I appreciate receiving communion under both species. Interesting thing at our church is that about 1/2 of the communicants just receive the host. (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.
Random comment: if you like people watching, check out the communion line, as the people range from holy to clueless.
You are indeed being judgmental. I know of many very devout Catholics who prefer to receive under the form of bread alone.
(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.