(1) Under this head the following points are to be noted: (a) In reference to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, the communion, under both kinds, of the celebrating priest belongs at least to the integrity, and, according to some theologians, to the essence, of the sacrificial rite, and may not therefore be omitted without violating the sacrificial precept of Christ: "Do this for a commemoration of me" (Luke 22:19). This is taught implicitly by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, c. i; XXII, c. i). (b) There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds (Trent, sess. XXI, c. i.)
(Gross error in my opinion: And He took the (third) cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, "All of you drink of it; For this is My Blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins." The Lord himself brought forth this edict of the heart, for all were to drink who had entered into the New Covenant through His Blood, for all are sinners and will sin. See Excellent Valley "The Crucible" for a better understanding of the Covenant Blood of Jesus Christ. Without the shed Blood there is no remission of sin. Hebrews 9:22)
(c) By reason of the hypostatic union and of the indivisibility of His glorified humanity, Christ is really present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either species alone; nor, as regards the fruits of the sacrament, is the communicant under one kind deprived of any grace necessary for salvation (Trent, Sess. XXI, c., iii). (d) In reference to the sacraments generally, apart from their substance, salva eorum substantia, i.e. apart from what has been strictly determined by Divine institution or precept, the Church has authority to determine or modify the rites and usages employed in their administration, according as she judges it expedient for the greater profit of the recipients or the better protections of the sacraments themselves against irreverence. Hence "although the usage of Communion under two kinds was not infrequent in the early ages [ab initio] of the Christian religion, yet, the custom in this respect having changed almost universally [latissime] in the course of time, holy mother the Church, mindful of her authority in the administration of the Sacraments, and influenced by weighty and just reasons, has approved the custom of communicating under one kind, and decreed it to have the force of a law, which may not be set aside or changed but by the Church's own authority" (Trent, Sess. XXI, c. ii). Not only, therefore, is Communion under both kinds not obligatory on the faithful, but the chalice is strictly forbidden by ecclesiastical law to any but the celebrating priest.
(How expedient is this decreed doctrine of the Roman Church? No less than St Peter the so called "first Pope" declares to all baptized into the New Covenant: "But YOU are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that YOU should show forth the praises of Him Who has called YOU out of darkness into His marvelous light:)
These decrees of the Council of Trent were directed against the Reformers of the sixteenth century, who, on the strength of John, vi, 54, Matt., xxvi, 27, and Luke, xxii, 17, 19, enforced in most cases by a denial of the Real Presence and of the Sacrifice of the Mass, maintained the existence of a Divine precept obliging the faithful to receive under both kinds, and denounced the Catholic practice of withholding the cup from the laity as a sacrilegious mutilation of the sacrament.
The reformers of the first century, the 16th century and some of today are in agreement with the receiving of both the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Hear and discern what Paul says in I Corinthians 10:14-17 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 1 Corinthians 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. Firstly, at the Passover Seder the Lord Jesus declared that the contents of the cup He blessed was to be His Blood of the New Covenant shed for the forgiveness of the sins of the many. A body is dead without the flow of blood. Even so the Body of Jesus Christ on this earth has no Life without the flow the Blood of Jesus Christ. Secondly, that cup which we (as in a plurality) bless, says that we are in communion with the contents of the cup, which is the Blood of Jesus Christ shed or poured out for sinners. It should be obvious that if we (plural) are in communion (the plurality of the Church) with the Lord's drink offering, then we are in fellowship (with the plurality of the Church) with each member of the plurality, and are in God's covenant agreement with the total participation of all members in the drinking of the New Covenant Blood that is shed for many for the forgiveness of sin. Lastly, the Roman Church has cloaked itself in darkness maintaining saintly idolatry in deference to Paul's admonishment to flee idolatry, and Paul further stating that you (as in plurality) can not drink from the cup of the Lord and that which is offered among idols.
