COMMUNION UNDER BOTH KINDS
Roman Catholicism says the Blessed Eucharist or the Mass is an act of worship
wherein the bread and wine are turned by the priest, who uses the power of God,
into the body and blood of Jesus Christ who is true God and true man. To eat and
drink this is to partake of holy communion.
The Catholic Church originally gave out communion under the form of bread and
wine to the laity. Then it forbade this and gave communion in the form of bread
alone. Only the priest could drink the wine that was supposedly the blood of
Christ. The Protestant Reformers condemned this practice most vehemently and
welcomed the people to receive under both kinds.
Pope Gelasius I decreed that anybody that would not take both kinds should be
made to do it or expelled from the Church for taking one kind is a sacrilegious
division of the mystery of communion (page 24, The Primitive Faith and Roman
Catholic Developments). If the bread is the living resurrected Jesus then you
would receive the whole Jesus by the bread alone. Gelasius I is denying this so
he was denying that the Eucharist was literally Jesus. It was spiritually Jesus
which is the same thing as saying it was symbolically Jesus. Gelasius also said
that with the saying of the words of Jesus over the bread and wine to call them
the body and blood of Jesus the nature of bread and wine is not changed
(Bingham’s Antiquities, book 15, Chapter 5). So they only become symbols.
The Catholic believed and still believes that the complete body, blood, soul and
divinity of Jesus, the entire Christ, could be received through either kind
alone. The Protestants claimed that communion was incomplete unless the bread
was eaten and the wine drunk.
Rome defines sacraments as symbolic rites that really give the grace from God
that they picture. For example, the washing involved in baptism pictures God
washing away your sin which actually happens according to Roman theology. In
Romanism, eating the host and drinking the chalice picture Jesus giving himself
as food and drink to the soul. The symbolism is incomplete when you take the
bread without taking the chalice. This is against the nature of the sacrament.
Sacraments require the symbolism to be performed accurately. Even if Jesus is
given completely under the form of bread, the sacrament though effective is
still insulted and mutilated.
Even if the wafer or the cup alone is enough to give Jesus, the symbolism of
eating the body and drinking the blood needs to be completed by eating and
drinking. The Eucharist is more than just a sacrament in Christian theology, it
represents gospel truths such as the death of Jesus wherein his body and blood
were separated and speaks of him as still alive and to be made present.
And besides when the Church says Jesus commanded taking the chalice its refusal
to give the chalice is simply an admission that he was wrong to demand this. You
might read in the gospels that he asked his few disciples at the Last Supper to
drink but think that it does not mean he expected huge congregations to be given
chalices. But the theology of the Church says he was not just speaking to the
disciples but to the Church as well. It is shocking how the Catholics can go to
Mass and hear Jesus' command to drink the cup and then refuse to do it because
they prefer to listen to the Church!
If the wine really becomes the blood of Jesus it is unthinkable that Jesus would
ask the Church to, "Take this all of you and drink from it. This is the cup of
my blood. It will be poured out for the forgiveness of sins." Spills will
happen. The pouring out symbolism indicates that Jesus did not mind if they
slurped or spilled. The idea in the symbolism was that the drinking did not
forgive sins but the pouring did. They poured it into their mouths. The
symbolism was of the cup being poured like the blood of Jesus from his body.
The Church disapproves of Catholics taking the Eucharist wine out of small
individual glasses rather than from the chalice even though the purpose is to
avoid the exchange of germs. The Church says that using individual glasses ruins
the idea that the Church becomes one through drinking the one cup. The amazing
thing about this hypocrisy is how that could be forbidden while not giving the
wine at all is allowed!
The Catholics base their doctrine on Jesus' teaching in John 6 though it cannot
be proved that it refers to the Last Supper. In John 6:51 and 6:58, Jesus says
that the person who eats of the bread of life will live forever and have God
without mentioning the cup. John 6:51 was said at a point when people could not
be blamed for taking Jesus to be talking symbolically. He said he was the bread
of life and that to come to him was to eat. So it was symbolism. So Jesus saying
we must eat the bread of life it proves nothing for he must have therefore been
talking that symbolical way. It was symbolic bread of life he was discussing not
communion.
