The Catholic Church and Communion Under Both Kinds: A Study in Doctrinal Contradiction

The Catholic Church and Communion Under Both Kinds: A Study in Doctrinal Contradiction

J. Neil Daniels

Introduction

The administration of communion under both kinds—the distribution of both the bread and the wine to the laity—stands as a compelling case study in doctrinal discontinuity within Roman Catholicism. This issue highlights the manner in which ecclesiastical decisions have, at times, conflicted with both the plain teaching of Scripture and longstanding ecclesial practice, only to be reversed centuries later. The Catholic Church’s evolving stance on this matter exposes a tension between its assertion of doctrinal infallibility and the manifest mutability of its teaching and discipline over time.

Biblical Foundation for Communion Under Both Kinds

The biblical basis for administering both elements of the Eucharist to all communicants is clear and unequivocal. Christ’s institution of the Supper explicitly includes the command that all partake of both bread and wine. In Matthew 26:27, Jesus “took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you.’” The Greek word πάντες (“all”) leaves no room for restriction; the entire group of disciples was commanded to drink from the cup.

Paul reinforces this expectation in his instructions to the Corinthian church. In 1 Corinthians 11:25–28, he writes:

“After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood: this do ye, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till He come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.”

Paul addresses the entire congregation, not a clerical subset, and expects that every believer partakes of both elements. The admonitions and instructions apply to all, underscoring the universality of the practice among the faithful.

Historical Practice in the Early Church

The testimony of history unmistakably corroborates the biblical witness: communion under both kinds was the normative and universal practice of the Church throughout the first millennium. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia concedes, “Down to the twelfth century, in the West as well as in the East, public Communion in the churches was ordinarily administered and received under both kinds.” This acknowledgment from an authoritative Catholic source affirms that for over a thousand years—including the patristic and conciliar formative era—the reception of both bread and wine by the laity was standard.

Patristic evidence confirms this. Justin Martyr, writing in the mid-second century, describes the Eucharistic celebration in First Apology:

“There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water… When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying ‘Amen’… and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.” (First Apology 65–66)

Here, Justin mentions the cup explicitly and without restriction, as being part of the ordinary reception of the sacrament.

Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Mystagogical Catecheses (c. 350), instructs newly baptized Christians: “After partaking of the body of Christ, draw near also to the cup of His blood… Saying ‘Amen,’ be sanctified by partaking also of the blood of Christ.” (Mystagogical Catechesis 5.20–22)

Cyril's description, part of official catechesis in Jerusalem, shows no distinction between clergy and laity—both are expected to receive from the chalice.

Basil of Caesarea, a key Cappadocian Father, similarly affirms: “To receive communion in both kinds is the custom even today throughout the churches of God.” (Letter 93, ca. A.D. 372)

Ambrose of Milan likewise speaks of the dual reception without qualification: “As often as we receive the sacraments, which by the mystery of sacred prayer are transformed into the flesh and blood of Christ, we proclaim the death of the Lord.” (De Sacramentis 5.4.25)

In the West, the liturgical texts and ordines from the Roman Rite, including the Gelasian Sacramentary (7th century) and Ordo Romanus I, assume the distribution of both elements to the people as normative.

Even medieval figures such as Bede the Venerable (8th century) wrote of the communicant partaking of both elements: “He [Christ] gave to His disciples the figure of His holy body and blood... giving His body in the bread and His blood in the chalice, to show that the one is not without the other.” (Homilies on the Gospels, I.21)

Furthermore, the Council of Clermont (1095), under Pope Urban II, includes in Canon 30 an affirmation of communion under both kinds for the faithful: “Let all who are not hindered by necessity receive the communion of the body and blood together, unless custom or necessity demands otherwise.”

The breadth of this practice across East and West, in Greek and Latin rites, among bishops, theologians, and catechists alike, confirms that this was no local innovation or optional custom. Rather, it was the universal expression of what was understood to be apostolic tradition. The consistent and unbroken testimony of both ecclesiastical authorities and pastoral texts from across the ancient world lends compelling historical weight to the conclusion that communion under both kinds was the inherited norm of the early Church.

