Diocese limits Communion under both kinds, laments excessive extraordinary ministers

I applaud Vatican II for moving the Church towards reception of both kinds.

It must be pointed out that Vatican II did not call for Communion under both species at all Masses but only at special occasions:

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.
Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 55.

There is no theological objections, per se, against Communion under both species but there are serious practical problems, especially at large Masses, that cannot be lightly dismissed. Additionally, there has grown a school of thought requiring Communion under both species that has serious theological problems which I have pointed out above. The emphasis on the manner of reception rather than on the WHO of reception weakens our faith in the reality of the Eucharist. The entirety of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is present under the smallest particle of either species. The insistence on Communion under both species as the only valid way to receive attacks this truth.

Many of the practical problems with Communion under both species could be resolved if we were to seriously consider the use of intinction. Many, however, object because:

1) it differs from the manner in which the priest receives,

2) it precludes Communion in the hand, and

3) it goes contrary to what is an overemphasis on the act of drinking which clouds the reality of the person who is received, Jesus Christ.

My, perhaps judgemental, take on it is that the Blood of Christ gets chosen by those who are a bit more devout, generally, and are taking Communion more seriously than those who take the Host and then saunter away without their hands folded.

You are indeed being judgmental. I know of many very devout Catholics who prefer to receive under the form of bread alone.

In fact, reception of the host alone has long been considered a pious practice, because it is a recognition that we receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ under each individual Kind.

The time for reception under both Kinds to be more limited is long overdue. It has been used as an excuse to routinely use extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.

I’m just curious as to the rationale behind only offering the bread under normal circumstances.

I’m just curious as to the rationale behind only offering the bread under normal circumstances.

In the pre Novus Ordo liturgy, the Latin Mass (more commonly referred to as the Tridentine Liturgy), communion consisted of the consecrated host. It was only distributed by a priest (there were no deacons), on the tongue to communicants kneeling at an altar rail. It looked like this.

Since our Lord is present - Body, Soul and Divinity - in both species, it was far more expedient to distribute only the eucharistic host.

The Eastern Catholic Churches have always distributed communion by intinction; i.e. - the priest dips the consecrated host into the Precious Blood and places it on the tongue of the communicant.

Probably more information than you were seeking but this is how it has been done for centuries.

(A friend of mine says she does that because she is concerned about germs from the cup.) My, perhaps judgemental, take on it is that the Blood of Christ gets chosen by those who are a bit more devout, generally, and are taking Communion more seriously than those who take the Host and then saunter away without their hands folded.

I can't speak to many people who choose to receive only under one kind, but as for myself it surely has nothing to do with germs. I honestly find that a troubling statement. How can the Sacrament of Healing spread disease? It seems to speak against the entirety of our faith. I also don't consider myself less devout than others. Rather, I do not think reception under both kinds is sacramentally greater than only receiving under one kind. You don't get more Christ, or more grace doing it that way. I think it is nice to offer it in such a manner as it does better reflect the actions of our Lord, but that doesn't mean everyone has to indulge in the practice. Personally it means risking possible spills or accidents of a terrible nature for what would be a personally symbolic action. Just not what I choose to do. But, I certainly can't see how it makes me less devout.

Your photo reminds me of attending Mass as a child with my Grandparents every Sunday. Kneeling at the rail for Communion, very reverent. You knew it was special and if you felt unworthy you did not go to that rail, but rather waited to go to confession.

As a chalice bearer in my Anglican (not episcopalian) parish I have noticed that over the years more and more people are dipping rather than sipping. I know a lot will cite germ concerns, but the fact is that germs are more of a problem with dipping rather than sipping. Of course, considering that the question concerns the Blood of Christ, germs wouldn’t be a problem anyway.

As you may be aware, the Anglican Church did away with Communion in One Kind in 1559 (it was retained by Henry VIII, abolished by Edward VI, reinstated by Mary I, and ended by Elizabeth I). The reason is simple, we are commanded to eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood. He said we must do both. Everywhere one is mentioned, the other is also mentioned. Nowhere are they distributed to two different sets of people. Therefore, in light of Christ’s instruction (John 6) and His institution (Last Supper), the Flesh and Blood ar both part of the Sacrament and both should be distributed to all who are worthy to receive.

This is a step backwards. According to St Jusin Martyr, everyone in the early chuch received the chalice.

Just to add one thing to think about, practice in the early Church may or may not be a more "licit" form of practice. The idea that we should be practicing as they did in the second or third centuries is an assumption that may or may not be good.

In my Episcopal parish we have a communion rail. We used to use it all the time. Now we distribute Communion standing up except during Lent, when we use the rail. But we always distribute both the bread and the wine.