’t even receive the species of the Body safely with the low-gluten hosts; for them, communion under the species of the Blood alone is permitted. Likewise for persons with their jaws wired shut, communion under the species of the Blood alone is permitted.

Many of those are also under medical care with medications that even tiny amounts of alcohol are notable; mustum has negligible alcoholic content (By law, less than 0.5% by volume, often less even than that).

I myself have been on meds that made the accidents of wine in the Blood profound. Dizzy and lightheaded from only a sip… and know that there are others far more sensitive than I. The permission for mustum is a pastoral provision that enables some of the profoundly sick and injured to receive safely.

I can see permission being granted for use of mustum in prisons, too, and in places where alcohol is forbidden by law.

I can see us going back to not receiving the blood/wine at all.
I wish. Reserved for the priest.

 

[roselily]

If you are taking communion (communion is not required) you are only required to take either the Body or the Blood. What the earlier poster was getting at is that due to the fact you can’t really seperate Jesus’ divine nature, when you take the Body you are technically getting the entire Body, Blood, Soul and divinity of Christ. That same thing happens when you take the Blood. Physically taking both (unless you are a priest) isn’t required. You are allowed to take both if both are available, but you only have to take one.

Thank you for let me know it. There was a time when I used to be afraid of ask; why our local Roman Catholic Church when taking communion, just only bread( Body), but no wine(Blood); but now I understand a bit and feel quite at ease, but I know; I still not quiet understand why we can not take Body and the Blood together in our Church ?

 

[benedictgal]

Thank you for let me know it. There was a time when I used to be afraid of ask; why our local Roman Catholic Church when taking communion, just only bread( Body), but no wine(Blood); but now I understand a bit and feel quite at ease, but I know; I still not quiet understand why we can not take Body and the Blood together in our Church ?

Just a point of clarification: We do not take; we receive. Even though we’ve spent a great deal in this thread discussing this particular use of the word, I believe that we should use the terms that the Church uses.

When we receive Holy Communion under the species of the Host, we do, in effect, receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The whole and complete Christ is contained in either species. Reception of both is the fuller meaning; however, we are not short-changed in any way simply because we receive the Sacred Host.

I posted this a couple of pages ago, but, I think it bears repeating. It comes from Laud Sion, the sequence we pray during the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, written by St. Thomas Aquinas:

Here beneath these signs are hidden
priceless things, to sense forbidden;
signs, not things, are all we see.
**Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine,
yet is Christ in either sign,
all entire confessed to be. **

And whoe’er of Him partakes,
severs not, nor rends, nor breaks:
all entire, their Lord receive.
Whether one or thousand eat,
all receive the selfsame meat,
nor do less for others leave.

I hope this helps.

 

[roselily]

Just a point of clarification: We do not take; we receive. Even though we’ve spent a great deal in this thread discussing this particular use of the word, I believe that we should use the terms that the Church uses.

When we receive Holy Communion under the species of the Host, we do, in effect, receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The whole and complete Christ is contained in either species. Reception of both is the fuller meaning; however, we are not short-changed in any way simply because we receive the Sacred Host.

I posted this a couple of pages ago, but, I think it bears repeating. It comes from Laud Sion, the sequence we pray during the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, written by St. Thomas Aquinas:

I hope this helps.

…
Why we just receive Body in our local Church? why?