Bread only ?

Is it true that the council of Trent states that Lay people are to take the Eucharist only, and not the wine ?


I’m always curious as to why the question is asked, although I think I know; to try to find some error in the current teaching.
Then the question is Why? Do not think that our current Church fathers can’t interpret and translate previous teaching? Some how the Holy Spirit stopped working and guiding the church in the last 50 years?
To answer your question, I don’t know. I’m certain someone will dig up the ancient documents, but remember, we are called as Catholics to be obedient to Pope and our bishops. It is very clear in the documents of the church that Holy communion in both species is permissible and encouraged.
I suggest that we should be just that, obedient to the teaching of the church and trying to find some error in the teaching is not being obedient.
Dcn Frank

Ummmm… okay ? I am Catholic, and not trying to find fault in the teachings of the current day. I just heard someone say this in a debate, and wanted clarification. I think you need to relax a bit :wink:

I took a quick gander at the documents and found nothing in them forbidding communing under both species. The confusion may come in one section where the Council anathemitizes anyone who claims that whoever receives under the species of bread alone does not receive the full Christ.

Within the context of the Church Universal, however, it must be remembered that it has been the practices of the Eastern/ Oriental Church (both the Catholic ones and the Orthodox ones) to commune under both species. Most frequently this is done by intinction. It must be remembered too that even in the West the norm was to receive under both species until some time in the Middle Ages. Communion under one species, therefore, could be considered a relatively recent development.

There are mountains of studies that have been done on this, I’m sure. A very interesting topic and one certainly worth devoting time and effort to. :smiley:

I took a look myself and found the exact quote used in the debate.

“Canon 2. If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church was not moved by just causes and reasons that laymen and clerics when not consecrating should communicate under the form of bread only,[15] or has erred in this, let him be anathema.”

The claim is that, since the Church no longer follows this… everyone is “Anathema”… or at least the Church is very inconsistant.

The canon doesn’t seem to be prohibiting reception under both species so much as defending the Church of Rome’s decision to commune primarily/ordinarily under one species. I read in another article that Pius IV, shortly after the Council, started issuing indults to various regions throughout Europe to permit reception under both species.

It seems, too, again that the focus of Communion under one species is unique to the Roman tradition. While they were only communing under the species of bread, the Eastern Catholic Churches continued to receive both the Bread and the Wine as the normal form of receiving Communion. The issue seems to be a uniquely Roman phenomenon, not one the extends to the entirety of the Catholic Church as a whole.

Again, a very interesting topic. :smiley:

It seems you’re right.
If the man taking this position would have read things in context, ( which is rarely done in council material, or catechisms etc by protestants ) They would have read in a paragraph or two above that the Church could change such teaching in the future, by Her authority.

“…holy mother Church, cognizant of her authority in the administration of the sacraments, has, induced by just and weighty reasons, approved this custom of communicating under either species and has decreed that it be considered the law, which may not be repudiated or changed at pleasure without the authority of the Church.”

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit