Should the Chalice Be Available at Mass? Limits on Lay Access Spark Debate
With a handful of U.S. dioceses moving to restrict the practice, Catholics are debating whether receiving Communion from the chalice should be widely available or reserved for special occasions.
‘Chalice’ (Photo: galka3250 / Shutterstock)Matthew McDonaldOctober 15, 2026
Should laypeople be allowed to drink from the chalice during Communion? And if so, should the sacred cup be widely available or reserved only for special occasions?
Supporters of frequent access to the chalice point to the Catholic Church’s early practice and argue that Communion under the forms of both bread and wine offers a fuller expression of the Eucharistic banquet. But others worry that routine availability may increase accidental spills and argue that limiting access may increase reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.
Bishop Michael Olson of the Diocese of Fort Worth, Texas, brought renewed attention to this topic on Oct. 1 when he published a pastoral letter limiting the availability of the chalice to certain occasions throughout the year, including Holy Thursday, the Easter Vigil, Corpus Christi, the Chrism Mass, ordinations, and Masses at convents and retreat centers.
Bishop Olson, who declined an interview request from the Register through a spokesman, expressed concern in the letter about avoiding “profanation or disorder.”
“I must ensure that the Eucharist is treated with the reverence it deserves and that its distribution does not give rise to confusion or diminish its dignity,” Bishop Olson wrote.
His letter is one of several recent instances of U.S. dioceses restricting access to Communion under the form of wine, after the practice was largely liberalized following Vatican II. Similar restrictions, for instance, are in place in the dioceses of Orange, California (January 2026); Portland, Oregon (October 2024); Green Bay, Wisconsin (March 2024); Rapid City, South Dakota (November 2023); and Lincoln, Nebraska (since at least 2011) — although details vary.
A Back-and-Forth History
Scholars say that during the first 1,000-plus years of Christianity, Catholic laypeople ordinarily received the Body and Blood of Christ under the visible forms, or “species,” of both bread and wine.
That remained the practice in the East and continues there today. But in the West, an “increased focus on the real presence of Christ” in the Eucharist during the Middle Ages led to heightened concerns “about spilling” to the point where laypeople receiving from the chalice had “essentially ceased” by the 12th century, according to an academic journal article published in April 2026 by Christopher M. O’Brien, professor of sacramental and liturgical theology at the University of San Diego.
While Church authorities revisited the topic during the 16th century and allowed certain short-lived exceptions, for most Catholics the chalice was off-limits until after the Second Vatican Council, which in December 1963 issued a document (Sacrosanctum Concilium) allowing Communion under both kinds to the laity in certain cases determined by the Apostolic See, at the discretion of local bishops.
The trend since Vatican II has been for Rome to allow national bishops’ conferences more latitude in permitting laypeople to receive under both kinds and for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to approve its expansion, with each bishop retaining final authority in his own diocese.
An informal survey of U.S. dioceses by the Register this past week found that while many allow pastors to decide, some ordinarily require offering the chalice to laypeople (including the Archdiocese of Cincinnati and the Diocese of Jackson).
Another option is intinction, in which a priest dips a Host into the Precious Blood and places it on a communicant’s tongue. The practice is familiar to many Catholics from Mexico who now live in the Diocese of Yakima and is offered in some parishes there, Yakima Bishop Joseph Tyson told the Register.
Lay Catholics who have a medical condition preventing them from receiving under the species of bread may receive under the species of wine alone, according to Church norms.
Two Species, One Christ
The Catholic Church teaches that the whole Christ — Body, Blood, soul and divinity — is present under each Eucharistic species, a teaching explained by the Council of Trent in 1551 through the doctrine of “concomitance,” which means “existing together with something else.” The doctrine holds that Christ’s Body and Blood are inseparably united because he has risen from the dead and can die no more.
Nearly three centuries earlier, St. Thomas Aquinas had written in his Summa Theologiae that “the whole Christ is under each sacramental species.” Species is a Latin word meaning “appearance” or “form.”
Therefore, it’s not necessary to receive both species of the Eucharist to receive the whole Christ.
Even so, said Timothy O’Malley, theology professor and academic director of the Center for Liturgy at the University of Notre Dame, it’s worthwhile to offer Communion under both kinds because “the signs still matter.”
“And that’s the point. The Lord chose bread from the Passover. Wine is chosen, as Thomas says, because it gladdens the hearts of men. So reception of the Blood under the sign of wine represents a certain festivity,” O’Malley said. “It’s a fuller participation in the mystery of divine love.”
Certain Church documents commend receiving under both species.
“Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds,” states the most recent edition of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (No. 281), adding that “in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord.”
Why Limit It?
Yet it’s a closer question when practical problems arise.
“Arguments favoring both species draw on that fuller sacramental sign, while arguments supporting restrictions cite the dangers of profanation and the lack of properly formed ministers,” said David Long, a canon law professor at The Catholic University of America, by email.
Because liquids are more easily spilled than solids, liturgy experts consulted by the Register said offering the chalice to laypeople might be inappropriate in certain circumstances, including large or crowded Masses.
Another consideration: Offering both forms requires more chalices, and under Church rules, sacred vessels may be purified only by a priest, deacon or instituted acolyte — a layperson trained for the role and formally instituted into that ministry by a bishop.
Father Zachary Boazman, pastor of Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Okarche, Oklahoma — the home parish of Blessed Stanley Rother (1935-1981), a missionary priest murdered in Guatemala — told the Register that while he likes offering the chalice to Mass-goers, he limits it to special occasions throughout the year.
“I think there’s a real value to it, but there are enough practical limitations that limit its feasibility in some parishes,” said Father Boazman, who is also director of the Secretariat for Divine Worship for the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City. He said the physical realities of distributing the chalice make accidental spills all but inevitable: “It’s just bound to happen.”
He also believes limiting the availability of the chalice can increase its impact.
“To me, that’s the middle ground that promotes what the Church teaches about the fullness of the sign as a liturgical value, while not letting it become routine,” Father Boazman said.
Church law allowing laypeople to receive under both kinds “implies that this is more appropriate on more solemn occasions, and not as a matter of course,” said Father James Bradley, a canon law professor at The Catholic University of America who studies liturgical and sacramental law.
Why Offer the Chalice?
Jesuit Father John Baldovin, professor of historical and liturgical theology at Boston College, noted that some parishes that offered the chalice to laypeople before the COVID-19 pandemic haven’t restored the practice, including two of the three Boston-area parishes where he frequently celebrates Mass as a weekend assistant.
He prefers allowing access to the chalice and said an unstated concern among bishops might be the proliferation in recent decades of lay extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.
Karen Shadle, director of the Office of Worship of the Archdiocese of Louisville, said some objections to offering the chalice amount to “laziness,” because it takes more work to purify vessels, and “clericalism,” because some priests think the chalice should be limited to priests and not offered to laity.
She also disagrees with limiting the availability of the chalice to special occasions, arguing that since Catholics are encouraged to receive Communion frequently, they should be able to do so under both kinds frequently.
She said it’s appropriate for a pastor to determine whether to offer the chalice based on the situation in his parish, but that the default should be to allow it.
“Those are local decisions. We certainly have parishes that don’t have the resources. But we have others that certainly do,” Shadle said. “In our diocese, most parishes can do this well, and therefore should.”
Ultimately, Church rules authorize each bishop to decide whether and how frequently to make the chalice available to laypeople, as the recent decision in the Diocese of Fort Worth illustrates.
As Notre Dame’s O’Malley put it: “Every individual bishop is of course the pastor and liturgist of his diocese.”
