A Defense of Communion in One Kind (Response to Dr. Jordan Cooper, @DrJordanBCooper )

Hello everybody uh welcome back to sin 33 today we're going to dive into a topic that is very controversial it was during the reformation and it still is today this is Holy Communion in only one kind so what does this mean it doesn't mean for those who don't know that in cism we only use bread for communion that's not true but it does mean that ordinarily uh most churches that you will go to nowadays uh the leoty that is People who are not priests will receive in the pews only the body of the Lord the

the Eucharistic bread uh when they go up in line to receive Holy Communion whereas the priests receive both now this practice is obviously um Can at a first glance can seem a little bit controversial because Jesus as we all know in the Holy supper gave his disciples both Bread and Wine so why not just follow that example uh furthermore people were going to claim that the Early church was unanimous on this practice which is absolutely not true and I will show that with God's help in this article that when you look at this issue and

you're looking for patristic support there is no patristic support for the Roman position I mean here is an instance where it's very obvious and it doesn't even take much looking it's very obvious 100 years PR to Reformation I me this is a new teaching this is a new development this has no historic Precedent at all and when it's first proposed many evil theologians argue again and here's the thing it's unanimous in the fathers and I've made this comment I mean there's not even an argument there really is no argument uh there are number of theoretical

um now I've spent over 50 hours researching this subject to bring you the most accurate information possible so if you find this video helpful please like share subscribe uh to support the Channel and for more content like this so this video includes I've tried to include not just a really strong Catholic argument but also what I could find the strongest Protestant arguments and and show why they're not viable uh and if you want to dive deeper go ahead and uh check out the description below where I will post the actual article itself and you can

read it uh there's citations all throughout so you can go and access these sources yourself so you Can see on my screen here this is the structure of the paper or the article um and we're going to dive right into the introduction with a little bit of History so I will read but I will also pair paraphrase for the sake of time so let's begin the Protestant Reformation brought forth many accusations against Catholic Church one of which was that the distribution of Holy Communion under only one species to the leoty was against the Commandment of

the Lord this Was no new accusation as it had appeared a century earlier from the utraquists oism was a belief first proposed by Jacob of m a priest from pra he began to teach that reception of the Eucharist in both kinds was some sort of divine precept for salvation in other words you had to do it or else you you wouldn't be saved the belief deres its name from the Latin subak spe I hope I pronounced that right which means under both species Jacob's teachings were also supported by Another contemporary heretic Jan hus The ecumenical

council of constant rejected this view during 13th session in June 1415 and banned the practice to combat heresy although the Council of Conant did not introduce communion one kind for the first time uh the practice was not Universal before this right so in other words it was being practiced around the church just not universally uh and we see this right the official reply uh of the church to the Lutheran auxor conf Confessions on the issue States the following quote and although it was forly a matter of freedom to use either one or both forms in

the Eucharist nevertheless when the heresy arose which taught that both forms were necessary the holy church which is directed by the Holy Ghost forbade both forms to Layman for thus the churches sometimes want to extinguish heresies by contrary institutions and now two examples given are for example when a heresy arose that Said that for the Eucharist for Holy Communion you could only Ed uh unleavened bread the church for a while uh banned unleavened bread and only used leaven bread in order to enforce that no unleavened bread is not the only bread we can use when

the stor is said that um the Virgin Mary the Blessed Virgin Mary is only the mother of Christ the man but not the mother of God uh the church baned the name uh M mother of Christ not because it's wrong it's obviously not Wrong but it had a bad H background and so in order to reinforce the uh the the one person of Christ it banned that title for a while um although it seems like a Stern decision this movement makes sense institutionally and can be logically defended as examples above shows the church has made

similar decisions in the past to combat heresy of course whether the claim of communion in one kind being sacr is heresy or not remains to be shown as with all issues During the Reformation the long series of writings produced in defense or against the practice consisted of gathering evidence from sacred scripture and the earlier Church tradition in this article I will show with the help of God the following one there is no Divine precept for Ley to receive in both kinds two the early church practiced communion in one kind and in both kinds and three

scripture and the church fathers teach that Christ is equally present under Both kinds thus making communion one kind equally efficacious now throughout the article I will rely on the help of Reverend Emanuel doronzo he was a 20th century Scholastic who has written what are honestly you know wonders um amazing Scholastic manuals on the sacraments I will be specifically relying on his work a track a dogmatic tractate on the Eucharist which is in Latin but if you want to translate it that's that's fine but I think it's awesome it does wonders And I think it makes

the Catholic position extremely clear uh and and viable um so defining the issue the issue at hand is not whether lay reception of communion in one kind is valid both sides ultimately agree with this and I will show down below how Protestants since very early on they cons they believe it or not they did much worse than than uh what they claim about removing the wine from the people um but not only that they they concede And say yeah communion one kind is valid they just don't like it uh the real question is can the

church prohibit communion in both kinds this is only possible if one there is no Divine precept and divine revelation for the Ley to receive in both kinds and two if receiving in one kind is equally efficacious uh because if these two points can be proven that there's no Divine precept for the ly to receive in both kinds and that receiving in one Kind is just fine then the church has authority over all other matters as long as they don't contct the word of God uh now let's talk about the Catholic position the Catholic Church teaches

