Now an observation.
bendictgal:
We do not take; we receive. Even though weâve 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.
It seems to me that a distinction can and should be made between the concept of âtakingâ and the use of the word âtakeâ.
Leaving aside any question of the laity
self communicating (i.e. picking up the Eucharist and giving it to oneself) which is strictly prohibited, I think the point is that oneâs disposition should never be one of entitlement or âgraspingâ but rather one of humble reception. But this disposition of receptivity is something that both priests and laity must have, and must have whether the word used to describe Holy Communion is âtakeâ or âreceive.â
It doesnât seem to me that the use of the word âtakeâ is immediately an invalid expression. Perhaps it is not the
best one in order to communicate the interior disposition we should have, but it doesnât mean that one doesnât have that interior disposition. The Latin word often used in regard to Holy Communion is
accipio (and used at the Last Supper).
Accipio seems to have senses of meaning, and seems to be translatable as âtakeâ or âreceiveâ. For instance see Fr. Zâs discussion of it
here. Note in this discussion that the Apostles âtake/receiveâ, that is take in the
passive sense. So, even priests who take communion (iâŚe use the word âtakeâ and also physically take it themselves, without being given it by another person at the altar) still should take in the passive sense.
This active taking versus passive taking seems to me present in English. The use of the word âtakeâ itself doesnât tell us the interior disposition of the person. Thus we can take without violently grasping something â when we âtake this woman as your wifeâ surely the interior disposition is passive, i.e. âreceptive takingâ. Also when someone offers their hand and I âtakeâ it â again it is a receptive disposition. In fact, in both, the basic sense of
accipio is conveyed, to accept something
offered. (I might add that the use of the word âreceiveâ can also have nuances, and not necessarily be joined to a *receptive *disposition â as when the Queen receives you.)
The point Iâm trying to make is that in the past, and today, I think people legitimately *could *use the word âtakeâ in relation to Holy Communion (but it might not convey things as
precisely as we would wish). One may certainly find translations of Aquinas where
accipe is translated as âtakeâ in relation to Holy Communion. Even the English version of the Compendium of the Catechism uses the phrase âtake Holy Communionâ (349).
You quoted from the Lauda Sion, which was translated asAnd whoeâer 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.
But the Latin is:A sumente non concisus,
Non confractus, non divisus
Integer accipitur.
Sumit unus, sumunt mille;
Quantum isti, tantum ille:
Nec sumptus consumitur.
Iâm
not a Latin scholar (those who are please chime in!) but it seems to me that *sumente, sumit, sumunt, and sumptus *come from the root
sumo - which, in my Latin dictionary, is translated as âto take, to take hold of, to take for useâ etc.
I also want to point out that Cardinal Arinze mentions a distinction, and so does the
*Linementa *on the Eucharist:
- Ancient sources indicate that communion was not taken but received, an act symbolizing the Sacramentâs meaning, that is, a Gift received with adoration.
But both the Cardinal and the Bishops seem to be pointing
primarily to the
action. In other words, we donât take (even priests, when not concelebrating) because we are given the Eucharist by another.
But,
secondarily, the word âreceiveâ seems better to convey the the meaning of the Eucharist. The Church seems to use (almost exclusively) âreceiveâ in English. I myself do. But I donât
think it is mandated, nor do I think that those who use the word âtakeâ do so in error,
if the proper meaning is conveyed and they have the proper understanding. It seems to me, sometimes, that people use the phrase âtake communionâ in the passive âtake/receiveâ sense of
accipio.
Just something to consider in all of this, perhaps.
VC
(p.s. Just to note again, I myself use âreceiveâ and one certainly canât go wrong by using it. I think it the safer course, and conveys things more accurately)