Now to the next verse, 6:58. It occurs in a part Catholics take literally. The
Catholics say the Jews seem to have stopped Jesus from talking symbolically in
this part and so he is talking literally in this verse. In verse 58 Jesus says
the bread that comes down from Heaven is to be eaten so a man can live forever.
No cup mentioned. But read the verses previous to it in the allegedly literal
section. In them, Jesus had made it clear that the two were needed before
therefore he needed only mention one at this verse 58. His hearers would have
known or realised later that he did not mean to eliminate the need for the
blood. There is no contradiction. He is just trying to be quick. He never said
that the bread was enough. If I say you will live if you take tablets a though I
know you need tablets b as well that does not mean I am denying that you need
tablets b.
If there is a contradiction in the text then we may solve it by saying that the
eat me and drink my blood symbolised the same thing - spiritually assimilating
Jesus. Jesus after all was not his blood. He asked us to drink his blood meaning
be close to him. If the blood drinking meant that then eating the body means
something similar.
This would mean that the passage is not about transubstantiation. This is
sufficient proof that there are no grounds to take the passage literally for it
might be a contradiction if you do.
Jesus said that the bread he would give was his flesh for the life of the world.
Later he said that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have
eternal life.
We have seen that the Roman Catholic Church argues that the bread he would give
being his flesh for the world proves that giving communion under the form of
bread is sufficient and the Church gives the laity the wafer only. But the
bread and wine could still be needed and communion under one kind forbidden. The
Church believes that in the Eucharist Jesus gives the bread which is his body
for all and that doesn’t exclude him also giving the cup of his blood for all.
The next Catholic effort to prove that one kind will do is the quotation of 1
Corinthians 11:27 where Paul speaks of evil people who eat the bread or drink
the cup being guilty of offending the body and blood of the Lord. This “or” does
not necessarily imply what the Catholics said it does. Suppose the two were
necessary. Then a miscreant who takes the bread is insulting the body. Then if
the miscreant takes the drink he is insulting the blood. There was a lot of
abusing of the Lord's Supper going on so some might have been taking the bread
and not the cup and vice versa. Also, to insult the body is to insult the blood
too for it is insulting a person. To insult the blood is to insult the body for
the same reason. The verse fails to refute the Protestant position. It must be
realised that to take one insults God for communion is supposed to indicate
willingness to serve God by devoting your own body and blood to God by taking
the symbolic body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Catholics do not think the or implies what they say it implies for they would
hold that nobody would have been taking the bread alone or the wine alone in the
situation Paul is dealing with.
It cannot be proved from the Bible that one kind is enough. Protestants say that
Jesus told the apostles to drink the cup so that it is his will that all do so
now. Catholics hold that this was a command for the apostles alone. But if Jesus
gave the cup to his disciples then he would be for anybody else getting it too.
Catholics argued that it is restricted to the celebrant of the Eucharist – but
at the Last Supper, Jesus was the celebrant and he shared the cup. Jesus said
that the main thing about the bread and wine was that we were to remember him by
them. It is unthinkable then that if he wanted to be remembered by this meal
that he would allow the cup to be kept from the people.
Catholics used to insist that since the Bible bans sacrilege it by implication
commands the cup to be withheld from the laity for it contains the blood of
Christ in case it gets spilled. One might object that if that’s a reason then
the priest shouldn’t be taking the blood either. Catholics reply that no matter
what is done some loss will occur (which is true for the cup has to be wiped and
washed and some of the contents will be absorbed by the lips) and to keep it to
a minimum the cup is not to be given to the laity. But the priest can say the
words of Jesus over the cup without intending to turn the portion that will be
lost into Jesus. Better to keep the loss to a minimum which the Catholics say
they do but don’t do. If the priest may drain the chalice so may the people.
If Jesus really intended to feed us with himself and the doctrine that eating
the wafer is enough then he would not have turned the wine into himself for no
self-respecting God would do unnecessary miracles.
Jesus claimed that his miracles were all sensible. If Jesus turned wine into his
blood to be our drink then he was wasting his time and energy if he could really
be received whole and entire under either kind alone. Then the bread would be
enough and there would be no need to change the wine into blood. The miracles of
Jesus imply that the Catholic doctrine is anti-scriptural.
Today, Catholics are allowed to have communion the two ways. Sacrilege, though
it is not called that, is allowed now. If Jesus meant to become our food and
drink he certainly would not have wanted people to take the chalice for it would
be unholy and disrespectful.
Coeliacs cannot take the wafer for health reasons so they have to take the wine.
Catholics might argue that when Jesus told all people to eat him when he said he
gave his flesh for the world he would have meant, “To drink the blood is to
consume my body because it is in it as well to coeliacs can eat me that way.”
When Jesus said we are to eat him and to drink his blood in John 6 and if he
knew about coeliacs then it is obvious that John 6 is not connected with the
Last Supper at all. It cannot be used to prove stuff about whether it is right
to believe both kinds will do or not.
What about recovering alcoholic priests who will fall off the wagon if they
taste communion wine? Catholics would have to punish them for quitting by
banning them from saying Mass or permitting them to let someone drain the cup
for them – a practice which they have forbidden.
Protestants must ask themselves if communion is incomplete under one kind then
what happens if you eat the bread one day and don’t take the cup until the day
after? Does time make any difference? When you take the second element the
sacrament happens though nothing happens if you just take the one.
If Jesus is in the bread it is hard to believe that only half of him would be
there and that you need to drink the wine to receive the other half.
And what about a person who has no stomach like a bomb victim whose body has
been half blown away? Are we to believe that the Eucharistic Christ has no
sympathy for them for they cannot receive his body?
It is very possible that Jesus used unfermented wine at the Last Supper for
nowhere in the Bible does it say that wine is needed for communion (page 10,
Should Christians Drink Wine?). Alcohol is poison so it is hard to see why Jesus
would use poison as a symbol of his life-giving blood. There is a total
difference between juice and wine for the chemical transformation is thorough.
If you could use wine when you were meant to use grape juice you might as well
use water. When the Eucharist is not valid when water is used then it is likely
that it is invalid when wine is used for the most the Bible would mean when it
requires the fruit of the vine would be fresh unfermented wine.
Romanism says that Masses said with wine that is not the product of the grape,
say blackcurrant wine etc, are invalid. Jesus will not turn the bread and wine
into himself for the wrong wine is used. Materials matter more than God in this
theology!
BOOKS CONSULTED
Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Book 2, Most Rev M Sheehan DD, MH Gill & Son,
Dublin, 1954
Apologetics for the Pulpit, Aloysius Roche, Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd,
London, 1950
Born-Again Catholics and the Mass, William C Standridge Independent Faith
Mission, North Carolina, 1980
Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, San Francisco,
1988
Confession of a Roman Catholic, Paul Whitcomb, TAN, Illinois, 1985
Critiques of God, Edited by Peter A Angeles (Religion and Reason Section),
Prometheus Books, New York, 1995
Documents of the Christian Church, edited by Henry Bettenson, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 1979
Eucharist, Centre of Christian Life, Rod Kissinger SJ, Liguori Publications,
Missouri, 1970
Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, Fr Charles Chiniquy, Chick Publications,
Chino, 1985
Is Jesus Really Present in the Eucharist? Michael Evans, Catholic Truth Society,
London, 1986
Handbook to the Controversy with Rome, Vol 2, Karl Von Hase MD, The Religious
Tract Society, London, 1906
Living in Christ, A Dreze SJ, Geoffrey Chapman, London-Melbourne, 1969
Martin Luther, Richard Marius, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999
Radio Replies, Vol 2, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul,
Minnesota, 1940
Roman Catholic Claims, Charles Gore, MA, Longmans, Green & Co, London, 1894
Salvation, The Bible and Roman Catholicism, William Webster, Banner of Truth,
Edinburgh, 1990
Secrets of Romanism, Joseph Zaccello, Loizeaux Brothers, New Jersey, 1984
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Veritas, Dublin, 1995
The Early Church, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987
The Mass, Sacrifice and Sacrament, William F Dunphy, CSSR, Liguori Publications,
Missouri, 1986
The Primitive Faith and Roman Catholic Developments, Rev John A Gregg, APCK,
Dublin, 1928
The Student’s Catholic Doctrine, Rev Charles Hart BA, Burns & Oates, London,
1961
This is My Body, This is My Blood, Bob and Penny Lord, Journeys of Faith,
California, 1986
Why Does God…? Domenico Grasso SJ, St Pauls, Bucks, 1970
The Web
Transubstantiation, Is it a True Doctrine?
http://www.geocities.com/christian_apologist2001/
