On receiving communion in one kind
Yesterday, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York issued a statement about the necessity of suspending the administration of the chalice. This gave Fr Jonathan Jong an opportunity to write about the doctrine of concomitance and the utraquist controversy in the 15th century.
The Council of Constance of 1414-1418 was rather eventful. The Czech priest and theologian Jan Hus was condemned there in July 1415, as was his great English influence John Wycliffe. It saw the abdication or deposing of the three popes/anti-popes—John XXIII, Benedict III, and Gregory VII—thus ending the Western Schism. A new pope, Martin V, was elected in November 1417. In the midst of all this—in June 1415—the Council asserted that the laity should receive the sacrament under one kind, under the form of bread alone and not wine.
There was not—and has never been—a good reason for this on its own merits. There is an appeal to venerability, though qualified by the admission that receiving in both kinds was even more ancient:
although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the early church, nevertheless later it was received under both kinds only by those confecting it, and by the laity only under the form of bread … this custom was introduced for good reasons by the church and holy fathers, and has been observed for a very long time
Constance does not say what these “good reasons” are. The assertion seems mostly to have been a reaction against those Bohemian reformers who argued for lay communion under both kinds, a view called utraquism (from the Latin for “both kinds”). In turn, utraquism seems to have arisen mostly out of anti-clericalism and a distaste for the accretion of custom to the detriment of Scripture, rather than any specifically theological or philosophical objections to reception in one kind. Priests received in both kinds: why not the laity too? Christ instituted the eucharist in two kinds: why do something different now? [1] Good questions both. In response, the Council declared that “No priest, under pain of excommunication, may communicate the people under the forms of both bread and wine”.
With all due respect to those at Constance, this is quite hysterical. Furthermore, Constance’s belligerence may have spurred the utraquists to go much further, to insist on the necessity of receiving under both kinds. This idea turns on an interpretation of John 6.53: “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you”. On this account, receiving communion in both kinds—and drink his blood—is necessary for salvation. It is not clear whether this argument was much made before 1415 (and not by Hus in any case), but it certainly was after by Jakoubek of Stříbro, named by the Council as the instigator of utraquism [2].
Despite the reputation of the Council of Trent (1546-1563)—at least among Protestants, as a foamy-mouthed reaction against the Reformation—the Tridentine deliberations on this topic are actually rather sober compared to these 15th century threats of excommunication. In July 1652, the Council decreed 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.
Trent therefore deals directly with Jakoubek’s argument. It also went a little further than Constance in explaining why, despite the fact that “communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord”, it was not obligatory for the laity (and the clergy when not presiding) to receive in both kinds. In the 13th session in 1551, the following—slightly tortured—passage appears:
And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with His body and soul. Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof.
Two things seemingly contradictory are being insisted upon here. First, that the Body is under the species of bread whereas the Blood is under the species of wine: but this is so by the force of the words (viz., of institution). Second, that the Body is also under the species of wine and the Blood under the species of bread: this time, it is not words doing the work, but a natural connexion and concomitancy that unite the parts of Christ. Something like this is also true of the presence of Christ’s soul and divinity: they are present because they are united with Christ’s body and humanity respectively.
This view is not new to Trent [3]. Indeed, even Jan Hus [4] seems to have agreed with the principle while arguing that it would better for the laity to receive in both kinds. It is—you will not be surprised to see it said here—helpful to turn to Thomas Aquinas on this matter. He explains things in counterfactual terms. Imagine that we were celebrating the Eucharist in the three days between Jesus’s death and resurrection: that is, when his body and soul were separated. Under these circumstances, Christ’s soul would not be present under the species of either bread or wine because it was not, at the time, united to Christ’s body, which is sacramentally present there (ST III.76.1). Similarly, “Christ's blood is not separated from His body, as it was at the time of His Passion and death” (ST III.76.2): in other words, they are united. Therefore, where Christ’s body is there his blood is also: and so, if Christ’s body is present under the species of bread, so is his blood. Mutatis mutandis the species of wine. [The case of the divinity of Christ is slightly different, and no counterfactual is offered here. Christ’s humanity and divinity are joined in hypostatic union; and so, where Christ’s humanity is, there his divinity is also.]
All this entails—contra Jakoubek—that it is not necessary to receive communion in both kinds, because in receiving in one kind, we receive both Christ’s body and blood, which fulfils John 6.53. Furthermore, there may be practical reasons for withholding the chalice from the laity at certain times: perhaps it is in the interest of public health; perhaps wine is difficult to procure; perhaps it will take too long for a large number of people; perhaps we want to avoid spillage [5]. “If incautiously handled",” Aquinas observes, [the blood] might easily be spilt” (ST III.80.12). And yet, Aquinas’s approach is to defend communion in one kind, rather than to refute the benefits of communion in both kinds. He certainly does not think it superfluous that there are two species, bread and wine. This is mostly for reasons of the eucharist’s efficacy as a sign. In the eucharist, Christ’s passion is represented, which—as above—is when his body and blood were separated: thus the bread and wine are separate. Furthermore, the eucharist is a sacrificial meal, which is most fittingly represented by both food and drink together (ST III.76.2).
In our own day, the Church seems to have left the aggressive overreaction of Constance behind. “Nothing is lost”, the Church insists, in receiving communion in one kind only. But there is benefit to receiving in both. In the 2004 instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum states
So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds
It is, the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff clarifies,
not that the faithful receive more grace than when they receive it under one kind alone, but that the faithful are enabled to appreciate vividly the value of the sign
And so, for a while, we might miss the chalice: and we should look forward to its return, and appreciate vividly its value.
1. Patapios, H. (2002). Sub utraque specie: the arguments of John Hus and Jacoubek Stříbro in defence of giving communion to the laity under both kinds. The Journal of Theological Studies, 53(2), 503-522.
2. e.g., Salvator noster ca. 1416. Jakoubek also reminds the reader that Christians received communion in both kinds for many centuries, and that various authorities advocate the practice.
3. Alexander of Hales distinguishes the cases saying that the bread is transformed into the body of Christ, whereas the blood is present by association, the soul by conjugation, and the divinity by union (Quaesitones Disputatae antequam esset Frater, ca. 1220). Similarly, Hugh St Cher says that under the species of bread the body of Christ is present by conversion, the blood by connection, the soul by conjunction, and the divinity by union (Commentariumin Sententias, ca 1230).
4. Even in Utrum expediat, composed in 1414. "For although the body and blood of Christ is under each sacramental species, yet it was not without reason and for nothing that Christ instituted both sacramental modes for the faithful, but for great profit." (Incidentally, Hus does not make the John 6.53 argument.)
5. See for example Redemptionis Sacramentum: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20IV
