"Take" or "receive" Communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ruthmary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ruthmary

Guest
When I was growing up, we always said, “receive” Communion, and now I often hear people saying “take” Communion. It sounds strange to me, and I wonder if there is any theological difference in what one says. Does anyone know?
 
40.png
Ruthmary:
When I was growing up, we always said, “receive” Communion, and now I often hear people saying “take” Communion. It sounds strange to me, and I wonder if there is any theological difference in what one says. Does anyone know?
Click to expand...
The Book of Common Prayer (1928) says for the administation of communion: “The Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ…take and eat.” The Orthodox tend also to use the term “take commuion”. I think it is an old English translation of church prayers. The Liturgical Renewal prefered the term “receive” as a more theologically accruate English word and seemed to get most post-conciliar Catholics in line with this. “take communion” sounds quite old fashioned to me.

But I wonder if Hollywood (which has convinced every non-Episcopal bride that her wedding should follow the Book of Common Prayer) has now swung as back to the old language.
 
I don’t know what the Greek is, but we translate Jesus’ words at the last supper as “Take and eat, this is my body.” So I don’t see a problem with referring to it as taking communion.

Scott
 
In the Eastern tradition the “formula” said when we give communion is “The servant (handmaid) of God N. receives the precious and holy body and blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, for the remission of his (her) sins and for eternal life.” Clearly, then, the communicant “receives” communion.

Deacon Ed
 
I would think receive, as it is more a gift. Take to me has this mindset of retrieving something, which is mine, and I’m grabbing for it. With humility I receive the body of Christ as pray that his sacrifice will bring his church and me closer to salvation.

Anthony
 
Thank you to those who answered. I like the concept of Eucharist as gift, so we receive it. I feel also like the word take has more of a concept of grabbing, so I’ll continue to use receive, but realize that there are those who are not using the word take in disrespect.

I’ve never read the Book of Common Prayer, though I’ve heard of it. Is it anything like the Liturgy of the Hours?
 
Take vs. recieve:

We should “recieve” Holy Communion on the tounge. It is just like a kiss from someone you love. You either give a kiss, or recieve, and then it turns into a mutual agreement. Holy Communion is the Divine Kiss, and it is rude to “take” it just as it would be for a man to force himself upon some unsuspecting woman. If you love someone, you want everything to be perfect, and thier way, not yours…you do everything possible to try and be respectful and proper.
 
The Church is very specific about this—most recently in RS

If it were OK to “take” Communion, there would be no problem with the self-communication of self-intinction or a standing chalice to receive the precious Blood. We must have a minister, because we receive.

Even the EMHC must receive from the celebrant or a minister to which the celebrant has given the sacred vessel. Even an EMHC may not “take up” the sacred vessel to distribute—it must be given and received.

This personal interpretation of “Take and Eat” is another example of the reasons why private interpretation was forbidden, and still must be guided.
 
Well I have had to look in the dictionary I’m afraid :o Now it is much clearer.

Receive = graciously take or get something that is given or sent

Take = Get something into your hands or posession or control more importantly it also implies that you accept :eek: Communion! WOW.

My gosh never thought there was such a difference.

I will always use the term receive. Thanks for the good question!!
 
I feel more comfortable with the word receive since I consider the Roman Catholic Mass and especially Communion to be a precious Gift from Our Lord.

Sincerely,
 
40.png
flick427:
Take vs. recieve:

We should “recieve” Holy Communion on the tounge. It is just like a kiss from someone you love. You either give a kiss, or recieve, and then it turns into a mutual agreement. Holy Communion is the Divine Kiss, and it is rude to “take” it just as it would be for a man to force himself upon some unsuspecting woman. If you love someone, you want everything to be perfect, and thier way, not yours…you do everything possible to try and be respectful and proper.
Click to expand...
I love what you said about Holy Communion being a Divine Kiss. I’ll think of that today when I receive Communion.!
 
