A few brief comments on the Church of England document Holy Communion and the distribution of the elements.
Liturgical Considerations
1. "Holy Communion is a shared sacramental meal at which the risen Christ presides." This is one reason why conformity to our Lord's instructions is paramount.
2. Necessary "adaptations need to take account of the primary symbols associated with each element." The primary symbol of one is brokenness and unity of the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16-17, "one bread"), the pouring from the cup relates to the shed blood of Christ (Luke 22:20).
3. It is right that "the piece of consecrated bread that the communicant receives should, wherever possible, have been broken." It is noteworthy that the Church of England’s Advice on the Administration of Holy Communion from 1 July 2020 which encouraged use of individual wafers thereby made the latter permissible. "The administration of a piece of broken bread is therefore permitted."
4. As observed above, the symbol of unity relates more directly to the bread than the wine. Sharing in a common cup means sharing in a common fate. This symbolism requires that each participant drinks up (cf. the motif of draining to the dregs the cup of God's wrath). In addition, the rubrics require that "any consecrated bread and wine which is not required for the purposes of communion is consumed at the end of the distribution or after the service" (emphasis added). There is no requirement here on clergy to drink up what has already been distributed to the congregation.
5. Since the sixteenth century (and for most of the time before) until recently the Church of England has always (not "normally") administered Holy Communion in both kinds. Possible use of more than one vessel for this purpose ("be it Chalice or Flagon") is already recognised in the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer.
6. Common Worship, unlike the Book of Common Prayer, explicitly allows for communicants to receive in one kind. Such a permission to receive in one kind is fundamentally different from refusal by the clergy to offer both kinds.
7. Until confirmation parents have some authority over their children's reception of one or both elements.
8. Receiving Holy Communion in one kind, under specific circumstances, is not controversial. Only offering Holy Communion in one kind very much is.
Legal Considerations
9. A refusal to contemplate the use of individual cups hardly constitutes a "true necessity in law" to allow for distribution of one kind only. There seem to be no historical examples to demonstrate true necessity in law to depart from the legal requirement to offer Holy Communion in both kinds other than absence of one of the elements in question.
10. It stands to reason that where use of a common cup is inadvisable, finding other means of sharing from the common cup is preferable to excluding some or all of the congregation from the act of drinking.
11. Just as it is " not permissible for the bread alone to be consecrated, or for the president to receive in one kind alone," so it should not be permissible for the president alone to receive in both kinds. Such a situation is nowhere envisaged in the Book of Common Prayer or in Canon Law.
12. The LAC's opinion is not based on sound reason.
Public Health Considerations
13. While it is arguably possible to use a common cup (with purificator drenched in 95% alcohol) within the current Government guidelines, in our context it seems wise not to do so.
14. The ordinary practice of Free Churches may inform our thinking but is of little relevance.
15. The practicalities of distributing consecrated wine from a flagon into communicants' own cups are actually very straightforward.
16. There is absolutely no reason why anyone other than the communicant should touch the cup they have brought from home, unless they want to share it within their household.
17. The practice of Free Churches does not concern me; I trust that they, too, seek and follow PHE guidance. The most recent CofE proposals for presidential intinction present a greater health risk than the carefully governed use of a common flagon and home-brought cups, especially in terms of prolonged breathing over the uncovered cup during distribution and increased risk of accidental touching. It also raises issues for any suffering from coeliac disease.
Conclusion
18. There is no basis in this paper for confidence in the judgement of its authors.
19. The hypocrisy of a church leadership that overthrows church tradition by withdrawing the cup from the laity for many months and allowing clergy to celebrate Holy Communion on their own in their private homes, while baulking at granting permission for the use of individual cups to facilitate drinking from a common vessel (one consecrated flagon) stinks to high heaven.
