Rather than me continuing to explain this ,here is the explanation from New Advent which ANY Catholic would agree...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm
Excerpts
Regarding the merits of the Utraquist controversy, if we assume the doctrinal points involved — viz. the absence of a Divine precept imposing Communion under both kinds, the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species, and the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with the sacraments that is not divinely determined the question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary, and is to be decided by a reference to the two fold purpose to be attained, of safeguarding the reverence due to this most august sacrament and of facilitating and encouraging its frequent and fervent reception. Nor can it be doubted that the modern Catholic discipline best secures these ends. The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; the inconvenience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers — the difficulty of reservation for Communion outside of Mass: the not unreasonable objection on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice, which of itself alone would act as a strong deterrent to frequent Communion in the case of a great many otherwise well-disposed people; these and similar “weighty and just reasons” against the Utraquist practice are more than sufficient to justify the Church in forbidding it. Of the doctrinal points mentioned above, the only one that need be discussed here is the question of the existence or non-existence of a Divine precept imposing Communion sub utraque. Of the texts brought forward by Utraquists in proof of such a precept, the command, “Drink ye all of this” (Matthew 26:27), and its equivalent in St. Luke (xxii, 17, i.e. supposing the reference here to be to the Eucharistic and not to the paschal cup), cannot fairly be held to apply to any but those present those on the occasion, and to them only for that particular occasion. Were one to insist that Christ’s action in administering Holy Communion under both kinds to the Apostles at the Last Supper was intended to lay down a law for all future recipients, he should for the same reason insist that several other temporary and accidental circumstances connected with the first celebration of the Eucharist (e.g. the preceding paschal rites, the use of unleavened bread, the taking of the Sacred Species by the recipients themselves) were likewise intended to be obligatory for all future celebrations. The institution under both kinds, or the separate consecration of the bread and wine, belongs essentially, in Catholic opinion, to the sacrificial, as distinct from the sacramental, character of the Eucharist; and when Christ in the words “Do this for a commemoration of me” (Luke 22:19), gave to the Apostles both the command and the power to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, they understood Him merely to impose upon them and their successors in the priesthood the obligation of sacrificing sub utraque. This obligation the Church has rigorously observed.
In John 6:54, Christ says: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” but in verses 52 and 59 he attributes life eternal to the eating of “this bread” (which is “my flesh for the life of the world”, without mention of the drinking of His blood: “if anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever”. Now the Utraquist interpretation would suppose that in verse 54 Christ meant to emphasize the distinction between the mode of reception “by eating” and the mode of reception “by drinking”, and to include both modes distinctly in the precept He imposes. But such literalism, extravagant in any connection, would result in this case in putting verse 54 in opposition to 52 and 59, interpreted in the same rigid way. From which we may infer that whatever special significance attached to the form of expression employed in verse 54, Christ did not have recourse to that form for the purpose of promulgating a law of Communion sub utraque. The twofold expression is employed by Christ in order to heighten the realism of the promise — to emphasize more vividly the reality of the Eucharistic presence, and to convey the idea that His Body and Blood were to be the perfect spiritual aliment, the food and drink, of the faithful. In the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist this meaning is fully verified. Christ is really and integrally received under either kind; and from the sacramental point of view it is altogether immaterial whether this perfect reception takes place after the analogy in the natural order of solid or of liquid food alone, or after the analogy of both combined (cf. III below). In 1 Corinthians 11:28, to which Utraquists sometimes appeal, St. Paul is concerned with the preparation required for a worthy reception of the Eucharist. His mention of both species, “the bread and chalice”, is merely incidental, and implies nothing more than the bare fact that Communion under both kinds was the prevailing usage in Apostolic times. From the verse immediately preceding (27) a difficulty might be raised against the dogmatic presuppositions of the great majority of Utraquists, and an argument advanced in proof of the Catholic doctrine of the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species. “Whosoever”, says the Apostle, “shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord” i.e. whoever receives either unworthily is guilty of both. But it is unnecessary to insist on this argument in defence of the Catholic position. We are justified in concluding that the N.T. contains no proof of the existence of a Divine precept binding the faithful to Communicate under both kinds. It will appear, further, from the following historical survey, that the Church has never recognized the existence of such a precept.
Looking at this statement under the bright light of the Scriptures that the Catholic church claims it owns by virtue of writing, editing, protection and preservation, and reception, reveals the spiritual bareness of the newadvent pronouncement.
“Regarding the merits of the Utraquist controversy, if we assume the doctrinal points involved — viz. the absence of a Divine precept imposing Communion under both kinds, the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species, and the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with the sacraments that is not divinely determined the question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary”
(Utraquist simply means “both” here and given the level of writing in the rest of the article stands out out as a pretentious Latin fossil).
“...if we assume the doctrinal points involved....”
Of course! Anything makes sense if only we assume enough but on what basis can anyone assume that is which is purportedly going to be demonstrated by some evidence to be so?