that Christ is fully present under both species reception of either kind brings about the full spiritual benefits this is the Catholic dogma of concomitant uh quote the whole Christ is contained under each form and under every part of each form when separated end quote in Other words the bread becomes the body of Christ but you could say it brings along the blood too and vice versa because the whole Christ remains undivided as the 10th Century Gregorian sacramentary says quote each receives Christ the lord who is entire under every morsel nor is he Less in each

portion but bestows himself entire under each this quote is tributed to St Augustine but it's not actually found in the works that we have from him but it Doesn't matter I think it's a it's a good um evidence that of the Catholic dogma of concomitant it's also important to note that the church does not claim that communion one kind is equal in symbolism to communion in both kinds so what I mean by that so it's equal and efficacy but not in both kinds the quick example in this is um the Catholic Church says a quote

the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds end quote so what I Mean by that is if I were to I You by pouring water over your head or sprinkling that would not be as complete a sign as full immersion full body immersion but they're equally efficacious it's it's a valid baptism either way uh in the Sacrament of Confirmation the priest or Bishop could just uh dip his hands in the oil and sign your forehead or he could literally pour oil all over your head and then sign your forehead uh one

is a more Complete sign it's more fitting but it doesn't mean that it's less efficacious and that's our stance on communion in one kind uh now let's talk about the reasons that the church mandated communion one kind so we must draw a distinction between extraordinary reasons and the later mandate that came first uh the reasons that the church around the world was administered administered communion of one kind are laid out by one the the Roman confutation which is the official Church response to the oxburg confessions and Reverend doronzo does a great job so first it

was imperative to avoid the spilling of the Lord's Blood on the ground which seemed difficult to prevent if the blood had to be distributed among a large crowd and of course if there were people with weak hands that was even more inevitable second moreover since the Holy Eucharist must be available to the Sick it was greatly feared that if this species of wine were kept for too long it would become sour or spoiled additionally this is three in many provinces there is a severe shortage of wine which can only be obtained with great expense and

after long and difficult Journeys lastly and most importantly the heresy needed to be addressed which denied that Christ is Holy present under each species asserting instead that the body alone is Present under the species of bread and the blood alone under this species of wine some secondary reasons are uh the inconvenience of receiving from a common uh ministerial chalice when some people are dirty smelly or or sick and the risk of disease transmission so in other words beforehand before this heresy arose it it was either or churches could either only give in one kind or

or give in both kinds but after the heresy is saying that you must receive in both Kinds to combat that heresy the church says no we're going to use our Authority and only receiveing one kind to show just how wrong the heresy is uh thus the universal prohibition was in response to the heresy of oism as was mentioned the church had taken similar actions in the past regarding other matters uh like I said the logic behind this is that the church being indect will not be allowed to bind itself to air which relieves the consciousness

of the people so if you're Thinking uh I have to receive the Eucharist in both kinds because this jacob of me's guy is saying it otherwise I'm not saved but the church says No in fact we're only going to give you in one kind you say well the church is not going to teach any error it's not going to fall into Christ is not going to let her fall into heresy so that Jacob of Mis guys must be wrong even if you're not a full-on theologian and don't totally understand the church's reasons So let's talk

about the Protestant position it's going to be very interesting so the following explanation by Reverend doronzo perfectly describes the Protestant history regarding communion one kind quote in the 16th century the Protestants renewed the hussite claims particularly the Calvinists defending the right to communion under both species with a new set of arguments soon the marriage of priests and the Chalice for Lay people Became two of the major demands of the reformation and in a way the standard for protestantism this Reclamation was initiated by Kion Luther himself although reluctantly and in line with his own doctrinal inconsistency

gradually accepted this claim initially Luther considered the practice of both species to be indifferent criticizing uh Carlos stadius for insisting too much on a matter of minor importance so Luther at first did not care later he reserved The right to Grant the use of the Chalice to the council and then extended this right to Bishops and Priests soon after he asserted that it was the duty of priests to offer both species if someone requested it and then he just openly taught the necessity of both species as if it were a Divine command which we will

show it's not a Divine precept for both species to be received by the Ley this opinion is recorded in the oxar confession and the apology of The OS confession written by Meenan uh and in the small cat articles Luther wrote in his work on the Captivity of Babylon that quote all are impious who deny communion under both species to lay people and again to deny both species to lay people is impious and tyrannical not in the power of any Angel let alone the pope or any Council end quote now Calvin in his characteristic way vly

attacked the Catholic practice writing in his institutes that quote the institution of Communion under one species is a device of the devil uh and I mean that's that's ironic because wait until you see what John Calvin does I was very surprised to find this stick around uh who was either just trust the plan trust me who has either stolen or taken away the better part of the Lord's Supper namely the symbol of the blood uh end quote the arguments of the reformers can be reduced to five which are also distinctly condemned by the Council of

