John 6, "trogein" and the Eucharist

In support of Transubstantiation, Catholic apologists have sometimes pointed out that the word “trogein” which features in John 6 is a very earthy word, similar to “chew” in English.

It struck me last night that I’m always seeing traditionalist Catholics on the internet jump up and down about people not receiving on the tongue. Contra John 6, there is a fixation with getting people to not chew the host.

I’m not putting this forward as some knock-down objection or anything, I’m just interested to know whether any Catholics who advocate reception on the tongue have thought about this.

How beautiful to love the Lord so much that we even debate how we should lovingly receive him. I’m sure the Lord will understand both sides of the debate. Better than not receiving him at all, or worse yet , not believing he’s in the host at all.

“Let not your heart be troubled”

there are two different things here , i think:

  1. “Trogein” to show how real it was meant, even if it was scandalous, it was the truth.

  2. Not to chew the Eucharist, as it was a sandwich, to show respect for the Lord, though in fact we have to eat Him, which seems crazy.

If a Catholic gets the two points in that order,there isn’t even a paradox. 1 is about the reality of eating, 2 is being aware of Who we are actually eating, not that we are merely eating something.

Reception in the hand or on the tongue doesn’t change much, once one could chew it. :smiley:

I have never heard anything authoritative say that we should not chew the Eucharist, although I have heard (only online) overzealous trads say that we should let it dissolve on the tongue. Maybe I have been doing it wrong this whole time, but I think this is probably an excess on their parts.

At any rate, that has nothing to do with reception on the tongue. You can receive on the tongue and chew just as easily as you can receive in the hand, place on your tongue and chew.

Protestants often say that Eucharist is an attempt by Catholics to crucify Jesus over and over again. One protestant told me that chewing the Host was part of this error - Our Lord’s Body was “broken” on the Cross, and we break it again by chewing.

I think some Catholics see dissolving as a more “gentle” way of receiving the Sacrifice of Calvary made present at each Mass. I think this is motivated, in part, by a reasoning similar to that of my protestant friend.

I think this is well-intentioned, but misguided. I always chew.

But, ultimately, it makes no difference, as others have said.

Priests of the older generation would sometimes advice not to chew it. This happened to me during sunday school. I was like 10. Then, at 16 or so, Sunday school gets trickier, and a lot more interesting, and we begin to make differences between intention and real effect, and so on. I guess the not to chew part is a beginning for people who are new to the Sacrament. Then you can temperate.

I often think of my math classes, when I heard once: Remember what you were told? Well, it isn’t so. Let’s start from the beginning. Then LETTERS came into maths :confused: :smiley:

Negative numbers came looooong before letters. Remember the “number ray?” And when it was replaced with the “number line?”

We were told you can’t have less than zero. And then we were told you could. The first teaching was more intuitive than the second.

It may seem more “reverent” to not chew the Host. This seems more intuitive. But I think it takes something away from our understanding. It leaves something out (just as the number ray left out negative numbers).

Has anyone ever had Holy Communion with real unleavened bread, like what Jesus and his disciples were eating in the Last Supper? If you were to try to eat that without chewing it, you would be holding it in your mouth for quite a while.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.