A century earlier the Hussites, particularly the party of the Calixtines, had asserted the same doctrine, without denying, however, the Real Presence or the Sacrifice of the Mass, and on the strength principally of John, vi, 54; and the Council of Constance in its thirteenth session (1415) had already condemned their position and affirmed the binding force of the existing discipline in terms practically identical with those of Trent (see decree approved by Martin V, 1418, in Denzinger, Enchiridion, n. 585). It is to be observed that neither council introduced any new legislation on the subject; both were content with declaring that the existing custom had already acquired the force of law. A few privileged exceptions to the law and a few instances of express dispensation, occurring later, will be noticed below (II).
The Roman Church has somewhat moderated its doctrine of Transubstantiation in their communion writings and conversations among the other churches with a more acceptable and undefined 'Real Presence'. Nevertheless, the eleven anathemas remain in effect. Forgive me on the following matter; I do not know where the reference to the 'Real Presence' originated. I do not believe it originally came from the Roman church, but was accepted by them to ameliorate some of the problems with their doctrine.
(2) Regarding the merits of the Utraquist controversy, if we assume the doctrinal points involved -- viz. the absence of a Divine precept imposing Communion under both kinds, the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species, and the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with the sacraments that is not divinely determined the question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary, and is to be decided by a reference to the two fold purpose to be attained, of safeguarding the reverence due to this most august sacrament and of facilitating and encouraging its frequent and fervent reception. Nor can it be doubted that the modern Catholic discipline best secures these ends. The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; the inconvenience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers -- the difficulty of reservation for Communion outside of Mass: the not unreasonable objection on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice, which of itself alone would act as a strong deterrent to frequent Communion in the case of a great many otherwise well-disposed people; these and similar "weighty and just reasons" against the Utraquist practice are more than sufficient to justify the Church in forbidding it.
(As far as the irreverence in the spilling the Precious Blood, the argument is superfluous; for all of the Saviors Blood was poured out on the polluted earthen ground for the cleansing of the cesspools and blood guiltiness of our earthly lives. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness there of.)
Of the doctrinal points mentioned above, the only one that need be discussed here is the question of the existence or non-existence of a Divine precept imposing Communion sub utraque. Of the texts brought forward by Utraquists in proof of such a precept, the command, "Drink ye all of this" (Matthew 26:27), and its equivalent in St. Luke (xxii, 17, i.e. supposing the reference here to be to the Eucharistic and not to the paschal cup), cannot fairly be held to apply to any but those present those on the occasion, and to them only for that particular occasion. Were one to insist that Christ's action in administering Holy Communion under both kinds to the Apostles at the Last Supper was intended to lay down a law for all future recipients, he should for the same reason insist that several other temporary and accidental circumstances connected with the first celebration of the Eucharist (e.g. the preceding paschal rites, the use of unleavened bread, the taking of the Sacred Species by the recipients themselves) were likewise intended to be obligatory for all future celebrations.
If this is the Roman Catholic's shallow argument for not dispensing the Cup of Blessing to the priesthood that sits in the pews, then it defeats the Word's of Jesus Christ, Who says to His disciples at that Paschal Feast: "With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer". It was the traditional third Paschal cup requiring a blessing that the Lord held in His Hands, but now has become the Eucharistic cup with the Lord's Word and invitation: "All of you drink of it: For this is My Blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins". This is God's New Covenant with man and the amnesty and cure for sin is in the shed New Covenant Blood of Jesus Christ poured out of His physical vessel for the sin's of mankind. This Holy Communion with God and His WORD made flesh cannot be altered with man's ignorant doctrines of expediency. Man is subject to God's Covenant and Word: God is not subject to the doctrines and dictates of man.
The institution under both kinds, or the separate consecration of the bread and wine, belongs essentially, in Catholic opinion, to the sacrificial, as distinct from the sacramental, character of the Eucharist; and when Christ in the words "Do this for a commemoration of me" (Luke 22:19), gave to the Apostles both the command and the power to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, they understood Him merely to impose upon them and their successors in the priesthood the obligation of sacrificing sub utraque. This obligation the Church has rigorously observed.
Please take some of your precious time and visit
The Doctrine of Life in Spirit and Truth
With visionary dreams of the
Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.