Trent three of the arguments which they particularly favor are one the command of Christ throughout uh scripture which we'll see why that doesn't apply the um for for it being a precept for both kinds two the essence of the sacrament and three the effect of the sacrament which some of them might say it's it's greater in both species but not really uh most of them will concede that it's not as article 22 of the oxberg confession says uh quote to the leoty Are given both kinds in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper because this usage

has commandment of the Lord in Matthew 26:27 drink ye all of it where Christ has manifestly commanded concerning the cup that all should drink end quote that's the Luther that's kind of like the Lutheran argument uh Peter Mar rigle coming from the reformed side boldly claimed that the ancient church had always observed this which is plainly not true as I will show in this article I for me he's a smart guy but I really he Mak some weird claims sometimes that are easy to disprove he says quote this institution of the Lord concerning the administration

of the sacrament The Universal Church in the most ancient and best times has always consented end quote uh not true a century later the Westminister assembly Drew up the reformed westmin conf of Faith saying that quote the denial of the cup of the people are all contrary to the nature of The sacrament and the institution of Christ end quote so my point here is it's very clear protestantism is not buying it so if we can prove in this article that communion one kind is just fine it's uh it's allowable by scripture maybe even supported by

scripture um the early church practiced it then the Protestants have a big problem here because they're they're departing uh clearly from the truth we also see some criticisms in Eastern Church Reverend Doronzo says quot among the Eastern schismatics the first attack on the Latin practice occurred in the 14th century By Angelo paneto who classified it among the Latin Abominations The Next Century the easterners supported by the Bohemian calines or calines um which are also people demanding The Chalice for the lay people indeed they intended to enter into Union with them to undermine the Florentine peace

that is by the coun of Florence which they were unable to Achieve given that Constantinople had been captured by the Turks from the 16th century to the present day this is to the 20th century where Reverend doronzo is w writing communion under one species has consistently been a point of contention in the list of accusations against the Latins uh and I won't read all this but you can definitely pause and read it yourself or go to the go to the go to the description and see the article there but it's funny because Basically the Eastern

Church all throughout whether it's the Armenians or or the orientals are going to attack this practice but it's extremely ironic because they do the same thing um so now let's get into some interesting stuff here Protestant concessions that's what they concede and inconsistencies which I think just destroys their argument totally so let's talk about how Protestants actually change the supper themselves sometimes worse than than you Could ever claim that the Catholics did by removing the wine from the people um this is just me this isn't father dzo this is this is just my research it

is abundantly clear that Protestants do not see communion in both kinds as absolutely morally necessary Protestants not only made exceptions for communion in both kinds immediately during the Reformation but were also willing to change the essence of the suppers elements Martin Luther out of pastoral Concern allowed his Ley to receive in only one kind for a while due to their mental weakness since they were not used to receiving it in both kinds under Rome so for the sake of their Consciousness Martin Luther allowed them to not receive in both kinds uh he didn't take away

the cup but he did say if you don't have to which is weird because if your argument is you have to you know Christ have to do this then you wouldn't be saying you don't have to do this uh John Deler a reformed Mission this is extremely interesting check this out uh a reformed missionary to Brazil wrote and asked uh John Calvin how to celebrate the supper in America where wine was not commonly used uh you can go read this yourself guys uh citations are right down here um Calvin instructed that bread and wine were

not essential to the supper but that any food or drink common to the region may be used the missionary group in Brazil agreed and Celebrated the supper with other elements completely perverting the matter of the Sacrament in other words John Kelvin said you don't need bread and wine to actually your Lord's Supper the olical conclusion of that is you could really go and take soda and and crackers or soda and I don't know anything that you could chew on and celebrate the Lord's Supper because it's Bread and Wine are not essential to it because his

argument was that Jesus only Used bread and wine because it was the local food of the Jews but that if it's not available you use something else which I don't think is an answer and it just blows your argument you know um it's it's it's validity because your whole point is we should follow the Commandment of the Lord but you're not doing that you're you're not even using bread and wine anymore you're using whatever um later on the reformed churches in the in France eventually Allowed for the Ley to receive in one kind of needed

if lay communion in both kinds was seen by the Protestants as a strict precept from the Lord then no such exception should have been made especially what Calvin proposed many Protestant groups although later perverted the supper by replacing the fermented wine with unfermented wine or grape juice for example in the late 19th century all three Presbyterian churches in Scotland came to accept the use of Grap juice for communion and finally many contemporary Protestants temporarily ceased to give communion in both kinds during the covid-19 pandemic um now we're going to talk about uh Protestant affirmations or

concessions of concomitant in other words when they admit Protestants admit with us they agree with us that receiving communion in one kind is equally efficacious you might say Francis Turin he's reformed said regarding communion one kind quote Although both signs are not received they do not cease to be made partakers of the whole thing signified which is indivisible uh and quote Turan agrees that the Protestant exception actually or he excuse me he argues that the Protestant position is strengthened by this he says quote it is one thing to Bear the weakness of those who cannot

use wine another to take it away from those who are without such weakness end quote now I grant this distinction but It does not disprove to the Catholic position since the claim is that it is not a requirement for the L to receive in both kinds I will discuss this in more death later in the article Bishop John davet um he was also reformed reformed Anglican concedes that communion one kind is allowable if there's a scarcity of wine he says quote although then we quite agree with Innocent that in a case of of that's that's

po innocent that in a case of Necessity and much more of impossibility there is an excuse from the positive obligation so he's basic he's basically claiming there's a Divine precept of receiving in both kinds which I will show that's not true because it is better to have an imperfect supper than none yet uh is there no justifiable plea on which law for M mutilating the Lord's Supper can be defended blah blah blah all right John leay uh an English Presbyterian and Westminster Divine uh He wrote quote that though there be most dispute between us and

the papists upon the withholding of the cup of the Holy Communion in the thing itself there is no more necessity held by either side of the use of the one element than of the other nor is Christ less present to the faithful in the one than in the other so end quote so my point in all this is that Protestants one changed the supper a lot by not requiring both kinds to be received and two just saying use other Elements like John Calvin did or they also admit that yeah receiving in one kind is equally