The Prohibition: Council of Constance

This unbroken tradition was radically interrupted at the Council of Constance (1414–1418). In its third session (1415), the council condemned as heretical the belief that the laity ought to receive communion under both species:

“Certain people… have rashly dared to assert that the Christian people ought to receive the holy sacrament of the Eucharist under the forms of both bread and wine. They communicate the laity everywhere… and stubbornly assert that they should communicate even after a meal… contrary to the church’s custom which has been laudably and sensibly approved…”

While the council acknowledged that “this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the early church,” it decreed that henceforth only the priest celebrant would receive both elements, and the laity would receive bread alone. The decree further instructed ecclesiastical authorities to enforce the prohibition under pain of excommunication. Persistent dissenters were to be “repressed as heretics… even if necessary by calling in the help of the secular arm.”

Thus, a practice instituted by Christ and observed by the universal church was not only proscribed but criminalized. The council’s language and sanctions leave no doubt that the matter was treated as one of theological significance, not mere liturgical form.

Confirmation at Trent

The Council of Trent (1545–1563) reaffirmed and systematized the Constance decree, issuing formal anathemas. In Session XXI (1562), Trent declared:

Canon 1: “If anyone says that by the command of God or by necessity of salvation all and each of the faithful must receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be anathema.”

Canon 2: “If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church lacked just cause and reason for communicating under the species of bread alone laymen and clerics when not celebrating, let him be anathema.”

These canons constitute a wholesale repudiation of the apostolic and patristic practice. The first canon nullifies Christ’s explicit command, and the second anathematizes the very suggestion that the church had erred in abandoning communion under both kinds.

Catholic Justifications and Their Inadequacy

The Catholic Church has attempted to justify this deviation on two main grounds. First, it argues that Christ is wholly present—body, blood, soul, and divinity—under each species, and therefore, reception under one kind is sufficient. Second, it appeals to practical concerns, such as the risk of spilling the wine, difficulties in distribution, and liturgical order.

Yet neither rationale justifies a universal prohibition, let alone the anathematization of those adhering to the biblical model. I have elsewhere addressed the metaphysical problems with transubstantiation in my article, "The Substance of the Matter: Dietrich of Freiberg’s Critique of Transubstantiation." Beyond that, the doctrine of concomitance (Christ being fully present under either species) may allow for occasional exceptions but cannot justify a formal ban on a dominical command. Moreover, practical considerations cannot overturn theological mandates, particularly when the early church successfully navigated these same challenges for centuries.

Indeed, the invocation of “practical difficulties” is theologically troubling. Why? Because it implies that Christ instituted a sacrament without due regard for its feasibility, this being an assertion incompatible with divine wisdom and ecclesial fidelity.

Vatican II and the Restoration

The Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) introduced a cautious reversal. Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963) stated:

“The dogmatic principles laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, communion under both kinds may be granted… to the laity, in cases determined by the Apostolic See…”

Though limited in scope, this restoration exposes the weakness of previous prohibitions. If the practice could be safely reintroduced in the twentieth century, then its prohibition in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was not necessitated by either theology or circumstance. Vatican II implicitly acknowledges that the earlier rationale for exclusion was neither irreformable nor absolute.

The Problem of Disciplinary versus Doctrinal Distinction

Catholic apologists often seek refuge in the distinction between doctrine and discipline, arguing that communion under both kinds pertains to the latter. However, this distinction does not withstand scrutiny.

First, the language of the councils—particularly the imposition of anathemas and the invocation of excommunication—indicates that the matter was treated as one of doctrinal gravity. Second, the question concerns the administration of a sacrament instituted by Christ, which directly implicates questions of theology, not mere custom. Third, disciplinary matters do not typically incur condemnation as heresy, nor do they warrant coercive enforcement by the secular arm.

The disciplinary explanation, therefore, serves more as a post hoc rationalization than a coherent theological defense.

Implications for Catholic Claims of Infallibility

This historical trajectory places Catholic claims of conciliar infallibility under significant strain. The Catholic Church teaches that ecumenical councils are preserved from error when defining matters of faith and morals. Yet the communion controversy presents an irresolvable dilemma: if Constance and Trent were right to prohibit and anathematize communion under both kinds, then Vatican II erred in reversing the practice. If Vatican II was right to restore the practice, then the earlier councils erred in condemning it.

