To chew or not to chew?

[Cat]

I feel it’s abhorrent to chew but I only wanted to let people know lick the roof of your mouth and Christ’s Body won’t stick there after receiving

Abhorrent? That’s a very strong negative word to use about so many of us. Is this really the word that you intended to use?

Are you able to separate the way you “feel” from the actual teachings of Holy Mother Church?

How do your “feelings” help bring about Church unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17?

 

[ProVobis]

Are you able to separate the way you “feel” from the actual teachings of Holy Mother Church?

That’s an interesting way of putting it. Aside from all the licet, dicet, oportet, placet, etc. legal aspects, if one were to ask me, I’d go back and question why communion was designed the way it is (round, tongue-sized, flat, easily soluble, etc.) in the first place. I suppose if it were meant to be devoured, one could design it so that the bread is offered as a small loaf or torn off as a piece to be chewed. But it wasn’t, unless you’re talking about the very early centuries. It seems that from the design alone, the Church offers you some time to reflect upon what you’ve received and no need to rush the digestive process. However, if one has to consume a larger piece, such as the priest himselves receives, then I suppose one can make the case that it is better chewed and consumed as quickly as possible.

 

[pianistclare]

53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eatsa] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

NABRE Footnotes:

1. 
   *]6:54–58 Eats: the verb used in these verses is not the classical Greek verb used of human eating, but that of animal eating: “munch,” “gnaw.” This may be part of John’s emphasis on the reality of the flesh and blood of Jesus (cf. Jn 6:55), but the same verb eventually became the ordinary verb in Greek meaning “eat.”

1. 
   YUP. This^^. It’s helpful to understand that when the good sisters taught us to never chew, they were also trying to instruct very young children about the Real Presence, and this seemed to help. Now, as an adult, I understand that Jesus is not in any way harmed or disrespected by chewing. The gnawing speaks to real, spiritual hunger. Which this world certainly possesses.

 

[ProVobis]

53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eatsa] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

FWIW, New Advent (using the Knox translation a couple of verses down)

64 τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ ζῳοποιοῦν, ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν: τὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἐγὼ λελάληκα ὑμῖν πνεῦμά ἐστιν καὶ ζωή ἐστιν.

64 Spiritus est qui vivificat: caro non prodest quidquam: verba quæ ego locutus sum vobis, spiritus et vita sunt.

64 Only the spirit gives life; the flesh is of no avail; and the words I have been speaking to you are spirit, and life.[9]

[9] If we understand ‘the flesh’ as referring to our Lord’s flesh, we must suppose him to mean ‘the flesh without spirit, without life’, condemning the folly of those hearers who imagined that he had been speaking of his dead body in all that he said above. But it is possible to understand ‘the flesh’ in a different sense altogether, the sense in which it is contrasted, throughout the New Testament, with ‘the spirit’. In this sense it denotes the natural as opposed to the supernatural man, and especially human wisdom as opposed to divine revelation (cf. 8.15 below). The sentence will then mean, that the mystery of the Holy Eucharist must be approached by faith, not by human reasoning.

newadvent.org/bible/joh006.htm

 

[pianistclare]

That’s an interesting way of putting it. Aside from all the licet, dicet, oportet, placet, etc. legal aspects, if one were to ask me, I’d go back and question why communion was designed the way it is (round, tongue-sized, flat, easily soluble, etc.) in the first place. I suppose if it were meant to be devoured, one could design it so that the bread is offered as a small loaf or torn off as a piece to be chewed. But it wasn’t, unless you’re talking about the very early centuries. It seems that from the design alone, the Church offers you some time to reflect upon what you’ve received and no need to rush the digestive process. However, if one has to consume a larger piece, such as the priest himselves receives, then I suppose one can make the case that it is better chewed and consumed as quickly as possible.

Somewhere between the 6th and 11th centuries, I forget exactly where.
From the time of Pope Gregory the Great to Pope Gregory VII, there came several shifts in practice, and one cause was heresy. St. Jerome remarked that the world awoke one day to find itself Arian. To combat this heresy the focus began to pull Christ out of the realm of this earthly life and place Him squarely in the heavens, causing the belief that the people present were unworthy to approach His altar. People were suddenly over-awed and a feeling of sin overwhelmed those who had been “invited to the meal”.
Confessions before Mass were necessary, the altar railing appears, there began a pro-occupation with hand washing , communion in the hand (which was the norm from the beginning) was discontinued for fear of desecrating the Body of Christ.
The host became small, white, pure, (some say antiseptic), “I am not worthy….” repeated 3 times , the planning and parts of the Mass were taken over solely by the priest.

Many of the things that we take fro granted in the Mass and around the we pray at Mass didn’t exist in previous centuries as everyone knows. But the crumbs issue was a big deal.
Thus, the small round, hard, hosts.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s helpful to understand that when the good sisters taught us to never chew, they were also …

FWIW, in the U.K. we had male teachers who actually were stricter in such disciplines. And on top of that, I had Polish-speaking priests to reinforce those disciplines.

