"Receive" or "Take" Holy Communion?

[tjfitz]

I’ve been noticing news stories in print and audio that talk about “taking Communion” in a Catholic Church.

Maybe it is a hair-splitting thing, but I always spoke of “receiving Communion”, not “taking”.

 

[Phemie]

I’ve been noticing news stories in print and audio that talk about “taking Communion” in a Catholic Church.

Maybe it is a hair-splitting thing, but I always spoke of “receiving Communion”, not “taking”.

We don’t take, we are given and receive. But then, when not talking about Communion we will often hear “Did you take it when it was offered?” So while the term is not correct I don’t think anyone who hears it has visions of grabbing from the Ciborium.

OTOH, the EMHCs in my parish DO TAKE Communion. The priest passes the ciborium around to them like a candy dish. I cringe each time.

 

[Rawb]

If one of my CCD kids says they “took Communion” or “taking Communion” I stop them and say “recieve”.

I too cringe whenever I hear someone say “take”. shudder

 

[EasterJoy]

I agree with those who use “receive” exclusively for the laity, unless perhaps one is saying, “I can’t talk after Mass. I am a EMHC, and I need to take Holy Communion to my sick neighbor”. It would be OK to use “take” for a priest, though, since the priest self-communicates.

 

[benedictgal]

Here is how Francis Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments notes the issue of “taking” as opposed to “receiving”:

One thing I’ve seen before [is] where they have the ciborium out, and people come up and take our Precious Lord out of there and dip our Lord into the Precious Blood and place it on their own tongue themselves.

Forbidden. Not correct. Because the nature of the Holy Eucharist is such that the person who is not a priest celebrating the Mass must be given the Body of Christ. You say “amen”. And you receive, on the tongue or in the hand. If you are not the priests celebrating Mass – if you are the deacon assisting – you must be given [Communion]. You may not take.

Even if you are bishop or cardinal, and you are not celebrating that Mass, you must be given. You must not take.

For example, if you watch us in Rome in St. Peter’s basilica or square, when the pope is saying a major Mass, there may be 40 cardinals, 100 bishops. When we are not concelebrating – we are wearing red vestments but we are not concelebrating – we are just assisting at Mass as all of you who are baptized. When it is time for Communion, we receive, exactly as everybody else. A deacon comes to us and says “the Body of Christ”. I say “amen”. He gives to me, and the same for all.

None of us is allowed to take. We must be given. This is the Church law. It is not to lower anybody, it is just the nature of the sacrament. Even when Christ multiplied bread and fish, He told the apostles to distribute it. It was a sign.

So the Church that regulates Eucharistic practice says that the holy Body and Blood of Christ will be given us. We will not take. Only the celebrating priests or the concelebrating communicate themselves. Everybody else must be given it, even if that person is a bishop or a priest.

I hope this clarifies things.

 

[Phemie]

Here is how Francis Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments notes the issue of “taking” as opposed to “receiving”:

I hope this clarifies things.

I don’t think that Cardinal Arinze is too concerned about what we say. He’s concerned about what we do.

Here we are again, getting hung up on a word that has many meanings, one of which is "to accept something that is offered." I think that describes receiving Communion, don’t you?

"He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples and said, “Take this all of you and eat it.”

 

[porthos11]

Jesus said “take”, but he offered the Eucharist to them first.

Cardinal Arinze is referring specifically to self-Communion, and this is the context in which the word “take” is used. Self-Communion by a non-celebrant is forbidden by liturgical law.

But “take” can also mean the same thing as “receive”, in the sense of accepting what is offered. So to say “take” is in and of itself not wrong terminology.

 

[Newbie2]

Jesus said “take”, but he offered the Eucharist to them first.

Cardinal Arinze is referring specifically to self-Communion, and this is the context in which the word “take” is used. Self-Communion by a non-celebrant is forbidden by liturgical law.

But “take” can also mean the same thing as “receive”, in the sense of accepting what is offered. So to say “take” is in and of itself not wrong terminology.

I agree. It would seem that that’s what most people mean when they say “take” communion. Much ado over nothing, methinks.

 

[Sam_Maloney]

I think our words matters a lot.

