In two previous articles, I made the argument that unleavened, not leavened, bread was the original matter used in the Holy Eucharist by Christ and his apostles (even years after our Lord’s ascension). I noted how that point is particularly relevant to Catholic-Eastern Orthodox dialogue since the Latin use of unleavened bread during Holy Mass was one of the central justifications the medieval Orthodox Churches gave for their schism from the Catholic Church.
The eucharistic differences do not end with the bread, either. There is another Latin practice that Seraphim Hamilton, a modern Orthodox theologian whom I deeply respect, calls a “dealbreaker”: the withholding of the chalice from the laity.
Since the medieval era, the Latin Catholic Church began moving away from the ancient practice of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, to only distributing our Eucharistic Lord under the species of bread. As early as the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas noted that “it is the custom of many churches for the body of Christ to be given to the communicant without His blood” (Summa Theologiae, III, Q. 80, A. 12). However, it wasn’t until 1415 that the Council of Constance imposed this as a discipline for the entire Latin rite (see Session 13).
Before Eastern Orthodox apologists get too excited about medieval Rome “breaking with tradition,” it must be pointed out that, despite the denial of the chalice being a popular Western practice between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, it doesn’t feature prominently on the Byzantine lists of “Latin errors” from this time period. Fr. Emmanuel Doronzo notes that Angelus Panaretus (1301-1399) was the first Byzantine Orthodox to criticize the practice in one of his lists of Latin errors (see Doronzo, De Eucharistia, Article 27). A passing condemnation is likewise made by Symeon of Thessalonica (1381–1429) in his work Against All Heresies (see p. 169 [Kindle ed.]). But that’s really it from Byzantium as far as I can tell.
The fact of the matter is that the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist was the liturgical difference that the medieval Byzantines hung their hat on in their disputes with the Latins, not the denial of the chalice. This is indeed why, despite men like Panaretus and Symeon criticizing the practice in the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, respectively, neither the thirteenth-century Council of Lyons II nor the fifteenth-century Council of Florence thought Communion under one kind was important enough to discuss. If you read the former’s Declaration (see Denzinger 460-5) or the latter’s famous bull of union Laetentur Caeli, you will notice that the only eucharistic discipline that was seen as a true “schism issue” was the Latin use of unleavened bread.
As far as I can tell, this polemic against the West’s denial of the chalice wasn’t made into a central “schism issue” until the time of the Protestant Reformation. As Doronzo notes, it’s only “from the sixteenth century onwards” that Communion under one kind is “consistently” condemned by the Byzantines. The Latin custom was “particularly opposed by Meletius Pigas (sixteenth century), Peter Mogila in his Orthodox Confession (seventeenth century), and especially Eustratius Argentis (eighteenth century), whose views are followed by modern scholars” (Doronzo, De Eucharistia, art. 27). Unsurprisingly, Doronzo attests that their arguments were “often borrowed from the Calixtines and Utraquists”—i.e., the proto-Reformers who inspired the sixteenth-century Protestants.
One obvious case of Protestant influence on Eastern Orthodoxy in this respect is Patriarch Cyril Loukaris of Alexandria. In 1616, he wrote the following: “Whoever does not confess that at the Mystery of Communion the laity, too, must partake of the precious and immaculate body and blood . . . let such persons be anathema.”
Famously, Loukaris was heavily influenced by Calvinism. In his Confession of 1629, he espoused various Calvinist doctrines that would eventually be condemned via the Eastern Orthodox Confession of Dositheus in 1672. It’s in the seventeenth chapter of Loukaris’s Confession that we clearly see the Protestant origins of his condemnation of the Latin practice of withholding the chalice. There he writes that Christ’s “commandment” for all to partake of the chalice “ought neither to be disremembered nor maimed, according to the fancy of man’s arbitrament.”
It appears, then, that putting a heavy emphasis on criticizing the Latin rite’s custom of Communion under one kind isn’t traditional to Eastern Orthodoxy at all. Certainly, to separate that critique from the critique of unleavened bread is nothing short of a modern innovation. Instead, the centrality of this critique comes from Protestant influence on the Orthodox Churches. There’s a reason why, in the recent polemical book put out by Uncut Mountain Press, The Errors of the Latins, the earliest Orthodox critique of withholding the chalice they could find comes from the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (p. 89), which was written in 1848.