Our approach to the reception of communion has certainly changed, and it seems not only in the U.S.

 

[smichhertz]

The chewers are all heretics!

All kidding aside, I’m a fan of letting the Eucharist dissolve on the tongue. To be clear - there is NOTHING sinful or wrong with chewing, it’s just an argument on what’s more practical and/or reverent.

The act of chewing shreds the host into tiny particles, which means there can be residual remains in the mouth. Dissolving the host as a single piece helps to ensure that all of it is consumed. Also - as another poster pointed out, it just feels a little more reverent to not consume our Lord the same way I’d consume a potato chip or some other food.

For those reasons, my usual method is to let it dissolve on my tongue, occasionally folding it over with my tongue to keep it as a single piece as it slowly dissolves. Once the piece is small enough, I then swallow it as a single piece.

 

[TheologicalLeft]

53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eatsa] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

NABRE Footnotes:

1. 
   *]6:54–58 Eats: the verb used in these verses is not the classical Greek verb used of human eating, but that of animal eating: “munch,” “gnaw.” This may be part of John’s emphasis on the reality of the flesh and blood of Jesus (cf. Jn 6:55), but the same verb eventually became the ordinary verb in Greek meaning “eat.”

1. 
   I’ve heard this before it’s something that was taught in the reverse of how it is now since Vatican II. Just a thought.
   

   Abhorrent? That’s a very strong negative word to use about so many of us. Is this really the word that you intended to use?
   
   Are you able to separate the way you “feel” from the actual teachings of Holy Mother Church?
   
   How do your “feelings” help bring about Church unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17?

   I don’t care how you feel because of what I said that’s your problem to deal with if my one sentence offends you that much move on. What teachings? I didn’t even care to get into this discussion but as you’ll notice the Church taught collectively not to chew for many years. So get some facts and come back and see me.
   
   youtube.com/watch?v=xokthY5zuPU

 

[Kathrin]

I musta dmit sometimes I am a little afraid to chew because I am afraid a piece might get stuck between my teeth. I also remember reading that chewing goes in line with eating, or something like that, so sometimes I try to chew just a liiittle bit, carefully.
I am generally very worried about rests of the host getting stuck between my teeth; I hardly dare sing after having received the host, but that is a different topic.

 

[Seraphim73]

First, the early Christians (and, today, the Eastern Catholic rites) used actual bread rather than the round wafers, and that one doesn’t dissolve on your tongue unless you chew it. Once you attended an Eastern Rite liturgy that gives Holy Communion under the species of an actual chunk of bread, you give up on the idea that it is somehow better to let the host dissolve on the tongue.

I musta dmit sometimes I am a little afraid to chew because I am afraid a piece might get stuck between my teeth. I also remember reading that chewing goes in line with eating, or something like that, so sometimes I try to chew just a liiittle bit, carefully.
I am generally very worried about rests of the host getting stuck between my teeth; I hardly dare sing after having received the host, but that is a different topic.

It’s a common teaching among Eastern Catholics and Orthodox that you should not chew. Of course leavened bread won’t dissolve so you just swallow it whole. The reason is practical as Kathrin points out. When you chew there is a chance a piece could get stuck in your teeth.

 

[Kathrin]

But how about among Roman Catholics, is there anything prescribed?

 

[Lormar]

I was taught the faith before Vatican II and the religious emphasized quite emphatically that the Holy Eucharist is never to be chewed.

What I do is let it dissolve somewhat on my tongue and then swallow. I have never had a problem, and I am no spring chicken.

 

[pianistclare]

But how about among Roman Catholics, is there anything prescribed?

No.
Honestly, the Eucharist is in your system fro at least an hour…people run off and have breakfast, but they are worried about an infinitesimal bit in their teeth? You have CONSUMED it. You are not spitting it out, no?
Some churches use very thin, light hosts…easy to dissolve. But for a time, our parish used a very hard, very tough almost whole wheat looking host…it was impossible to dissolve before the final blessing. One had to chew it. There’s no sin in chewing the host.
Our Lord is simply not affected by our teeth.

If it was true that He WAS affected…don’t you think a HUGE document would have come out about this? There is not one.
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=612008&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

 

[brigid12]

The hosts used at my parish are too thick and heavy to be dissolved, so there isn’t a choice.

 

[Kathrin]

No.
Honestly, the Eucharist is in your system fro at least an hour…

I remember something about 20 minutes, but din’t remember exactly where I got htat from. May have been here.
Maybe somebody can help?

You have CONSUMED it. You are not spitting it out, no?]

That is exactly the fear I sometimes have, though: That when singing in church after the Eucharist, or speaking to somebody shortly after mass, I might unintentionally spit out little parts left somewhere in my mouth.

A priest quite a while ago now recommended drinking a little bit of water afterwards, so usually after mass I do that from my water bottle (but very cerefully that nothing would end up in the bottle…) I am really not sure if I am TOO careful, I have the feeling other people do not think about this so much… I may be wrong though.

 

[pianistclare]

I remember something about 20 minutes, but din’t remember exactly where I got htat from. May have been here.
Maybe somebody can help?

