Offer Communion Under Both Kinds?

[DesertSnowdrop]

This is an issue in my diocese. There has been a movement at several churches, including the cathedral, to only receiving the Body. It has not been popular with the laity, except the more germaphobic around us. A couple parishes with priests who disagree are now offering communion under both kinds at daily mass just to make a stand for “allowing the people to experience the fullness of the sacrament”.

I struggle with this as a celiac. If the Precious Blood isn’t offered I generally don’t receive communion or have to enter into negotiations with the sacristan. Essentially I have to ask permission from a lay person to receive. That permission can and has been denied at times. I went for a couple years receiving the Precious Blood alone and now fortunately have been able to receive under both kinds at my home parish. I cannot even describe how beautiful it is to receive under both kinds for me.

 

[twf]

Yes. All the time. But I’m wondering why this is even being asked. It’s up to the parish priest, and is for him and his Bishop to decide. It’s permitted and not a source of concern.

It can be a logistical concern. The Chalice is rarely distributed in my archdiocese. I have never ever seen it distributed at our cathedral in the 10 years I have lived in this archdiocese. We receive at the altar rail (Ordinary Form) - its logistically / practically easier with just the Host.

 

[twf]

Nobody said that.
Generally, these kinds of threads are designed to start a fight. It’s doing a pretty good job thus far.
I’m out.
The Laity can discuss these things, but we should not question the judgement of the Church.

Of course, though that goes both ways. As I noted, we DON’T distribute the Chalice in my archdiocese… I’ve seen people challenge / question that approach on this forum as well.

 

[twf]

Is that a good thing? I’m not sure that it is. Some will bring up temporal concerns like parking to advocate for faster communion/Masses but I’m just not convinced that’s a good thing.

That’s the whole basis of using EMHCs…to speed things up. Right or wrong, the “time it takes” is a consideration every priest weighs.

 

[Phemie]

This is an issue in my diocese. There has been a movement at several churches, including the cathedral, to only receiving the Body. It has not been popular with the laity, except the more germaphobic around us. A couple parishes with priests who disagree are now offering communion under both kinds at daily mass just to make a stand for “allowing the people to experience the fullness of the sacrament”.

I struggle with this as a celiac. If the Precious Blood isn’t offered I generally don’t receive communion or have to enter into negotiations with the sacristan. Essentially I have to ask permission from a lay person to receive. That permission can and has been denied at times. I went for a couple years receiving the Precious Blood alone and now fortunately have been able to receive under both kinds at my home parish. I cannot even describe how beautiful it is to receive under both kinds for me.

In my diocese the former Bishop felt that every parish should offer Communion under both kinds. When the H1N1 virus was on the go, offering the chalice was discontinued and in our parish only the priest distributed Communion. Once the outbreak died down the Bishop sent a pointed letter saying that it was important to start offering Communion under both kinds again.

But I travel quite a bit for work and on holidays and I can say that most parishes I’ve been to in the last several years, including two Cathedral parishes, don’t offer Communion under both species. In three weeks I’ll have to opportunity to see what happens in another Cathedral parish.

 

[paduard]

Yes, at every Mass weekdays as well as Sunday.

Same where I am.
paduard

 

[CatholicCraze]

It tends to vary from parish to parish. For instance, my parish at home only gives out the host and gives the wine out for Gluten free people. Our former pastor made it like this after the whole swine flu so we haven’t had the wine since. Our new pastor is currently trying to bring the wine which I really hope he does. At my catholic college both are served so where I live it varies based on parish.

 

[Kliska]

I asked around and both are served in the parishes around me here in the midwest, the Catholics I talked to were surprised that both weren’t offered everywhere. It’s just interesting from my protestant POV, and I’m happy to be learning about the “why’s” and “where’s.”

 

[tee_eff_em]

I asked around and both are served in the parishes around me here in the midwest, the Catholics I talked to were surprised that both weren’t offered everywhere. It’s just interesting from my protestant POV, and I’m happy to be learning about the “why’s” and “where’s.”

You do not have to read many threads around here to observe that many people* have parochial blinders, and are surprised to learn that what they experience at home is not normative (nor may even be common!).

(* Though he may be aware of it, expressing this observation does not in any way absolve [user]tee_eff_em[/user] himself of wearing parochial blinders)

tee

 

[Kliska]

You do not have to read many threads around here to observe that many people* have parochial blinders, and are surprised to learn that what they experience at home is not normative (nor may even be common!).

(* Though he may be aware of it, expressing this observation does not in any way absolve [user]tee_eff_em[/user] himself of wearing parochial blinders)

tee

True!