40.png
Mysty101:
The Church is very specific about this—most recently in RS

If it were OK to “take” Communion, there would be no problem with the self-communication of self-intinction or a standing chalice to receive the precious Blood. We must have a minister, because we receive.

Even the EMHC must receive from the celebrant or a minister to which the celebrant has given the sacred vessel. Even an EMHC may not “take up” the sacred vessel to distribute—it must be given and received.

This personal interpretation of “Take and Eat” is another example of the reasons why private interpretation was forbidden, and still must be guided.
Click to expand...
Could you point us to the passage in RS? I am unaware of any part of the liturgy where the communicant says receiving or taking. That is, the only time it would seem to come up is in everyday conversation (which is what I thought the original post was asking). Are you saying that there is a rule that people must say or think receive even in the context of ordinary conversation?

Scott
 
Of course I spoke to soon because we all say “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you…”

So there it is, however I would still like to see support for the idea that one can’t refer to it as taking colloquially.

Scott
 
Years ago I was riding on a minibus loaded with Physists. We were on a 40 mile drive to the largest Radio Telescope in the U.S. The discusion drifted into which was the correct pronounciation of the word “DATA”

Some said “DAY - TUH”, some said “DAT - TUH”. After a few minutes the old Lead Physists said," May I comment? You people sound exactly like a gathering of Physists!"

This thread reminded me of this. It is fitting and correct for Catholics to discuss “Take” and “Recieve”. I like it.🙂
 
Scott Waddell:
Could you point us to the passage in RS? I am unaware of any part of the liturgy where the communicant says receiving or taking. That is, the only time it would seem to come up is in everyday conversation (which is what I thought the original post was asking). Are you saying that there is a rule that people must say or think receive even in the context of ordinary conversation?

Scott
Click to expand...
The norms for distribution underboth kinds is #101-107, I think.

Look at all the documents on the USCCB site under the liturgy dept.

From the Bulletin The Reception of Holy Communion at Mass
usccb.org/liturgy/girm/bul5.shtml
Those who receive Communion may receive either in the hand or on the tongue, and the decision should be that of the individual receiving, not of the person distributing Communion. If Communion is received in the hand, the hands should first of all be clean. If one is right handed the left hand should rest upon the right. The host will then be laid in the palm of the left hand and then taken by the right hand to the mouth. If one is left-handed this is reversed. It is not appropriate to reach out with the fingers and take the host from the person distributing.
Click to expand...
The person distributing Communion says audibly to each person approaching, ‘The Body of Christ’. This formula should not be altered, as it is a proclamation which calls for a response of faith on the part of the one who receives. The communicant should audibly respond ‘Amen,’ indicating by that response his or her belief that this small wafer of bread, the wine in this chalice are in reality the body and blood of Christ the Lord.
Click to expand...
When one receives from the chalice, the same proclamation is made by the person distributing Communion and the Communicant again responds ‘Amen.’ It should be noted that it is never permissible for a person to dip the host he or she has received into the chalice. If, for some reason, the communicant is not able or willing to drink from the cup then that person should receive only under the form of bread.
Click to expand...
 
Take Communion is a reference, which started in Protestant arenas as it pertains to taking Our Lords body in your hands, like taking it. Please note that this whole subject of taking our Lords body in your hands and also for Eucharistic Ministers, I feel really needs to be revisited and I have no idea why this was instituted as it never came from the Vatican as an instruction. IT was started by the Protestants to deny the real presence, and I have heard all of the arguments about St Cyril in the 300’s and the last supper from the liberal side and all the trads using quotes from the Saints saying not to take it in the hands, but it is a Protestant action and to take it in the hands just plays into the Protestants hands and makes me belive that we are headed more and more as a church to the day that you can either go to a Catholic. Lutheran or whatever and the ceremony will all be the same. Sad I must say.
 
40.png
moira:
I love what you said about Holy Communion being a Divine Kiss. I’ll think of that today when I receive Communion.!
Click to expand...
Well, I must admit, I got that from either a saint or a book written about the Eucharist…I can’t remember where though…hmm.
I pray you always see Communion in such a beautiful way…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top