"Taking" Communion = "Taking" Love

I am fairly certain that it is not possible to “take” love. If someone can explain how it is possible to “take” love - I’d like to understand how it is possible.

I do know that when I do love someone - it is out of my choice to give that love. The other person cannot force me to love them. Likewise, when I am loved by another, I am not able to just walk up and take that love from them. It is a gift that I receive from them.

Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. My Protestant parents and just about every other Protestant person I’ve talked to believes that the Communion is symbolic. However, I’m aware that this is not true for all Protestant denominations - and that some say that there is a Real Presence associated with Communion.

In all cases, however, I think we can say that the point of Communion is some sort of reception of Christ - be it manner of the Eucharist, or a symbolic gesture.

Is it actually possible to “take” Christ?

When I hear people say that they are “taking Communion”, I really wonder what they are talking about. I will “take” a vitamin, because the vitamin is sitting in a pill bottle. I grab the pill bottle, shake out a vitamin, and then take the vitamin. The vitamin has no choice. So, I “take” the vitamin.

Communion is not about “taking” something akin to a pill. My parents say that they consider themselves to be doing something spiritual whey they “take Communion.”

Is there a good reason to use the word, “take” when talking about Communion?

“Take” grates on my ears also - but I would guess the common useage came from the verse itself:

“And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.” Matthew 26:26

Maybe it’s a problem with the English language translation?

First - he “gives” them them his body. Then, he says, Take, and eat. So, they had already received it.

It is like there were two different motions. The first is when Christ gives them his body. And, after it being in their possession, he then says, take, and eat. So, it would refer to the mechanics of putting the body of Christ in their mouth.

That’s how I would read it.

I suppose it would have been a different story if Christ had said - hey, look over there; walk over there, and then take some bread and eat it.

It always seems to me that entirely too much is made of things when someone speaks of “taking” Communion. From what I know “take” used that way is merely a way of speaking that may have regional roots in terms of how language is used. I know people who, when asked, may say that they “don’t take” the daily paper – meaning that they don’t subscribe, they don’t have it delivered. Similarly, I’ve heard people say that, for example, they “take” Time magazine. That doesn’t mean they steal it or that they physically lift it from a news stand – it means that it is delivered to their homes. Used this way “take” = “receive.” It is neither a theological nor a liturgical statement.

Not saying you are wrong here, but one must be careful not to try to fit Scripture into one’s idea of what it should be. Jesus did say “Take, and eat”–there is no denial of the fact. I don’t how him giving them his body and his telling them to take it somehow negates the “take” part.

Now to tell the truth, ever since I was a little girl in the 50’s, we always “took” Communion. Until I came to CAF, I did not know people objected to this. No one, and I mean no one, neither priest or religious ever corrected us about this. Maybe people were uneducated in those days? I don’t know. But Jesus said “take”, so we “took” communion every Sunday.

But sometimes, also, our pet peeves are just not as important to the rest of the world as they are to us. :slight_smile:

I have a problem with that terminology in reference to the Eucharist, too. But, in Catholic terms, we do not “take” Communion, we “receive” it. Yes, Jesus says, “Take and eat.”, but He is the One giving the gift of Himself to those who will “receive” it. We do not “take” a gift, we “receive” it. I don’t think I’ve ever heard Catholics refer to it as “taking Communion”. That’s something that I’ve usually only heard from non-Catholics. Just my :twocents:. :shrug:

No. I think it’s just a word to use. In French, when speaking about “having food”, the word “To take” is always used. J’ai pris du cafe, je prends le petit dejuner. Some of this has rolled over into English, especially into formal/older speech. In casual conversation you wouldn’t just say “Oh hey yeah i took pizza for dinner last night” but if you wanted to impress the fancy people you might say “Yes we ought to take dinner at that beautiful restaurant tonight”.
So I wonder if “I take communion” isn’t simply what we consider to be the older and more formal word to use, since that is often what we associate with the Church and the mass. But whatever the reason may be, it’s certainly not a literal term. Just what we have developed to say.

One does NOT “take” Communion. One “receives” Communion.

This is more than simply semantics.

God Bless.

I looked up the word “take” on Merriam Webster’s site because I was curious - and understand that the word “take” has a lot of different meanings in English including:

4a: to receive into one’s body (as by swallowing, drinking, or inhaling)

b: to put oneself into (as sun, air, or water) for pleasure or physical benefit

c: to partake of : eat

I think it is our perception of the word today that makes it seem aggressive and careless.

God’s peace to you all.

=in_servitude;12092942]I am fairly certain that it is not possible to “take” love. If someone can explain how it is possible to “take” love - I’d like to understand how it is possible.