efficacious in other words if you're reformed and you believe in the spiritual presence you're admitting that uh it's equally valid to you know you're spiritually feing on Christ even if you only receive the bread um all this goes to show that Protestant groups never took Christ statement to drink for all to drink in Matthew 2627 as an absolute mandate I See it um I in my opinion after studying this it's likely that for many Protestants this complaint against lay communion in one kind was just another Stone they could throw at the church I'm not claiming

to read anybody's conscience in particular but uh the way that they accuse the church and then the way they behave in their practice is totally different and I think it's quite hypocritical in my opinion now let's get to the Protestant argument uh the common Argument from scripture is um one a frequent argument used is that Paul tells the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 11 that he received from the Lord exactly how Christ instituted the supper and then proceeds to include the wine as part of the narrative verle falsely up Peter Marty verle reformed falsely claims that

Paul was commanding both kinds to be used uh but the passage is no such thing my response is St Paul PA is only recounted the narrative uh right He says I received from the Lord what I delivered to you that the Lord on that he was betrayed took Bread and Wine right but he's not commanding hey you have to use both or anything he's just that's not in his mind right there right uh another response is to when speaking of the cup he's only giving testimony that the Christians in Corinth receed in both kinds which

I affirm they did receive in both kinds doesn't say does says nothing if receiving in both kinds Is a Divine precept or not and three this passage actually supports the Catholic doctrine of concomitant as we will see later the main passage brought forth uh I think is Matthew 26:27 in which Jesus says drink of it all of you end quote this fails to prove a Divine precept for both kinds for a couple of reasons and I think this is clear I really I don't think you can deny this once you work through this logical reasoning

that this does not give a Divine precept because the logical conclusion of this argument is that then receiving the bread would not be a Divine precept because our Lord only said regarding the bread Take and Eat he does not say all can we thus withhold the bread those opposed to our position would have uh just as much of an issue so in other words if you're saying that drink of it all of you means it's a Divine precept to receive in the wine Jesus does not say that regarding to Bread can we thus withhold the

bread um I don't think the Protestants would con see that and secondly Reverend doronzo explains quote of why Jesus could have added the word all it's an invitation to drink from the cup is to ensure that uh one or the first few people drinking would not finish the single cup that he offered as suggested by the words in the parallel passage Luke 22 take this and divide it among yourselves uh maldonis writes I do not remember anyone Especially in our time paying attention to his word which has caused incredible difficulties for many regarding the bread

which Christ broke into pieces and gave to them says he broke it and give it to his disciples it was not necessary to say eat from it all of you in other words the reason that Jesus says uh take this all of you and drink of it is because you didn't want people to drink it all in one in one gulp uh wanted all them to drink it whereas in the bread Doesn't have to say that because uh he broke it and gave it to them you believe finally regarding John 6:53 in which our Lord

says quote unless you eat the Flesh of the son of of man and drink his blood end quote uh they will point to the fact that the word and is used and not or in other words they're they're saying that you have to eat the Flesh and drink his blood so here's the response one Christ requires a substance to be received his body and blood not one particular Element Bread and Wine he doesn't say unless you eat the bread and the wine he says the Flesh and the and the blood but both his body and

blood are received by either one and the Protestants concede this they admit this right so it's not just concomitants in the Catholic but they admit this too now Reverend doronzo says quote for although Christ speaks about the Eucharist and alludes to the sacramental species he does not explicitly say that the sacrament or the Separate species of bread and wine must be eaten and drunk nor does he formally require that his flesh and blood be received as they are under separate species but he only says that his flesh and blood have to be received which are

present in either one um that makes it pretty clear secondly he also says uh this is Reverend doronzo quote moreover even if we understand those words as referring to the conception of the actual elements Bread and Wine the word And does not NE necessarily need to be taken in a combined sense it can also be understood in a disjunctive sense for example um in gives example here in Acts 3:6 uh it said it said silver and gold I do not have but what I do have I give to you which clearly means I do not

have silver or or gold so in other words the word and there in eat the Flesh of the son of man and drink his blood does not have to be uh uh conjunction it could be dis disjunctive and another one is in Exodus for example uh whoever strikes his father and mother shall be put to death obviously um if you strike either one you are just as guilty we wouldn't say that this and here uh is absolutely uh conjunctive and another one is is uh father doronzo says first the objection itself is nullified if one

says that John 6 is not about the Eucharist but only about receiving Christ through faith some Catholic theologians have accepted this Interpretation uh to this completed dismantle the Heretics argument in other words basically I won't read all this but basically Lutheran originally um disagreed that John 6 was about the Eucharist and so they can't even use this argument against us because they don't even think it's about the Eucharist so now let's talk about some common uh arguments from church history which proest bring forward they will basically uh regarding the early church Is that the fathers

frequently speak of the Ley receiving in under both species listing examples would be of no use uh so one such instance uh tertullian for example tulan says quote the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ that the soul may be satiated by God end quote in other words Protestants are going to point to this and say hey look people were receiving the Eucharist in both kinds that means they're on our side and no cuz you know who else receives Communion in both kinds the Catholics what you need to find is a church father