This is not a merely theoretical difficulty. It concerns a practice instituted by Christ, received by the apostolic church, affirmed by Paul, and maintained for a thousand years. The abandonment of that practice and its eventual reinstatement cannot both be expressions of infallible teaching. At least one position must be conceded to be fallible, undermining the claim that ecumenical councils are always guided into truth without error.

Conclusion

The Roman Catholic Church’s handling of communion under both kinds exemplifies a profound inconsistency between doctrinal claim and historical practice. A rite clearly instituted by Christ and uniformly observed by the early church was abruptly forbidden under threat of excommunication, only to be partially reinstated five centuries later. The attempts to salvage this trajectory through disciplinary disclaimers or appeals to practical exigency are insufficient.

This case illustrates the importance of grounding ecclesial practice in Scripture, with an eye towards apostolic tradition, rather than in mutable institutional pronouncements. The authority of Christ’s command must by necessity override ecclesiastical decrees when the two are in conflict. The history of communion under both kinds calls for sober reflection on the limits of ecclesial authority and a renewed commitment to biblical fidelity in sacramental theology.

For Further Study 

Primary Sources 

Catholic Church. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Translated by H. J. Schroeder. Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1978.

Catholic Church. Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy). In The Documents of Vatican II, edited by Walter M. Abbott, 137–180. New York: Herder and Herder, 1966.

Catholic Church. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Volume 1: Nicaea I to Lateran V. Edited by Norman P. Tanner. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, 1990.

Secondary Sources

Geisler, Norman L., and Ralph E. MacKenzie. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

Jungmann, Josef A. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development (Missarum Sollemnia). Translated by Francis A. Brunner. 2 vols. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1951.

McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 6th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.

Schaff, Philip, ed. History of the Christian Church, Vol. 5: The Middle Ages, A.D. 1049–1294. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Svendsen, Eric D. Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Roman Catholic Apologetics. Lindenhurst, NY: Reformation Press, 1999.

White, James R. The Roman Catholic Controversy: Catholics and Protestants—Do the Differences Still Matter? Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1996.

Wills, Garry. Why Priests? A Failed Tradition. New York: Viking, 2013.

Journal Articles and Online Resources

"Are Both Species Needed for a Valid Communion?" Our Sunday Visitor. Accessed May 29, 2025. https://www.oursundayvisitor.com/are-both-species-needed-for-a-valid-communion/

"Communion Under Both Kinds." Catholic Answers Encyclopedia. Accessed May 29, 2025. https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/communion-under-both-kinds

"Communion Under Both Kinds in the Lublin Frescoes and Gregory." Religions 16.3 (2023): 391. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/16/3/391

"Communion Under Both Species: Is it Required?" My Catholic Source. Accessed May 29, 2025. https://www.mycatholicsource.com/mcs/pc/sacraments/communion_under_both_species__is_it_required.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. s.v. "Communion under Both Kinds." https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm

Daniels, J. Neil. "The Substance of the Matter: Dietrich of Freiberg’s Critique of Transubstantiation." Theologia et Vita (blog), April 2025. https://theologiaetvita.blogspot.com/2025/04/the-substance-of-matter-dietrich-of.html.

"Extending the Practice of Communion Under Both Kinds." EWTN Library. Accessed May 29, 2025. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/extending-the-practice-of-communion-under-both-kinds-2158

O'Donoghue, Neil Xavier. "The Shape of the History of the Eucharist." New Blackfriars 93.1043 (January 2012): 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2005.2011.01433.x

"Position Paper on Communion Under the Species of Bread Alone." New Liturgical Movement. December 2013. https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2013/12/position-paper-on-communion-under.html

Sample, Alexander K. "Holy Communion under Both Kinds." Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon, October 15, 2024. https://archdpdx.org/documents/2024/10/HCBK%2015%20Oct%202024.pdf

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. "Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds." Accessed May 29, 2025. https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds

"The Theological Foundations of Eucharistic Beliefs: A New National Survey of Adult Catholics." Church Life Journal, University of Notre Dame. Accessed May 29, 2025. https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/the-theological-foundations-of-eucharistic-beliefs-a-national-survey-of-adult-catholics/

"Rethinking Eucharistic Communion: A Theology of Harmony." Religions 14.8 (2023): 988. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/14/8/988