This is a very rough translation of the article “Calixtines” by G. Bareille in the 1905 Dictionnaire de théologie catholique 2:1364-1369 (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1905), pages 679-681 of the PDF <https://ia800301.us.archive.org/21/items/dictionnairedet02pt1vaca/dictionnairedet02pt1vaca.pdf>. Holy Mother Church teaches in its Catechism, “1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But ‘the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.‘222 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites. 222. General Instruction of the Roman Missal 240.” The Servant of God Fr. John A. S. A. Hardon, S.J. observed, “Not all Calixtines, however, were heretics. They could be Catholics who took advantage of the Church’s concession to receive the chalice but also believed that Holy Communion under both forms was not necessary for salvation.” In that sense, you or I could be considered Calixtines because of our habit of receiving the Most Precious Blood of Christ when we attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
To Bareille, who was Professor of Patrology at the Catholic University of Toulouse, Eternal Memory!
This name, taken from the Latin word calix, used to describe, among supporters of John Huss, who in the fifteenth century, reducing the minimum of their claims to four articles, vindicated especially the use of the chalice or communion under both species for the laity. Communion sub utraque was not unknown in Christian practice, see COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES [Vol. 3, col. ####; PDF ###-###], but the Church had long prohibited it because of its disadvantages. Huss himself, at least in its early days, had not thought to resume this use without the express consent of the Church. But some of his supporters, under the inspiration of Jacobel, vindicated the right to practice it. And the Council of Constance, faithful to the prescriptions of the past sages and suspecting moreover, not without reason, that this innovation masked some dogmatic error on the real presence, condemned in its thirteenth general session, June 15, 1415. [Gian Domenico] Mansi [Catholic], t . XXVII, col. 726-728 [PDF ###]; Hardouin, t. VIII, col. 380-382; [Karl Josef von] Hefele [Catholic], Histoire des conciles, French trans. Paris, 1876, t. X, p. 477-478. But neither the Archbishop of Prague or the king of Bohemia, Wenceslas could enforce the decree of the council. Jacobel composed a violent diatribe against the Fathers of Constance he called “the doctors of the use.” And Huss, changing of attitude that prisoner, hastened to write to his disciple Haulick, who had replaced the flesh in Bethlehem, not oppose the use of the chalice, not to fight Jacobel, and his friend Christian to adjure Bohemian nobility of having to defend a use which the council had to ban contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the primitive tradition. The execution of Huss, which occurred on the following July 6, aroused the indignation of supporters of the chalice and excited a bloody revolt in Bohemia. Despite the intervention of the Bishop of Leitomysl, who was powerless to avert the storm, the nobility sent a protest to the council, notifying its refusal to obey. The use of the chalice was maintained and widespread; it became a rallying sign, the symbol of Calixtines.