Browne identifies the practice of communing using only the bread and withholding the wine from the laity as another outgrowth of Roman Catholic eucharistic doctrine: “The doctrine of transubstantiation naturally led to the belief that, inasmuch as the elements were wholly changed into the substance of Christ, therefore whole Christ, Body and Blood, was contained in either element; and hence that, if only one element was received, yet Christ was fully received under that one element.” (This is known as the doctrine of concomitance, although Browne does not mention it by name.)[1] At the same time, and in conjunction with the belief in transubstantiation, the fear of “spilling on the ground the sacred Blood of Christ” arose. Thus transubstantiation and the subsidiary doctrine of concomitance naturally led to the conclusion that “the Eucharist should be received by the laity in one kind only.” The practice was “not at first without opposition, both from councils and from eminent divines,” but it was ultimately codified by the Council of Trent, which taught that it is not necessary to commune in both kinds:
This holy Synod,—instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of godliness, and following the judgment and usage of the Church itself,—declares and teaches, that laymen, and clerics when not consecrating, are not obliged, by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species; and that neither can it by any means be doubted, without injury to faith, that communion under either species is sufficient for them unto salvation.[2]
Those who teach the contrary were anathematized.[3] Moreover, the Council affirmed the Church’s power to alter sacramental practices in this manner:
Holy Mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both species has, from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been unfrequent, yet, in progress of time, that custom having been already very widely changed, she, induced by weighty and just reasons, has approved of this custom of communicating under one species, and decreed that it was to be held as a law.[4]
Those who deny that the Church had “just causes and reasons” to make this change were also anathematized.[5] The Council did not elaborate on what these “weighty and just reasons” were, but the Catechism of the Council of Trent, commissioned by the Council, gives five reasons, which have been summarized as follows:
1. To avoid spilling the blood.
2. Because wine reserved might turn acid.
3. Because some cannot bear the smell or taste of wine.
4. Because in some countries wine is very scarce.
5. In order more plainly to oppose the heresy of those who deny that the whole Christ is contained under either species.[6]
Notwithstanding their insistence that “communion under either species is sufficient,” the Council left open the possibility of allowing communion in both kinds under special circumstances, to be determined at a future date:
As regards, however, those two articles, proposed on another occasion, but which have not as yet been discussed; to wit, whether the reasons by which the holy Catholic Church was led to communicate, under the one species of bread only, laymen, and also priests when not celebrating, are in such wise to be adhered to, as that on no account is the use of the chalice to be allowed to any one soever; and, whether, in case that, for reasons beseeming and consonant with Christian charity, it appears that the use of the chalice is to be granted to any nation or kingdom, it is to be conceded under certain conditions; and what are those conditions: this same holy Synod reserves the same to another time,—for the earliest opportunity that shall present itself,—to be examined and defined.[7]
The “earliest opportunity” for examination and definition failed to materialize for some four hundred years, a fact that did not escape comment during the lengthy interim.[8] The promised time finally arrived in the form of the Second Vatican Council, which, while reaffirming “the dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent,” also held that “communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit.”[9] Indeed, “the faithful should be encouraged to seek to participate more eagerly in this sacred rite,”[10] yet “any of the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion under the species of bread alone should be granted their wish.”[11]
Despite the Church of Rome’s greater latitude in recent years concerning this practice, the underlying principles that originally led to its restriction have never been conceded:
The extension of the faculty for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds does not represent a change in the Church’s immemorial beliefs concerning the Holy Eucharist. Rather, today the Church finds it salutary to restore a practice, when appropriate, that for various reasons was not opportune when the Council of Trent was convened in 1545. But with the passing of time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the reform of the Second Vatican Council has resulted in the restoration of a practice by which the faithful are again able to experience “a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet.”[12]
It is not apparent what about the present time makes it more “salutary” or “opportune” for the Roman Church to allow communion in both kinds. Many of the reasons once given for restricting the practice pertain just as much now as they did four centuries ago. In fact, communion in both kinds is now said to be permissible only “provided that…there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament.”[13] This standard, understood rigorously, is impossible to attain—there is always a danger that even well-meaning persons could spill the consecrated wine. A risk of this magnitude seems ill-balanced by the purported benefit of the practice, which is that “Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident.”[14] These considerations aside, the Church of Rome (then and now) arrogates to itself more power than it rightly possesses: “The Church has, indeed, authority to decree rites and ceremonies, but not in contradiction to Scripture and to our Lord’s own words.”[15]
As noted above, the practice of communing in one kind derives from the prior acceptance of transubstantiation, and the Church of Rome’s peculiar interpretation of the relevant Scripture passages is but an extension of this. Absent such doctrinal supposition and justification, Browne warns that “the Sacrament is not as Christ ordained it, and that (unless He, of His mercy, supplies the deficiency) it is not such as to warrant us in the assurance that it is more than a piece of will-worship and human invention.” Hence the present discussion could easily have been designated “the logic underpinning the Eucharist continued further.”
Notes
- See, e.g., Burnet, Articles, 454; Gibson, Articles, 684; Kidd, Articles, 240; and Green, Articles, 245–46. ↑
- Waterworth, Trent, Twenty-first Session, Ch. I, 140–41, italics original. Some Anglo-Catholics, while acknowledging that communion in both kinds is the historic practice, nevertheless agree that communion in one kind is sufficient. See, e.g., Mortimer, Catholic Faith, pt. I, 223. ↑
- Waterworth, Trent, Twenty-first Session, Canon I, 143. ↑
- Waterworth, Trent, Twenty-first Session, Ch. II, 142. ↑
- Waterworth, Trent, Twenty-first Session, Canon II, 143. ↑
- Boultbee, Articles, 266, italics original. See also The Catechism of the Council of Trent, trans. J. Donovan (New York: Christian Press Association Publishing Company, 1905), 171–72. ↑
- Waterworth, Trent, Twenty-first Session, 143–44. ↑
- See Gibson, Articles, 683; Bicknell, Articles, 514; and Thomas, Articles, 413. ↑
- Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4 December 1963, Documents of the Second Vatican Council, The Holy See, Ch. II, “The Most Sacred Mystery of the Eucharist,” Art. 55, https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html. ↑
- “General Instruction of the Roman Missal,” Art. 282, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html. ↑
- “General Instruction of the Roman Missal,” Art. 284, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html. ↑
- United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America,” Art. 21, https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds. See also “General Instruction of the Roman Missal,” Art. 282, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html. ↑
- “General Instruction of the Roman Missal,” Art. 283, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html. ↑
- “General Instruction of the Roman Missal,” Art. 281, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html. ↑
- Bicknell, Articles, 514. See also Gibson, Articles, 685, and Thomas, Articles, 413. ↑
