Hardly any authoritative word of Jesus has received less attention and obedience in the tradition and practice of the Catholic Church than his instruction that “all” should drink from the Eucharistic cup, which gives “participation in the blood of Christ” (1 Cor 10:16).
Admittedly, even his “twin word” was and is not always performed according to the foundation, which provides for the believers to take and eat broken bread. But until today the body of Christ “materialiter” is given to all (admitted) Christians at least a few times in their life. In the Middle Ages, the Eucharistic practice, reduced to the symbolic minimum, was to receive communion in physical form as a host hardly more often than once a year. Otherwise, the adoring communio per oculos had to be sufficient for lay people. It was not until the reintroduction of the “lay chalice,” which had been demanded long before but was first consistently implemented by the Reformers, that the original consummation as a banquet was approached again. However, for anti-reformation reasons, it did not find its way into the Roman Church.
All this could be a thing of the past had it not been for the Corona pandemic. For already in the course of the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council, “communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity” in certain cases (SC 55). In liturgy-minded parishes this practice has gradually become established also on “ordinary” Sundays. According to the current order, the diocesan bishop may “permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as his own shepherd, a community has been entrusted,” and where “there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament” due to cumbersome circumstances or large numbers of people (General Instruction in the Roman Missal 283).
Although “Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds“ (ibid. 281) it is by no means a given: It is still unfamiliar to many, is considered dogmatically “unnecessary” (Council of Trent: Decretum de communione eucharistica, 1562), and it is burdened with hygienic concerns as well as with fears that communion would then “take too long.” These objections are to be countered by good arguments and experience from good practice.
Parishes Go on the Search
The Covid 19 pandemic admittedly ended the practice, where it existed, for three long years. For some time now, afflicted parishes have been looking for ways to regain it: They tried to use small individual chalices, as they are known mainly from Protestant churches, or to dip the host into the chalice. Both have disadvantages and cannot replace drinking from the one chalice: The immersion of the host may not be performed rite et recte by oneself, but must be done by the priest, thus combining prescriptively with oral communion (GIRM 287). “Suspended” by Corona anyway, this form finds very little acceptance in the German-speaking world after the widespread return to hand communion, since it is said: “Take, eat.” (Mt 26,27) Single chalices, on the other hand, require an elaborate cleaning process – who should drink leftovers in them? Moreover, their symbolism contributes just as little to the experience of “communion” as, unfortunately, does the most common form of individual “feeding” the faithful, one behind the other in rows of two.
It is precisely this communion, however, that is requested epicletically for the faithful in the Eucharistic Prayer as a consequence of the sending of the Spirit upon bread and wine to be consumed: “Give us a share in Christ’s body and blood and let us become one in the Holy Spirit” (Eucharistic Prayer II). Whether with these words or similar ones in the other Approved Eucharistic Prayers, they all supplicate the filling of the spirit of those who receive them. Lest we speak pious but empty words, both Jesus’ instruction (“Take, eat / drink it, all of you”) and Paul’s admonition (“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”, 1 Cor 10:16) should be taken to heart.
Current Examples of Good Practice
Making the congregation aware and inviting them to attend has proven its worth, as examples from recent practice show. Learning and teaching in adult theological education at the Vienna Theological Courses includes the celebration of the Eucharist several times a year (as well as the liturgy of the day). This can open up a space for worship experiences that are not always available to believers in their parishes.
At this year’s graduation ceremony with graduates of the two-year theological course in spring 2023, and a few weeks later at the Eucharistic celebration with the course groups at the end of the academic year, it was announced to the congregation before the beginning of the celebration that broken wheat bread – no small hosts, because a matter that “would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament.“ (Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum 48) – and a chalice of wine would be served, to be drunk from (but not dipped in) if desired.
For such a practice understanding can be aroused: On the one hand, the reference to the careful cleaning of the (rotated further) chalice rim using the entire chalice cloth (rather than dabbing even the same spot with the same piece of cloth) can, according to experience, largely dispel the hygienic concerns of many communicants. On the other hand, it can be made plausible that the chalice must be well filled for the dipping of the host – a quantity that would finally have to be drunk by one person after many (also not germ-free) hands have reached into the chalice and in the process have touched the edge of the chalice in some cases. Who still has reservations despite these hints, renounces the chalice.
In these services, the Communion of the Chalice – even after Corona – was accepted without any problems. Those celebrating were very grateful for the preceeding words of invitation. As before the pandemic, there was no leftover to be consumed at these celebrations: At the first service, the acceptance was unfortunately underestimated, and too little wine was consecrated; the second time, the quantity was already “calculated” correctly, expecting that almost all believers would receive the blood of Christ. With respect to priests who may be considered vulnerable and with their consent, the acolyte can purify the chalice himself.
Rising Acceptance After the Pandemic
There is also good news to report from parish practice: In many Viennese parishes, chalice communion has been well established for decades, and in some places it is even a matter of course in all Eucharistic celebrations on weekdays, Sundays and holidays. The pandemic-related ban in the spring of 2020 hit these parishes correspondingly hard, and many discussions in the following months and years revolved around the fear of permanently losing “the chalice” through the necessary prescribed “abstinence.” Various alternatives were discussed again and again, tried out and (for the reasons mentioned above) mostly rejected.
After the abolition of all restrictive ordinances in the early summer of this year in Austria, some congregations have returned to the chalice communion – with due respect for the always also possible abstinence. As can be heard on request, the acceptance is increasing, and so, fortunately, the reception of the Blood of Christ – according to His legacy “Drink from it, all of you!” – is gradually becoming part of the common culture of celebration again.
May this be understood as an encouragement for all hesitant assemblies or those who are still unfamiliar with the lay chalice!
More Willingness to Sacramental Sensuality
Why is this so important, when the consecrated host contains all that is necessary for salvation, and the communion sub una specie is less complicated and supposedly much quicker? The latter is not true, by the way, if two chalices are also served with each bread bowl. There should be enough acolytes. But apart from that, the symbolism of the eucharistic species in their sensual-aesthetic quality would have to be (re)developed – especially since just these liturgical symbolic acts, diminished and stylized beyond recognition, have lost themselves in the literal “meaninglessness.” It is not enough to lament this loss (as, for example, in Pope Francis’ Apostolic Letter Desiderio desideravi). Because of the seriousness of its consequence – the transformation of the faithful – it requires the willingness to sacramental “signs perceptible to the senses” (SC 7): a morsel of bread and a sip of wine grant “that they may have life and have it abundantly” (Jn 10:10). The daily bread and some “wine to gladden the heart of man” (Ps 104:15) allow us to us taste both the necessary and the abundant which so aptly describe the kingdom of heaven. Who should want to do without one of them or might withhold them from others? Indeed, whoever receives the body and blood of Christ affirms being shaped like Christ (“Amen”) to become themselves nourishing, pleasing, and satiating to others, and to quicken, refresh, and inspire one another.
“O taste and see that the Lord is good!” (Ps 34:8) – How often we hear this invitation to the Eucharistic banquet, which also refers to the chalice, and how self-evidently we give thanks in prayer after communion for the partaking of both gifts. At a time when liturgical-ritual action is being critically questioned, we should make these words credible through our own practice.