The question therefore ought to be asked: why did the Eastern Orthodox Churches go centuries without making Communion under one kind into a central point of division with the Latins?
Here’s what I think. The Reformers criticized the Latin Church’s practice of Communion under one kind because it deviated from the way they interpreted Christ as commanding the Eucharist to be celebrated. I propose that the reason why the Protestants were the first to emphatically insist on this polemic, rather than the Eastern Orthodox, is because, by these standards, the way the Orthodox distribute Holy Communion could be condemned as well.
To understand why, recall that, at the Last Supper, our Lord separated these two commands: “take, eat” and, “drink this” (cf. Matt 26:26-28). He didn’t say, “Mingle these two together and then partake of them simultaneously with a spoon.” Indeed, it’s quite ironic that Eastern Orthodox polemicists criticize the Latin West for not having “a valid reason to alter the general practice of the Church” (Errors of the Latins, p. 98)—which was to give both the bread and the chalice to the laity—when they did the exact same thing by introducing the Communion spoon!
Consider how Symeon of Thessalonika, the aforementioned Byzantine theologian who himself condemned Communion under one kind, describes the development of the Byzantine rite’s practice of distributing Holy Communion. He admits that the “most ancient tradition, as we received from [the] holy fathers” was for both the clergy and the laity alike to “separately . . . receive first of the bread [in their hands], then again separately of the chalice united with the bread.” However, he goes on to say that “because of some incidents” later “fathers thought that communion should be given to the laity by a spoon” (Symeon of Liturgical Commentaries, p. 225).
It seems that the Latins weren’t the only ones who ran into difficulties distributing Holy Communion in the Middle Ages! The East likewise faced this difficulty, and simply came up with a different solution. Rather than Communion under one kind, the East withheld the chalice from the laity by replacing the chalice with a spoon. Both of these customs are deviations from the original apostolic practice, which was to allow everyone to literally take the bread (note: with their hands) and literally take the chalice.
To this day, both Orthodox and Catholic priests believe themselves to be bound literally to take and eat the bread, and literally (and separately) to take and drink the chalice. However, both Orthodox and Catholics acknowledge that the laity are not bound literally to perform these actions.
In this way, both Catholics and Orthodox recognize that the commandment to “take this, all of you,” whether with respect to the host or the chalice, only strictly applies to the apostles and their successors. This makes good sense since that commandment was only given to the apostles. As the Catholic Encyclopedia points out, this commandment was joined to the command “do this in remembrance of me,” which both the East and the West interpret as a command for priests to consecrate the bread and the wine in the liturgy. The laity do not “do this”—i.e. offer the eucharistic sacrifice—in the manner that the apostles and their successors were commanded to. Thus, they likewise do not have to “take” the bread and the chalice in the same manner that the apostles and their successors do.
Indeed, since both Catholics and Orthodox accept the doctrine of concomitance—which states that the whole Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity, is fully present under both eucharistic species—we both believe that the laity can fulfill the Lord’s command to partake of both his flesh and his blood (John 6:53) by receiving the Eucharist under only one kind. As recently as 2024, the Russian Orthodox Church allowed their faithful who suffer from celiac disease to partake of only the precious blood of Christ on this basis: “A layman suffering from a gluten-associated disease may commune of just the blood of Christ, as the Savior is fully present in It.”
This mutual understanding between the East and the West is likely why Communion under one kind wasn’t an issue during the key moments of the Great Schism, particularly during the councils of Lyons II and Florence. It was only when the East was exposed to anti-Catholic arguments from Protestantism that they decided to adopt this as one of their central reasons for being separate from Rome. Certainly, the Eastern Orthodox have zero justification for abandoning their traditional critique of unleavened bread and replacing it with this relatively novel critique of withholding the chalice.
In conclusion, if the Eastern Orthodox can justify changing the apostolic practice of using unleavened bread in the Eucharist, and of literally giving the host and the chalice to the laity, then they have no grounds for criticizing the Catholic Church for coming up with her own eucharistic disciplinary changes. We both believe in the Holy Spirit’s infallible protection of the Church’s universal disciplinary laws, so let’s not argue like Protestants.
Note from the editor: This article originally went to print too soon, and the current edition corrects the first one. I, the editor who is writing this note from the editor, take full responsibility for the mishap and extend my apologies to the author and to Catholic Answers’ readers.