score:4
I'm not sure my answer applies, as I don't know whether the Episcopal Church teaches transubstantiation. But, if it does, you could refer to the Catholic Church's stance on the matter. I.E., Christ is fully present in both species, both in the appearance of bread and the appearance of wine. Hence, to receive either one is to receive Christ in fullness.
There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds (Trent, sess. XXI, c. i.) (c) By reason of the hypostatic union and of the indivisibility of His glorified humanity, Christ is really present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either species alone; nor, as regards the fruits of the sacrament, is the communicant under one kind deprived of any grace necessary for salvation (Trent, Sess. XXI, c., iii).
-- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm
I haven't read the article in full. But, from what little I've read, this actually seems to be a pretty controversial topic in Church history!
Upvote:4
There is, as far as I know, no theological reason for not partaking of the wine. However there are a number of practical ones, more than just 'ick':