that explicitly says Hey communion in both kinds is a precept by the Lord and there's a few that they're going to try to point out and we'll see why it doesn't work but simply saying and they'll try this right John Calvin tries this verley tries this chemet tries this uh who's a Lutheran and they'll just quote fathers and say oh look they received in both kinds yeah we're not Denying that the question is what about when they received in one kind which we will show I mean the evidence is of abundantly clear that the early

church also received in one kind um these quotes brought forth by Protestants do not work to prove their point these citations only speak of common and majority practice for example like if most fathers were to speak of baptism by immersion this says nothing about whether baptism by pouring is valid uh None of these fathers are making the claim that the Protestants are making Catholic Church never claimed that the Le mostly received under one species in earlier times thus to support the Protestant position a father would have to explicitly claim that receiving under one kind is

not enough or that reception in both kind is a Divine precept which none of them do so let's let's now get into individual uh individual arguments from Protestants Leonard richon uh he is Reformed yeah he's reformed I believe in his work a summary of ecletic theology he says one objection is uh if anyone eats his bread he will live and his reply is okay but unless you drink the blood you do not have life in you that's a typo here we go uh and my response is again it's it is clear that In this passage

Christ did not intent to set down doctrine of whether uh it's valid in one one kind or two kinds and we already addressed John 6 above another Objection that Leonard Brion raises uh is that Christ administered the bread with bread alone uh as we will see we will see this later on in Luke 24 and Acts 2 and his reply is that bread refers to the whole meal as in Proverbs 38 this is not the Eucharist my response is actually the structure of Luke 24:30 is almost identical with the Last Supper in Luke 22 the

entire Sacrament was celebrated as the noted by quote the breaking of the bread but it is said That Jesus is only administered the bread in other words Jesus presumably did consecrate the cup but we are only told that he administered the bread uh St Luke frequently uses the term breaking of the bread throughout acts as well to denote the Eucharist many fathers take Luke 24:30 as the Eucharist another objection this is my response another objection that richon raises uh is or that a Catholic May raise against richon is the wine could be spilled and He

says no more so than the priest this is silly because clearly if you only have like two priests celebrating and you have like 50 people at Mass it's not the same risk it's mathematic it's not uh and and weirdly enough richon actually was very strict on it he richon believed that you had to break the the the Eucharist in communion for it to be valid um at least that's my reading of him which I mean it's obviously we do it because Jesus did it but I don't think You would say it has to be you

have to do that to for to be that's a pretty weird claim uh John Calvin quotes St John costom in a homy uh where he says not as under the ancient law that priests ate apart and the people ate apart but one body and one cup is set before all end quote uh my response to this this is again a failure to prove that St John Chum considered commun of one kind to be a form of sacrilege he is again only stating orinary common Practice St John castom also says that it's one body and one

club uh that is set down for the people the consecrated bread is broken and the cup is shared presumably under a small congregation so following this John Calvin argument to its logical conclusion it would mean that costom would have been against also using more than one cup for example nowadays not just Catholics but many Protestants use uh small little cups uh well we don't we don't use small little Cups but we use several chales uh Protestants might use small little cups and so St John chrum is saying here it's one cup that we share so

I you know how strictly do you want to read him pretty much I don't I don't think he has communion in one kind in mind um gu de bra I think I'm I'm pronouncing it was a Protestant reformer and a student of Calvin and basa in Geneva he quotes St cyprian 54th epistle and saying quote how do we teach or provoke them to shed Their blood and confession of his name if we deny to those who are about to enter uh on the war Warfare the blood of Christ or how do we make them fit

for the cup of martydom if we do not first admit uh them to drink in the church the cup of the Lord by the right of communion and you see this is this is really frustrating because this at first glance is like oh my gosh it's clearly talking about giving the cup to the people and it's but it's not the context So whenever Protestants are quoting these Church fathers it's almost like a little bit of a headache or migraine because they're they just it's totally out of context in context St cyprian is talking about the

reconciliation of those who have apostasis during persecution St cyprian is saying that those wishing to return to the church should not be left abandoned but should instead be armed with the with the Eucharist if the church expects them to Be martyrs for Christ the denial that he speaks of is towards apostates hence he references the blood Christ shed for them in the Eucharist nothing about this is relevant to the later medieval denial of the cup from the Ley St cyprian also so you want to say that St cyprian supported communion in both kinds exclusively St

cyan also mentions um The Practice of Ley taking home quote part of the sacrifice uh in one kind one such story involves a woman with unworthy Hands who had the body of the Lord in a box and was miraculously deterred from grabbing it by a flame so you can read this I I SED it right here you can go and read this yourself um St cian very clearly attests to communion in one kind uh Bishop John davant again reformed he says quote let us hear him speaking for himself uh for what Christ commanded and did

we ought not to depart from any human or novel arrangement we do not observe what is commanded unless we also Practice the same things which the Lord did and I'll let you read it um but basically this was St cyprian arguing against the aquari which is basically this group in Africa that was only using water for the Eucharist now clearly you see why why um now it's funny because this actually totally destroys uh John Calvin's proposition that you can use uh anything other than Bread and Wine for the Eucharist and it would be valid but

basically St supran was saying that no You can't just use water for the Lord's blood it has has to be wine or wine mixed with water and again this is a pretty strong claim at first glance but St San doesn't even have that in mind he's when he's talking about not departing from the Lord's institution he's talking about specifically using bread and wine but he's not talking about where the lyer not in fact this doesn't work because s cyprian records Ley receiving in one kind and he's not Scandalized by it he treats it as common