 

[e_c]

Some considerations…

1. IT CAN SPILL. This has happened to me when distributing… people pull the chalice away while still tilted. Disaster. And awkward to try to tell them what to do with their clothing.
2. MUSTACHES. Oh man. Self-explanatory.
3. UNSANITARY. Really… a hundred people’s backwash? Not safe, and gross even if everyone’s fit as fiddles. The very elderly especially can have a hard time with basically spitting back into the cup.
4. EXPENSIVE. Those gallon bottles of wine are not cheap. Over the years, it adds up.
5. TIME CONSUMING. Father has to distribute to x EMHC’s once, then twice, or there must be delicate choreography to have him split it with those who have been given a chalice to distribute. Then also the line slows down when distributing to congregants.
6. TRAFFIC. The ducking and dodging and weaving can be very frustrating in some parishes. And then if you aren’t receiving under both forms, but the person sitting on your inside is, then you’ll have to wait for them back at the end of the pew or stand up if they want their seat back. A little awkward, since we’re supposed to be focused on something other than that stuff. (COMMUNION RAILS would help solve the issue… as would returning to the ancient design of naves, with seating ONLY for the sick and elderly, which allows for a free-flowing approach. Dream on though, right?)
7. THEOLOGICALLY CONFUSING. Not only is there the issue of the question of the necessity of receiving both, but many people just don’t understand that this too is the Eucharist… There’s “the Eucharist,” and “the wine.” Maybe not distributing it could call attention to the fact that it too is something special.
8. A LOT TO PURIFY. In large congregations, this can be a real problem. Oftentimes, the task is delegated (illegally) to a sacristan or lay volunteer who means well but does not know what they are doing. They rush through the job because of the volume, with x problems along the way, some of which are very, very materially serious. It would be better if Father just had the one chalice to purify, which he could do right there on the altar. And then there is the issue of how to purify (and distribute) chalices to begin with, which is done dubiously… “a little” of the Precious Blood is the same as “a lot,” which is the whole Christ. Purificators touching some is, in this respect, the same as getting them soaked. Why is this the common practice? I digress.
9. ALCOHOL PROBLEMS. Some kids just want to drink. All alcoholics just want to drink. YES this is a real thing.
10. IT CAN SPILL. It bears repeating.

 

[Phemie]

Some considerations…

1. TIME CONSUMING. Father has to distribute to x EMHC’s once, then twice, or there must be delicate choreography to have him split it with those who have been given a chalice to distribute. Then also the line slows down when distributing to congregants.

EMHCs are to receive Communion only from the priest, so yes, he has to give Hosts to all then offer the Chalice to all who wish to receive from it. Not all EMHCs opt to receive from the Chalice, though. I know a couple in our parish who never do.

1. TRAFFIC. The ducking and dodging and weaving can be very frustrating in some parishes.** And then if you aren’t receiving under both forms, but the person sitting on your inside is, then you’ll have to wait for them back at the end of the pew or stand up if they want their seat back.** A little awkward, since we’re supposed to be focused on something other than that stuff. (COMMUNION RAILS would help solve the issue… as would returning to the ancient design of naves, with seating ONLY for the sick and elderly, which allows for a free-flowing approach. Dream on though, right?)

That’s no different from the way Communion at the rail was. People went in no particular order and therefore returned to the pew in no particular order. Moving to let them in was not a problem then and it’s not a problem now.

1. A LOT TO PURIFY. In large congregations, this can be a real problem. Oftentimes, the task is delegated (illegally) to a sacristan or lay volunteer who means well but does not know what they are doing. They rush through the job because of the volume, with x problems along the way, some of which are very, very materially serious. It would be better if Father just had the one chalice to purify, which he could do right there on the altar. And then there is the issue of how to purify (and distribute) chalices to begin with, which is done dubiously… “a little” of the Precious Blood is the same as “a lot,” which is the whole Christ. Purificators touching some is, in this respect, the same as getting them soaked. Why is this the common practice? I digress.

Our parish isn’t large so we’ve had, at maximum, 3 chalices to be purified. Father still does it at the altar before he goes to sit down. Gives us time to pray in silence.

 

[e_c]

**1. **EMHCs are to receive Communion only from the priest, so yes, he has to give Hosts to all then offer the Chalice to all who wish to receive from it. Not all EMHCs opt to receive from the Chalice, though. I know a couple in our parish who never do.

**2. **That’s no different from the way Communion at the rail was. People went in no particular order and therefore returned to the pew in no particular order. Moving to let them in was not a problem then and it’s not a problem now.

1. Not sure if you mean there is some rule buried in the rubrics about EMHC’s reception, or are just assuming that there is one…?
2. The rail lets people consume before walking back. That’s the bigger issue… A rail can cause similar confusion (but not necessarily!), though it allows for that moment of consumption to be focused. And again - without pews or chairs, there’s no problem of constraint in seating. Bring back the medieval nave!

 

[LPS]

I live in rural Iowa and it’s offered under both species at all masses, daily mass included.

