[Mad Dawg]

You were criticizing not offering the chalice, right?
That suggested that you thought both species should be offered.

So then the question is how and to what extent is partaking of both kinds necessary. For example, would it be necessary for whom gluten provokes a nasty reaction to partake of the Sacred Body, even though the 'accidents' remain? What EXACTLY would someone who could not safely eat the "accidents" of bread be missing if he only received the Precious Blood.

Good theology involves more than merely mocking those with whom one disagrees. If one triumphantly makes an observation or contemptuously asks a question, there will be interpretations of the observation and answers to the questions.

If the person trumpeting observations and questions does not read the answers or, at any rate respond to them, there's a suggestion of darkening counsel with words without knowledge.

[metmom]

There’s a big difference between the church not offering the cup as part of communion for centuries, in lack of obedience to Christ’s commands and example, and someone who is not able to partake of part of the element due to medical reasons.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but does the Church not have rice wafers for such a contingency?

Both elements should be offered and taken as possible because of the example and command of Christ Himself. The church not even offering the cup to parishioners is irresponsible and does a disservice to them in denying them the opportunity to fully participate in communion as Christ and His disciples did.

As far as people not drinking of the cup because of fear of illness, why doesn’t the Catholic church do as the Evangelical ones do and have small disposable cups to hold the wine/grape juice/ fruit of the vine?

That would address the hygiene concerns.

[Iscool]

Good theology involves more than merely mocking those with whom one disagrees. If one triumphantly makes an observation or contemptuously asks a question, there will be interpretations of the observation and answers to the questions.

You must mean 'unless you are Catholic', because that appears to be the hallmark of Catholic Christianity on FR...

So then the question is how and to what extent is partaking of both kinds necessary. For example, would it be necessary for whom gluten provokes a nasty reaction to partake of the Sacred Body, even though the 'accidents' remain? What EXACTLY would someone who could not safely eat the "accidents" of bread be missing if he only received the Precious Blood.

Have we not heard time after time that the bread becomes no longer bread, except in touch, taste, appearance, sound and taste???