practice as I showed above in the example of the woman um uh so yeah we're going to see so this's is a big claim that the practice is only 100 years old and even the earlier Med medievals rejected it which is not true gilo compeny said regarding intinction uh there are indeed different practices regarding the reception of the Eucharist depending on certain reasons but the substance Remains the Same and basically He going to talk about why intinction that is dipping the body in the blood was banned for a time but only because of other superstitions

uh Dr Jordan Cooper who's a Lutheran on YouTube he he he claims that Peter Lombard rejected the practice saying that no you need to receive both but that's I don't I don't know why he said that that's not true all you got to do is go read the sentences here's a citation man uh Peter Lombard says uh and yet what is Effective for both is received under either species because the whole Christ is received under either species but if we were but but if we were received only in one its Effectiveness as protection for both

Body and Soul equally would not be signified but only for one and yet the whole Crist is received under either species nor is more received under both and less under only one so it's a little bit frustrating because you me you see these claims that the early church did So and so but it's just so not true you're going to see you're going to see the evidence right now it's it's crazy um I won't read this in particularly you can read that yourself now let's get into the defense of the Catholic position which I think

is it blows the Protestant argument out of the water as the Roman confutation points out Luke 24 so this is we're going to start with arguments from scripture Luke 24 likely shows our Lord administering the Eucharist in one kind uh when I say likely I just mean that maybe Christ gave in two kinds and it just doesn't mention it but the verse highly hints that Christ only gave the Eucharist in one kind to the Disciples of uh on the road toos the verse reads quote when he was at table with them he took the bread

and blessed and broke it and gave it to them and he vanished from their sight and that's it so he gave them the bread and he vanished from their sight later The disciples refer to this as the breaking of the bread which St Luke uses throughout acts to denote the Eucharist and some Protestants are going to deny that some of them are going to affirm that however we are told that our Lord departed after handing the disciples the bread regarding this verse St Augustine chrom theophila and beid interpret to be the Eucharist St Augustine says

but still it was so permitted by Christ up to the sacrament of the bread that by Partaking of the unity of his body the Obstacle of the enemy might be understood to be removed so that Christ might be known and you can read the second quote as well but my point is this scene on the road to amus uh is taken to be the Eucharist because it's the very same parallel text the the format of the sentence is extremely similar to The Last Supper and the church fathers interpret it as the Eucharist and St Luke

refers it as the Breaking of the bread and as you see see Jesus giving communion in only one kind to this very interesting right he gives them the bread and then he disappears uh next scripture teaches the sufficiency of one kind the Council of Trent says uh in citing John 6 and this is this is pretty cool uh he who said except you eat the Flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you also said he that eateth this bread shall live forever and he who said He

that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood has ever everlasting life also said the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world and in fine he who said he that eateth my My Flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him said nevertheless whoever eats uh he that eats my my this bread will live forever Reverend doronzo says quote bellerine uh makes a pretty interesting observation basically which I mean it's it's cool to think about Definitely not a proof but during the time of the the first

century there would have been nazarites which basically gave up drinking alcohol as part of their vows but there they would have also been Christians uh who were nazarites and so they wouldn't have broken vow we see that they take it very seriously this is undeniable in the book of Acts but they also wouldn't have abstained totally from the Eucharist which means they would have had to take Communion in one kind in the first century but this isn't a proof because the Bible doesn't say it but it's I think it's a pretty cool pretty pretty reasonable

conclusion um and finally the clearest proof for the validity of the practice is the absence of a Divine precept so in other words we've proved that there is no Divine precept for communion both kinds in scripture uh and now we'll see that neither is there one in Tradition so now the dogma of Concomitant how do we get that Christ is fully present in both the bread and the wine uh from scripture so Paul says in First Corinthians whoever therefore eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty

concerning the body and the blood of the Lord thus consuming either species he says or unworthily makes one guilty of both pretty clear from tradition and very actually quite smaller but you see uh this idea sometimes um from what I Could find of both elements becoming the flesh or becoming the body for example St aanus says but when the Great and holy prayers and invocations have been completed the word descends into the bread and the cup and it becomes his body so the bread and the cup become his body St Gregory of Nissa um says

he disseminates himself and every believer through that flesh whose substance comes from Bread and Wine uh and now this is going to be I think the strongest part Of the argument at least for anybody claiming that the early church only practiced communion in both kinds and that they thought that commun in one kind was some sort of sacrilege like Jordan Cooper uh Dr Jordan Cooper claimed that's totally wrong we'll see why we'll start with as early as tulan he says um tulan says quote uh your husband will not know what you taste secretly before any

meal and if he knows all will he not believe it to be what it Is said to be and this is basically in reference uh I'll just read the quote it says the first document of this practice is found at the beginning of the third Century in tulian who advising his wife not to marry a pagan man if he tulian should die first writes your husband will right and I already read it but basically it's saying uh it's it's a giving witness in the very second century 100s of private communion at home you can go

ahead again Citations are all down here you can go ahead and read these yourself but basically it's saying you should not marry a pagan man because that thing you do when you receive Holy Communion privately at home and under one kind um your husband will not understand that if he's Pagan St Jerome instructing on abstinence from the merital use before the Eucharist mentions repeatedly only the body of Christ St jome says if then sexual intercourse prevents what is less Important that is prayer how much more does it pre prevent what is more important that is