 

[Reuben_J]

Some considerations…

1. IT CAN SPILL. This has happened to me when distributing… people pull the chalice away while still tilted. Disaster. And awkward to try to tell them what to do with their clothing.
2. MUSTACHES. Oh man. Self-explanatory.
3. UNSANITARY. Really… a hundred people’s backwash? Not safe, and gross even if everyone’s fit as fiddles. The very elderly especially can have a hard time with basically spitting back into the cup.
4. EXPENSIVE. Those gallon bottles of wine are not cheap. Over the years, it adds up.
5. TIME CONSUMING. Father has to distribute to x EMHC’s once, then twice, or there must be delicate choreography to have him split it with those who have been given a chalice to distribute. Then also the line slows down when distributing to congregants.
6. TRAFFIC. The ducking and dodging and weaving can be very frustrating in some parishes. And then if you aren’t receiving under both forms, but the person sitting on your inside is, then you’ll have to wait for them back at the end of the pew or stand up if they want their seat back. A little awkward, since we’re supposed to be focused on something other than that stuff. (COMMUNION RAILS would help solve the issue… as would returning to the ancient design of naves, with seating ONLY for the sick and elderly, which allows for a free-flowing approach. Dream on though, right?)
7. THEOLOGICALLY CONFUSING. Not only is there the issue of the question of the necessity of receiving both, but many people just don’t understand that this too is the Eucharist… There’s “the Eucharist,” and “the wine.” Maybe not distributing it could call attention to the fact that it too is something special.
8. A LOT TO PURIFY. In large congregations, this can be a real problem. Oftentimes, the task is delegated (illegally) to a sacristan or lay volunteer who means well but does not know what they are doing. They rush through the job because of the volume, with x problems along the way, some of which are very, very materially serious. It would be better if Father just had the one chalice to purify, which he could do right there on the altar. And then there is the issue of how to purify (and distribute) chalices to begin with, which is done dubiously… “a little” of the Precious Blood is the same as “a lot,” which is the whole Christ. Purificators touching some is, in this respect, the same as getting them soaked. Why is this the common practice? I digress.
9. ALCOHOL PROBLEMS. Some kids just want to drink. All alcoholics just want to drink. YES this is a real thing.
10. IT CAN SPILL. It bears repeating.

Hahaha … good points though. It’s difficult but can be done.

Out of the said practicality, in our parish it is not done, not even thought of. The congregation is just too big, the wine that’s being required for it would cost a bomb, not that the parish cannot afford it. People here are crazily sanitary conscious and the thought of sharing the chalice, the Precious Blood notwithstanding, would be just unthinkable.

The clamouring for the the Blood could depends much on the culture especially if Catholicism is already very long established. In countries with relatively new generations of Catholics where the Blood has not been served, it would not be missed.

 

[Phemie]

1. Not sure if you mean there is some rule buried in the rubrics about EMHC’s reception, or are just assuming that there is one…?

From the USCCB’s document on EMHCs

If extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are required by pastoral need, they should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion. After the priest has concluded his own Communion, he distributes Communion to the extraordinary ministers, assisted by the deacon, and then hands the sacred vessels to them for distribution of Holy Communion to the people.

 

[revert_jen]

We don’t at my parish, and I’m glad.

I fully agree that it is fine to do it and do not disagree with it being the right of the bishop or priest to decide. I’m just glad we don’t, for one liturgical reason and two personal reasons.

Liturgical reason: Distributing under both kinds means more EMHCs. Since they’re Extraordinary, I think they should be as few as possible. Yes, we have them (except of course at the EF), and that is certainly allowed, but fewer is better.

Personal reason 1: I feel uncomfortable receiving the Blood because I’m never sure when it will reach my lips, and I’m trying to take only a sip, and sometimes I’m too slow–it’s just awkward. I can’t concentrate on Who I’m receiving because I’m too focused on not screwing it up.

Personal reason 2: I prefer not to have to pass by someone distributing the Precious Blood because even if I bow it feels disrespectful just to walk by.

I’m perfectly fine if other people are receiving under both kinds and are happy about it. I’m just talking about how I personally feel about it.

–Jen

 

[e_c]

From the USCCB’s document on EMHCs

Ah yes. I have seen this before. It is an extremely ambiguous passage, don’t you think?

Should not approach the altar… Does this mean they should be in their pews? Just not up the steps? Or can they be standing nearby but not approach the altar itself, to receive, until after Father?

Distributes to the EMHC’s… But is it necessary that he individually distributes to all of them? The language doesn’t insist…

Assisted by the deacon… MUST the deacon assist, supposing one is there? Or is it just a suggestion?

And then hands… May the vessels be passed, or must it be done in particular? It seems clear that they should not be picking up the vessels off the altar itself, but other than that it’s a little unclear.

Oh well. There are bigger fish to fry in the current liturgical situation of these USA.

 

[Phemie]

Ah yes. I have seen this before. It is an extremely ambiguous passage, don’t you think?

Should not approach the altar… Does this mean they should be in their pews? Just not up the steps? Or can they be standing nearby but not approach the altar itself, to receive, until after Father?

Distributes to the EMHC’s… But is it necessary that he individually distributes to all of them? The language doesn’t insist…

Assisted by the deacon… MUST the deacon assist, supposing one is there? Or is it just a suggestion?

And then hands… May the vessels be passed, or must it be done in particular? It seems clear that they should not be picking up the vessels off the altar itself, but other than that it’s a little unclear.

Oh well. There are bigger fish to fry in the current liturgical situation of these USA.

If the deacon is present he should be the one offering the chalice since that is one of his duties during Mass.

 

[MooCowSteph]

Does anyone feel like the withholding of the precious blood is denying people a full participation in the sacrament? Is that a “fair” allegation?