Green on Article XXX: Of both kinds

(a) The danger of irreverence suggested this course as a means for securing the Chalice from profanation. Even in the eleventh century, when Communion in both kinds was still the rule of the Church, the consecrated Wine was some¬ times administered through a tube as a precaution against spilling any portion of It.

( b ) The growth of the belief in Transubstantiation also con¬ tributed to the discontinuance of the administration of the Sacrament in both kinds, for it was held that our Blessed Lord was so entirely and indivisibly present in either Ele¬ ment that all who were partakers of the consecrated Host

1 In the Eastern Church both Elements are given to the communicants together in a spoon, the consecrated Bread being first dipped in the Chalice.

received therein His Body and His Blood. This is called the doctrine of “ Concomitance” 1

The Council of Constance (Session XIII., June 15, 1415) enforced Communion in one kind, justifying it both as a safe¬ guard against dangers, and also from the doctrine of Con¬ comitance. The decree of the Council on the subject runs as follows : —

“ Et sicut haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pericula et scandala est rationabiliter introducta, quod licet in primitiva ec- clesia hujusmodi sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie, postea a conficientibus utraque, et a laicis tantummodo sub specie panis suscipiatur : cum firmissime credendum sit, et nullatenus dubitandum, integrum Christi corpus et sanguinem tarn sub specie panis, quam sub specie vini veraciter contineri. Unde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab ecclesia et sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta, et diutissime observata sit, habenda est pro lege, quam non licet reprobare, aut sine ecclesiae auctoritate pro libito mutare.”

Further, the penalty of excommunication is threatened : —

“ Item ipsa sancta Sy nodus decernit et declarat super ista materia, reverendissimis in Christo patribus, et dominis patriarchis, primatibus, archiepiscopis, episcopis, et eorum in spiritualibus vicariis ubilibet constitutis, processus esse dirigendos, in quibus eis committatur et mandetur auctoritate hujus sacri Concilii sub poena excommunicationis, ut effectualiter puniant eos contra hoc decretum excedentes, qui communicando populum sub utraque specie panis et vini exhortati fuerint, et sic faciendum esse docuerint.”

At the outset of the Reformation in Germany, Luther pro¬ tested against the withdrawal of the Cup from the laity,2 and the Augsburg Confession reformed the abuse. See Part II. Art. I.: —

“ Laicis datur utraque species sacramenti in coena Domini, quia hie mos liabet mandatum Domini (Matt, xxvi.) Bibite ex hoc omnes. Ubi manifeste praecepit Christus de poculo, ut omnes

2 In his famous “Prelude on the Babylonish Captivity of the Church” (1520), Luther characterised departure from primitive rule in this matter as impiety.

bibant, et ne quis possit cavillari, quod hoc ad sacerdotes tantum pertineat, Paulus ad Corinth, exemplum recitat, in quo apparet totam ecclesiam utraque specie usam esse.”

In the reign of Henry VIII. the English Church was not prepared to go so far in a reforming direction as to alter the prevailing custom in this matter, and when the German reforming party (whose deputies had been in conference, in 1538, with representative English divines)1 freely censured the withdrawal of the Cup from the laity as an abuse, England replied with the Six Article Law, the second Article of which expressly declared that Communion in both kinds is not necessary for all.

Stat. 1 Ed. YI. c. 1, however, in conformity with a unani¬ mous decree of Convocation, legalised Communion in both kinds, which was also provided for in the two Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552.

With our Article we may compare the tenth of the XI. Articles of 1559, which affirms : —

“ I am of that mind also, that the holy Communion or Sacra¬ ment of the Body and Blood of Christ, for the due obedience to Christ’s institution, and to express the virtue of the same, ought to be ministered unto the people under both kinds : and that it is avouched by certain fathers of the Church to be a plain sacrilege, to rob them of the mystical cup for whom Christ hath shed his most precious Blood, seeing he himself hath said, Drink ye all of this ; considering also, that in the time of the ancient doctors of the Church, as Cyprian, Hierom, Augustine, Gelasius, and others, six hundred years after Christ and more, both the parts of the Sacrament were ministered to the people.”

When the Council of Trent reassembled in 1562, under Pope Pius IV., both the Emperor Ferdinand and the Cardinal of Lorraine, with other representatives from France, urged the desirability of yielding Communion in both kinds. In the result, however, Decrees and Canons were agreed upon confirming the mediaeval practice (Session XXI.) : —

“ Itaque sancta ipsa Sy nodus, a Spiritu sane to, qui spiritus est sapientiae et intellectus, spiritus consilii et pietatis, edocta, atque ipsius Ecclesiae judicium et consuetudinem secuta, declarat ac

[…]

Canon II. — Si quis dixerit, sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam non justis causis et rationibus adductam fuisse, ut Laicos atque etiam Clericos non conficientes sub panis tantummodo specie communi- caret, aut in eo errasse ; anathema sit.

[…]

To the decrees on Reformation passed at the twenty-second Session of the Council was appended a further decree referring to the Pope the question of yielding the chalice to the laity : —

[…]

§ 3. — EXPOSITION.

By Christ’s command and ordinance both kinds should be administered to all. His words at the Institution of the Sacra¬ ment, with reference to the Cup, were, Xl/ere avTov iravre^s (S. Matt. xxvi. 27); and S. Mark (xiv. 23) adds, kol eiriov ej~ avrov iravreg. Cf. also S. Paul’s testimony in I Cor. x. 21, xi. 26, et seqq .

Two considerations which are sometimes brought forward as justifying Communion in one kind may be briefly noticed : —

(a) It has been urged that it was to priests our Lord said the words, “ Drink ye all.”

But this argument scarcely applies, since the Roman Church withholds the Cup from all present at the celebra¬ tion of the Eucharist, whether priests or laymen, except only the consecrating priest.

(b) There is the argument from the doctrine of […] viz., that in the one Species we receive both the Body and the Blood of the Lord, for in the Body we have the Blood.

But the Blood of Christ of which we partake in the Eucharist is emphatically stated by our Lord to be His Blood as shed in Sacrifice for us, and not (with all reverence be it said) His Blood as circulating in the Body : —

“ This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins ” (Prayer of Con¬ secration).

Cf. the words of administration : —

“ The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee.” …

We do not, of course, assert that those who communicate in one kind only lose the grace of the Sacrament which is necessary to salvation ; at the same time the withdrawal of the Cup from the laity is a grievous mutilation of Christ’s ordinance.

Notes

• The doctrine appeared as early as the time of S. Anselm, who stated “ in utraque specie totum Christum sumi ” (Epistles, Lib. iv. ep. 1 1 7).
• See pp. 6, 7.