That is exactly the fear I sometimes have, though: That when singing in church after the Eucharist, or speaking to somebody shortly after mass, I might unintentionally spit out little parts left somewhere in my mouth.

A priest quite a while ago now recommended drinking a little bit of water afterwards, so usually after mass I do that from my water bottle (but very cerefully that nothing would end up in the bottle…) I am really not sure if I am TOO careful, I have the feeling other people do not think about this so much… I may be wrong though.

Well, I think you can go a little easier on yourself.
I remember once, a woman took the Eucharist, and put it in her pocket. I followed her to the parking lot, and she sped off…I was inconsolable. The priest who was the pastor at the time tried to stop her as well, but when he came back in, he said she wouldn’t stop.
I was crying. He said to me “Clare…do you not believe that Jesus Christ can take care of Himself”? His presence is gone from that person who so disrespected Him." I said I hoped so. He said at any rate, it was not my doing, nor my fault.
Surely no one on these boards intends to disrespect Our Lord in the Eucharist. Believing this, and believing that you truly Lord Jesus with all your heart and soul, I think you’re fine.
Jesus can take care of Himself. It’s the nut-jobs that would desecrate the Real Presence that we need to worry about and pray for.
God bless you.

 

[ProVobis]

Some churches use very thin, light hosts…easy to dissolve. But for a time, our parish used a very hard, very tough almost whole wheat looking host…

FWIW, it sounds like advertising but there may be some truth to this, I don’t know. (I hope I don’t offend anyone but I was often disillusioned by the way they used to handle the tons of hosts coming out of the boxes when I sat in the sacristy.)

The Second Vatican Council 1962 “really changed everything,” said Brian Cavanagh, Paul’s son and CEO of the company. The Catholic Church, like so much of society during that decade, re-evaluated its symbols. The Church’s Council of Trent, which convened during the mid-sixteenth century to codify Catholic dogma, reaffirmed the significance of the seven celebrated sacraments. Communion wafers at that time became ethereal both in symbol and in substance: the wafers were one thirty-thousandth of an inch thick, notes Cavanagh, shiny and “white like milk glass,” and were baked to dissolve on the tongue. These rarefied wafers fell out of favor during Vatican II, with an impetus toward celebrating the sacrament of the Eucharist with wafers that more closely resembled bread.

cavanaghco.com/about.html

I have to agree with you on one thing. The larger it is, the more the tendency to chew it, especially if you feel it’s larger than your tongue or too thick or won’t dissolve by itself. OTOH, a lot of folks wouldn’t like smaller hosts. The-bigger-the-better mentality with no theological basis.

 

[Seraphim73]

That is exactly the fear I sometimes have, though: That when singing in church after the Eucharist, or speaking to somebody shortly after mass, I might unintentionally spit out little parts left somewhere in my mouth.

A priest quite a while ago now recommended drinking a little bit of water afterwards, so usually after mass I do that from my water bottle (but very cerefully that nothing would end up in the bottle…) I am really not sure if I am TOO careful, I have the feeling other people do not think about this so much… I may be wrong though.

And that is precisely why you should avoid chewing if you can. Yes Jesus can take care of Himself but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take measures to protect the Eucharist. The Russians often have zapivka where they drink a small cup of diluted wine and have a piece of blessed bread to insure all of the Eucharist is swallowed.

 

[Cat]

The chewers are all heretics!

All kidding aside, I’m a fan of letting the Eucharist dissolve on the tongue. To be clear - there is NOTHING sinful or wrong with chewing, it’s just an argument on what’s more practical and/or reverent.

The act of chewing shreds the host into tiny particles, which means there can be residual remains in the mouth. Dissolving the host as a single piece helps to ensure that all of it is consumed. Also - as another poster pointed out, it just feels a little more reverent to not consume our Lord the same way I’d consume a potato chip or some other food.

For those reasons, my usual method is to let it dissolve on my tongue, occasionally folding it over with my tongue to keep it as a single piece as it slowly dissolves. Once the piece is small enough, I then swallow it as a single piece.

This doesn’t make any sense to me!

You say you don’t want to consume the Lord the same way you would consume a potato chip.

Well, how about all of the people who don’t want to consume the Lord the same way they would consume a peppermint, altoid, or lifesaver (by letting it dissolve in the mouth)?

How do reconcile that?

The Lord Himself said that His Flesh is REAL food, not some kind of “spiritual” food that transcends human eating processes. He says, “Take and eat.”

The Church teaches that once the accident no longer have the appearance of Bread and Wine, they are no longer the Body and Blood of Christ, so we don’t have to worry about “residual remains.” “Residual remains” don’t look like Bread or Wine.

 

[pianistclare]

I do take measures to “protect the Eucharist”. The insinuation that people who chew as instructed in the Greek, are somehow disrespecting the Eucharist is ludicrous.
I chew with my mouth closed. I take the cup. I swallow.
The Apostles surely did not dissolve hunks of bread in their mouths. Nor did Catholics prior to the innovation of hosts some centuries later.