‘Receive’ makes clear that this is a gift from God, the ultimate gift which we haven’t earned, don’t deserve, aren’t owed.

‘Take’ is devoid of all that insight and understanding. ‘Take’ means you have it coming-- ‘I only take what I’m entitled to’ or it means you just don’t care about legal niceties-- ‘If I can’t afford to pay, I just take it.’

Don’t believe me?

Try walking into a police station and saying either ‘I received a new car’, or ‘I took a new car’. I don’t think their response will be the same.

Final point: ‘Take’ communion is this decade’s version of ‘doing’ lunch. Trendy. Cute. Oh so cutting edge. But not appropriate to describe what should be the high point of our spiritual lives.

 

[baltobetsy]

It seems to me that it is more common among people of a non-Catholic background to use the term, “take.” Our Protestant brothers and sisters routinely “take Communion” at their services, and when they convert, many continue to use that terminology. Cradle Catholics are more likely to say, “receive.” At least, that’s my experience.

Betsy

 

[Newbie2]

Final point: ‘Take’ communion is this decade’s version of ‘doing’ lunch. Trendy. Cute. Oh so cutting edge. But not appropriate to describe what should be the high point of our spiritual lives.

I heard it used commonly 30+ years ago. Betsy has a good point.

 

[tjfitz]

I agree that “take Communion” seems generally to be the Protestant construction, while “receive Holy Communion”,“receive Communion”, “receive the Blessed Sacrament” or more informally, “go to Communion”, seem to me to be Catholic constructions.

With all these Catholic constructions at hand, it seems odd to me that “take Communion” is being so widely used, and might be an indication that the speaker or writer is not a Catholic.

 

[tjfitz]

Just remembered something. About 25 years ago, I was at a Lutheran church service and when communion time came, there was a tray of little paper cups passed along the pew and communicants “took” a cup and drank the contents (might have been grape juice, but might also have been wine).

I didn’t “take” anything despite much smiling and nodding toward the tray by the minister.

Maybe “take” comes from taking a cup or a piece of bread from a vessel or tray that is being passed along in the congregation, or going up to a table near the altar and taking the materials.

 

[Nans]

It seems to me that it is more common among people of a non-Catholic background to use the term, “take.” Our Protestant brothers and sisters routinely “take Communion” at their services, and when they convert, many continue to use that terminology. Cradle Catholics are more likely to say, “receive.” At least, that’s my experience.

Betsy

I say “take” Communion, but my pastor says “let us partake together”. We have all received the gift of salvation for which we are eternally grateful!

With that, I have to say that I think that “receive” sounds much more reverent 1Cr 4:7 For who maketh thee to differ [from another]? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive [it], why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received [it]?

 

[JamesAnthony]

Hello ! “Receive” and “take” can mean the same thing-- in some dialects of American English, people “take” a magazine or newspaper subscription… e.g., “we take the NYTimes.” It’s sort of obscure, and rather formal.

In the case of the Holy Eucharist, “receive” does sound more reverent-- it’s a stylistic thing: the smooth Western European “v” sounds sweeter than the hard “k” sound in the Anglo verb.

In any event, I personally partake ; )

 

[DixitDominus]

I don’t think that Cardinal Arinze is too concerned about what we say. He’s concerned about what we do.

Here we are again, getting hung up on a word that has many meanings, one of which is "to accept something that is offered." I think that describes receiving Communion, don’t you?

"He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples and said, “Take this all of you and eat it.”

Do you know what’s interesting? The verb “accipere” which is normally translated as “take” also can mean “receive”.

 

[Daniel_J]

Adam and Eve took the apple.

 

[pippin]

My pastor corrects anyone who says “take” instead of
“receive”. Take can mean “receive”, or it can mean “grab it and run”. Receive is less confusing.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I say “take” Communion, but my pastor says “let us partake together”. We have all received the gift of salvation for which we are eternally grateful!

With that, I have to say that I think that “receive” sounds much more reverent 1Cr 4:7 For who maketh thee to differ [from another]? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive [it], why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received [it]?

Catholics receive the gift. We don’t partake of a meal with each other.