And if we can assume a mouse why not a whale and be done with it?
“.. viz. the absence of a Divine precept imposing Communion under both kinds,...”
That's a ocean of assumption packed into a thimble since the “Divine precept” was “keep doing THIS (bread and wine, eat and drink)in remembrance of me”. Not half of “this” but an inclusive “this”.
“the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species...”
Thus another assumption that the bread and wine, species, are to this degree equivalent or perhaps with the bread somewhat more necessary as no one has suggested taking the wine only to avoid untoward events from trying to swallow a hard wafer.
Yes it is in the blood that life resides and must be poured out for forgiveness of sins not unleavened bread.
If either bread or wine would do we're at a loss to explain why Christ used both and said to “keep doing THIS”.
“.... the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with the sacraments that is not divinely determined”
Only by tossing the Scriptures into either the guillotine or the rack may it be said that those entitled to drink of the cup could be denied it by fiat when Jesus said both were necessary for eternal life.
“..not divinely determined...”? Please.
“...the question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary, and is to be decided by a reference to the two fold purpose to be attained, of safeguarding the reverence due to this most august sacrament and of facilitating and encouraging its frequent and fervent reception...”
Thus may all the dense and dark hedgerows of unscriptural clap-trap that encircle the laity be reduced to one sturdy pale: Do the laity (or some distinct fraction of it) have a God given right and obligation to “keep doing this in remembrance of me” or is it an optional call? Something akin to a spectator sport? You can cheer on the team but stay off the field? So no cup for you since you might spill a drop and whoever heard of straws?
“Nor can it be doubted that the modern Catholic discipline best secures these ends. The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; the inconvenience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers — the difficulty of reservation for Communion outside of Mass: the not unreasonable objection on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice, which of itself alone would act as a strong deterrent to frequent Communion in the case of a great many otherwise well-disposed people; these and similar “weighty and just reasons” against the Utraquist practice are more than sufficient to justify the Church in forbidding it”
Examine in the above just what is meant by “Catholic discipline”.
Imagine Jesus being told by the disciples that gathering up the fragments of bread after the crowds ate that doing so was ‘unsanitary, inconvenient and would just take too long. They may have been told to do but they felt justified in just saying NO. Imagine that and that's the gist of what is said above. You may (or may not)have an obligation to partake of the wine but convenience decides.
“Catholic discipline”: “There's no way Christ can offer wine to 5000 with shaky handed old people and squirmy babes so we'll forbid it.” Bread yes, wine no.
“when Christ in the words “Do this for a commemoration of me” (Luke 22:19), gave to the Apostles both the command and the power to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, they understood Him merely to impose upon them and their successors in the priesthood the obligation of sacrificing sub utraque. This obligation the Church has rigorously observed.
And so has absolutely defrauded the laity by pretending there was an obligation on their part to partake of either when in fact the Catholic doctrine was that “they understood Him merely to impose upon them and their successors in the priesthood the obligation of sacrificing sub utraque.”
Back to the simple question: Were the laity ever obligated to partake of the bread and wine? If they were...who can deny either to them and if not they've been led to partake unworthily.
“In John 6:54, Christ says: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” but in verses 52 and 59 he attributes life eternal to the eating of “this bread” (which is “my flesh for the life of the world”, without mention of the drinking of His blood: “if anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever”.
More careful avoidance of the obvious. Jesus had just compared and contrasted himself with the manna, the bread from heaven that sustained the Israelites in the wilderness. No wine fell from heaven with that “bread” but lest anyone suppose otherwise Jesus says plainly four times in a row, vss. 53,54,55,56, flesh AND blood, i.e., bread AND wine, not flesh OR blood, not bread OR wine.
“In John 6:54, Christ says: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” but in verses 52 and 59 he attributes life eternal to the eating of “this bread” (which is “my flesh for the life of the world”, without mention of the drinking of His blood: “if anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever”. Now the Utraquist interpretation would suppose that in verse 54 Christ meant to emphasize the distinction between the mode of reception “by eating” and the mode of reception “by drinking”, and to include both modes distinctly in the precept He imposes. But such literalism, extravagant in any connection, would result in this case in putting verse 54 in opposition to 52 and 59, interpreted in the same rigid way”
More assumptions. If you do not bend the knee to the “IN TRUTH THERE IS NO WINE” deep thinkers then surely you are imposing “ But such literalism, extravagant in any connection,” upon Jesus words, which like all speech can contain wide degrees of literalness even in a single sentence. And to make sure the ITTISNW will even assume a title for the anti-ITTISNW, “UTRAQUIST”!
Consumption is consumption no matter the mode or fine distinctions between the acts of eating and drinking.
“We are justified in concluding that the N.T. contains no proof of the existence of a Divine precept binding the faithful to Communicate under both kinds”.
But the priests are so bound? Either the laity are required to “keep doing this” or they are not, no communion “light” to be found in the Scriptures.