I was at dinner the other night with several of my friends who were all devoutly (or at least stridently practicing) Catholics. In light of the swine flu concern, I asked them if they took of the common cup. I was truly shocked by the variety of the responses (apart from the "we believe in the Holy Spirit and that we will be protected").
One was from Mexico where they said no one took of the cup at all, respecting an "optional" "bread only" Communion and suggesting that where wine was scarce that was permissible. He said that here in the US, they just passed on the wine out of concern over the common cup (a common practice apparently affirmed by many priests) and indicated that it was only a memorial anyway (evoking a bit of a stammered disagreement from some of the others and shock by me). The most "informed" (as to the Catechism and other writings) of the group who fancies herself a bit of a Catholic apologist indicated that the teaching of the church was that you only needed one or the other form of the Eucharist and not both, but then went on to state with aplomb how important it was that the bread be unleavened, not be brittle so as to avoid falling on the floor, that the cup be common, etc. due to the desire to copy exactly what was done by Christ, etc. (apparently forgetting that Christ had both wine and bread).
I didn't really intend to get into all that, but it did cause me to do some research when I got home -- how could Roman Catholics be so confused on such a critical element of their faith?
So, amazing as it seems, it would appear the magisterium has varied widely on this practice over the years. As near as I can tell (I have seen only secondary sources), the Council of Constance, Session 13 held that irrespective of the model by Christ
during a meal, the eucharist was only to be received after fasting and that the "laity" was only to receive the "bread" with the clergy receiving the wine. Thereafter, it seems the Council of Trent reaffirmed this principle, as follows:
If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema (Council of Trent, Session 21, Canon 1).
How is this possible, and what's the current state of the church's teaching on the subject (and how do they justify the differences?)