gladtobe:
Not exactly. The consecrated bread was only offered for fear of spilling the cup, which makes good sense. Also some folks are allergic to alcohol. Also 100 people drinking from one cup can create germ problems. Cold germs, trench mouth and transference of cold sores as well. I do see why only one should be offered. So I have no problem with it, either way.
It wasn’t entirely about spilling the cup. Up until the 12th century receiving in both kinds or only in one kind was up for grabs, though after the ninth century it became more common to receive in one kind only.
Receiving in one kind was nailed down at Trent in response to the
utraquist (aka Hussite) heresy which declared that
not to receive in both kinds meant that one did not fully receive the Body and Blood of our Lord. At every Mass
both kinds are offered and received by the Priest, who acts on behalf of the congregation.
The matter of receiving in one kind was, from the earliest times, not considered essential, as exemplified by the common practice of taking the Sacred Body alone to those who were ill or could not come to Church.
The Church takes very seriously what can and what cannot be changed in the matter and the manner of administering sacraments. (Witness the recent uproar over gluten.) She very seriously considers what is divine command and what is not. Therefore both kinds MUST be offered at
every Mass. They need not be received by the laity at every Mass – many refrain from receiving Communion in
either kind. Just as the Church adopted the practice of distributing Communion in one kind, she has restored the practice of distributing it in both kinds – presumably because the utraquists no longer pose a threat to Catholic orthodoxy.
God Bless
