The Bishop of Lichfield’s reply to question 43 claims that
There is long precedent, from the time of the Book of Common Prayer onwards, for communicants receiving Holy Communion in one kind by reason of medical necessity
Two things deserve to be pointed out here. First, the relevant rubric in the Book of Common Prayer speaks of what is sometimes referred to as ‘spiritual communion’ in which for reason of medical necessity (or, indeed, lack of preparation) the ‘communicant’ receives neither of the two elements. This is different from partaking of one but not the other. I am not aware of any instance of Church of England communicants receiving one but not the other of the two elements at Holy Communion prior to the 20th century.
Secondly, there is a difference between communicants receiving one kind only and being offered only one kind. As was already pointed out at the General Synod Meeting in Feb 2010 (by the Revd Dr John Hartley, Bradford): ‘although the individual communicant may decline to accept both kinds, the priest may not decline to offer both kinds.’
The Bishop of Lichfield further claims
No theology of the consecration of the elements or their reception accepts that the benefits conveyed by the sacrament (spiritual or otherwise) are impeded by reception in one kind. There is, therefore, no ‘inequality’ of benefit from communion between president an communicants, though there may in some circumstances be a difference in their experience of participating in the action of eating and drinking.
The language of ‘benefits’ (plural, ‘spiritual or otherwise’) is unhelpfully unclear. What we are offered in Holy Communion is Jesus Christ. In this sense, drinking from the cup offers us nothing in addition to eating from the bread. Indeed, eating from the bread offers us nothing in addition to trusting God’s Word. Does Holy Communion convey any benefits that cannot be conveyed by the faithful preaching of God’s Word? And is there no benefit in the experience of drinking?
There have been a good number of Anglican theologians who considered the difference in experience between those who eat and drink and those who are not allowed to drink to be of greater significance than the current Bishop of Lichfield allows. I have a few quotations here which demonstrate that there are those whose theology would claim an inequality of benefit. As I have come to expect in the current Church of England, such voices are ignored, and sometimes their very existence denied, rather than being thoughtfully engaged with.