the reception of the body of Christ what kind of good thing is that which prevents a man from receiving the body of Christ which is more important to pray or to receive the body of Christ surely to receive the body of Christ if then sexual intercourse hinders the less important thing prayer much more does it hinder that which is more important so in other Words he's only referring here to the body of Christ which is interesting uh St Ambrose and now we start getting into the real strong evidences St Ambrose recounting the death of his

brother satyrus or satus bears witness that the Eucharist was stored in one kind on a ship which was in danger of shipwreck presumably for private consumption so Tyrus was not yet fully in initiated into the church and thus asked for the Eucharist to be tied on his neck so he May die with the Lord he says quote he therefore he before being initiated in the more perfect Mysteries being in danger of shipwreck when that when the ship that bore him asked of Those whom he knew to be initiated in the Divine sacrament of the faithful

not that he might Gaze on secret things with curious eyes but to obtain aid for his faith for he caused it to be bound in a napkin and the napkin around his neck and cast himself into the sea so in other words You have uh St Ambrose's brother not being fully into the church yet but yet asking hey we have the Eucharist res served on a ship can we tie around my neck and so I may die with my Lord pretty much uh but you notice there's there's only the Eucharist and bread being stored here

St Ambrose this is extremely clear I don't know how one can deny this received the Eucharist in in only the species of bread before his death this is in the life of St Ambrose honoratus also preach of the Church of versel when he had retired to rest in the upper part of the house heard a voice calling him three times saying rise hurry for he is about to depart he descended and offered the the body of the Lord to the Saint uh this is the same being St Ambrose about to die after receiving it as

soon as he swallowed he gave up his Spirit um and you can read the rest but basically St Ambrose receiving communion only one Kind St Augustine implies communion only one kind when speaking of infants he says quote why is the blood admin ministered for the infant to drink so that it may have life if it came into death from no origin of sin saaman a fifth century lawyer and Christian historian records the following in his history of the church this is pretty interesting um at this point I quote at this point it seems fitting to

insert into our story a miracle that occurred During this time a man who belonged to the sect of the macedonians had a wife of the same sect after hearing John teach one day about the correct belief in the Divine he embraced Jon's faith and began urging his wife to think the same way but since she had been drawn in by her former habits and the Gatherings of women familiar to her and her husband despite frequent admonitions could make no progress he finally told her unless you partake with me in the Divine Mysteries you will no

longer be my companion in life the woman promised to do so and revealed her plan to her servant whom she enlisted as an accomplice to deceive her husband in other words the husband wanted wanted the wife to become a Christian and she wouldn't really do this she said he said we're not going to continue uh if you don't become a Christian the woman promised to do so uh but only out of deception so when time For the Mysteries came uh faithful listeners will understand what I mean the woman holding on to what she had received

bowed her head as if in prayer to God the servant who stood beside her then secretly handed her what she had brought from home this this is the Divine mystery the woman then brought it to her mouth it hardened like a stone this is clearly the Eucharistic bread uh not the wine um because she brought it from home uh as we know there's a Private commun there's private communion stored in boxes that's being practiced by the Le at this time um this is in reference to the Divine Mysteries mentioned before uh and it's a Eucharistic

Miracle because it she put it into her mouth the Eucharistic bread and it turned into stone and it's awesome because then she goes and confesses to the bishop um hence since the mystery is placed by the hand into the mouth it is Obvious this was the Eucharistic bread not the wine um this is made clear in a parallel story told by neros who says she bowed her head in submission and concealed the most sacred mystery the servant who was standing by her office by her offered her instead the bread that had been brought from home

home when she brought it into her mouth she felt that it had hardened into the nature of stone that she tried to bite it uh so again very clearly we're seeing Consistently throughout the ages communion one kind not just privately but also at mass or in the service the Council of AG I think it's pronounced said quote if a bishop priest or Deacon has committed a capital crime uh Capital crime fors a document or given false testimony he shall be deposed from its office and confined to a monastery and there as long as he lives

he shall receive only late communion so you have read this Council saying priests would Not be celebrating they would only be receiving lay communion which is in distinction from non- lay communion which is in both kinds St Gregory of Tes records a Manus who was accused of parde that's killing your own parents but was then allowed to receive the Eucharist after pleading innocent quote when the citizens gathered with the priests for the Festival of the Blessed martyr Julian alalas prostrated himself at The Bishop's feet complaining that he had been excommunicated without being heard the bishop

then allowed him to witness the solemnities of the mass with the others but when it came time to communicate and allow leas approach the altar the bishop said the rumor among the people declares you to be a parasite I do not know whether you have committed this crime or not so I leave the judgment to God and the Blessed martyr Julian if you are worthy as you claim Come closer take a portion of the Eucharist and place it in your mouth but this is clearly not the the why this is clearly the the Eucharistic bread

for God is the Observer of your conscience he took the Eucharist communicated and left so here you have uh public uh Mass Public Service where they're receiving any one kind St beid in his work on the history of the English church relates the following event about the Pagan sons of king I don't know how to pronounce That honestly who demanded to receive the Eucharist before before first being baptized the Eucharist is referred to in only one species he says quote when they saw the bishop celebrating the solemn rights of the mass in the church and