I do know that when I do love someone - it is out of my choice to give that love. The other person cannot force me to love them. Likewise, when I am loved by another, I am not able to just walk up and take that love from them. It is a gift that I receive from them.

Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. My Protestant parents and just about every other Protestant person I’ve talked to believes that the Communion is symbolic. However, I’m aware that this is not true for all Protestant denominations -** and that some say that there is a Real Presence associated with Communion**.

On the bolded, I’m not sure which communions say there is “a real presence associated with communion”, Lutherans say that it IS the body and blood. That said,

In all cases, however, I think we can say that the point of Communion is some sort of reception of Christ - be it manner of the Eucharist, or a symbolic gesture.

Is it actually possible to “take” Christ?

When I hear people say that they are “taking Communion”, I really wonder what they are talking about. I will “take” a vitamin, because the vitamin is sitting in a pill bottle. I grab the pill bottle, shake out a vitamin, and then take the vitamin. The vitamin has no choice. So, I “take” the vitamin.

Communion is not about “taking” something akin to a pill. My parents say that they consider themselves to be doing something spiritual whey they “take Communion.”

Is there a good reason to use the word, “take” when talking about Communion?

As a Lutheran my tendency, without criticism of others, is to use the term receive, and avoid the word take, not be cause it is necessarily wrong in a historic sense (Stilldreamin points it out well), but because it still has an almost works-righteousness air to it to my ears. But then, I’m also uncomfortable with the phrase “accept Jesus into your heart”. :shrug:

Jon

If you want to make it sound a bit less greedy but still be scriptural, ‘partake’ is a good word.

I’m not worried about how I sound. But, I’m more focused what is going on during Communion.

As Catholics, we approach the altar - and are having an experience with Christ. JonNC would argue that Lutherans are doing the exact same thing. The Protestants in my life also say that they are also having an interaction with Christ.

It does not seem to me that there is much justification for the use of the term “take.” People point out that Christ uses the word “take” with the apostles during the last supper. Is Christ really saying that his body and blood is up for anyone that wants to come and take it? I don’t see that in the text myself. The word “take” is used after the word “gave” anyway, so I still don’t see how the word to focus on is “take”.

So, in thinking about what it is that we’re doing at Communion - that is why I set the title to the thread the way that I did. We are having an encounter with Christ, who is all loving.

To me the term “take communion” seems a lot like “snatching and grabbing” the body and blood of Jesus. Like it is something Christ somehow owes to us because of our righteousness. It just grates. I prefer the word receive every time.

The way I look at it is that the Body and Blood of Christ is a gift to us from Christ. He is offering Himself to us.

When someone offers you a gift, you “receive a gift,” you do not “take a gift.”

That’s way I prefer the work “receive,” because we are receiving a gift from Christ and must meet the criteria to receive His Most Blessed Sacrament.

God Bless

Well there’s a very catholic communion hymn which goes ‘take and eat this is my body, take and eat, this is my blood. Whenever you do this, please remember Me’. Those are the words. There’s also this one:

youtube.com/watch?v=H6EJJRaK69U

I think its some sort of ego-political issue which is causing some people not to like to think of themselves as takers. But yes, that is what you are when it comes to God. Tell the truth and shame the devil. :slight_smile:

Or would you prefer to be referred to as ‘dust’?:shrug:

How do I take from God?

Actually, I think it is a level of humility, but you are free to say you take.

Contrary to “takers”, however, I prefer Luther’s: "We are beggars: this is true."

Jon

I’m have the opposite logical reason to prefer ‘take’ - I ‘take’ communion because as a sinner ( and broken pot), I’m also a ‘taker’. I’m a greedy bugger, and Christ understands that and tells me to ‘take’ anyways.

‘Receiver’ (to me) implies that I’m somehow worthy of receiving this perfect gift. In my experience, I’m not even remotely worthy of even thinking that I’m worthy.

I agree in that I’m also not worthy. Catholics confirm that prior to approaching the altar. But, to say that I **have **to take would mean that God is choosing to NOT give due to my/our lack of worth.

Maybe I misunderstand. But, it seems like the statement is more about God and what He chooses and less about us and our view of our own worth.

I think you’re right and it could be a combination of both, in that God understand how we view ourselves.

Even if I did over-think this, I would still be very reluctant to not say ‘take’ as that what God has told us to do. There has to be a reason for such clear language - there’s no lack of differing word that could express a more gentler version of ‘take’ in Greek.

EDIT:

Looking at the Greek - It seems even more forceful, He seems to be saying “take it!”. Someone with better Greek than me needs to chime in here :slight_smile: - I’m probably wrong.

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.