giving the Eucharist to the people they puffed up with barbarous stupidity as it is cly said asked him why do you also why do you not also give us that shining bread which you used to give our father sabbah and which you still continue to Give to the people in the church to which he responded if you are willing to be washed in that saving font in which your father was washed you too can be partakers of the Holy bread and I'll let you read the rest for the sake of time but again you have

communion in one kind uh Reverend doronzo says in the mass of the presanctified I'll let you read this but basically the mass of the presanctified was uh started in the East and it was celebrated throughout lent in The East um but only once in the west um during um during Good Friday and Holy Saturday and basically it's that you don't consecrate the Eucharist but rather it's reserved from the day before and so the East can't accuse us either because Reverend Danon was kind of saying hey you don't you don't even know your own liturgy because

you guys also receive communion one kind when they Reserve only the Eucharistic bread for this the mass of the presanctified right It's called presanctified because it's been consecrated or Sanctified before um St Theodore describes this saying at the time of the elevation he does not remove the veil but lifting the bread from the lower parts of it he says the pre- Sanctified holy gifts uh similarly a Roman lurgical manual with an uncertain author from the 6th Century explains this about the mass of the presanctified quote the two senior priests as soon as they have greeted

the C uh greeted the cross enter the vestri or the place where the body of the Lord which was left from the previous day was placed putting it down on a on a pattern so again in the East and in the west you have at least since the I think fifth century the mass of the presanctified during Lent where the bread is reserved and and received the next day Reverend doronzo says in the third Century the practice of communion under both kinds B wine gradually fell into disuse and was Replaced by another practice this shift

was influenced by the extinction of two Customs that had been observed in various places for several centuries which seem to represent a compromise between two practices namely the C the custom of in intinction uh or inting the species of bread in consecrated wine and the mixing of consecrated wine with unconsecrated wine regarding the former custom consult and I'll let you read all that let you Read all that so now let get to the conclusions the conclusions pretty interesting conclusion is one communion under both species is necessary by Divine precept for celebrants that is for the

priests so when Christ is saying do this and rembrance of me there's there's great content online on of how this do this is actually uh when you tie back to the Old Testament has sacrificial language and it's Christ's ordination for the priest And also the church has always immutably observed the practice of communion under both species for the celebrant that is for the priest even though it has adjusted its practice for the Ley so throughout church history as I've showed uh as I've shown from at least as early as culan which is the 2 Century

up until the Reformation up until now the leoty have always received in either one kind or in two kinds whereas the priests have always received in two kinds uh from Reason and or from the very nature of the Eucharist as a sacrifice and Sacrament and basically what this is going to get into is that as a sacrifice both need to be offered to God and so therefore the priests need to receive both um but as a Sacrament in itself uh it's not in complete uh if it's just in one kind so to to dumb it

down basically if a priest outside of mass was to say this is my body and consecrate bread and that's it it would be a Sacrament he Could give that to somebody who's sick and they would receive the spiritual benefits of it but the problem with that is of course that it would it would it would still be elicit to do so because the Eucharist is both a Sacrament and a sacrifice so the the priest can only consecrate the Eucharist in the context of the mass where both the bread and the wine are being consecrated so

I hope that makes sense it's you know communion in one kind Without ever consecrating wine would be a valid Sacrament but not a valid sacrifice uh and I won't be reading all this for the sake of time but you can I I I mean if you're really interested please go read it I'll have it in the description below um and another conclusion is that receiving in both kinds which is what we really care about right is not a Divine precept for the Ley proof if if such command existed it needs to be derived from divine

Revelation right uh which shows us Christ will this could either be in uh scripture or tradition but now uh I'll just skip that along regarding scripture from the way the sacrament was instituted or from the way first communion was celebrated at the Last Supper this command cannot be derived in other words you can't derive from The Last Supper a Divine precept in communion in both kinds otherwise what else are you going to do are you also Going to uh eat meals before it are you going to sing uh hymns throughout it are you going to

celebrate it uh reclining are you going to celebrate it on an evening um you know so from this in memory of me it follows that The Church Must continually renew not everything that was done at the supper but only what Christ essentially did because so many things that Christ did at the supper that we don't do today that we exclude concerning tradition he also Gets into uh the Ley always receiving under one or both kinds um and regarding the very nature of the sacrament he says firstly from the essence of the sacrament as it exists

in both species Sacrament alone the necessity of communion under both kinds cannot be deduced for in the sacrament unlike in others there is a distinction between the sacrament itself and its use to constitute the sacrament itself both species are required in the sense that Although a single consecration is valid it does not constitute a complete but only a diminished aspect of it I'll let you read the rest of it uh conclusion number three is that the church has lawfully and legitimately prescribed to the ltin right communion under one kind which is basically if there's no

Divine precept of communion in both kinds and it's equally efficacious to receive either bread or the wine then the church has authority over this matter because It falls outside the bounds of Divine Law conclusion as has been clearly shown I think one there is no Divine precept for the Ley to receive in both kinds two two the early church practice communion in one kind and in both kinds and three scripture and the church fathers teach that Christ is equally present under both kinds thus making communion one kind equally efficacious so this was pretty long I

did not think it would take this long this is a very long paper So what I'm going to do is I'm going to make a shorter version of this video the next few days but I just wanted to get this out here for people who were interested who wanted to find out more about it it's very interesting I think the evidence is clearly um on the Catholic side that the early church and scripture um basically allow for communion in one kind so leave a like subscribe if this video helped and thank you