Pros and Cons of distributing Holy Communion under both kinds vs. one kind?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Duesenberg

Guest
I was thinking about the pros and cons of distributing Holy Communion under both kinds versus one kind today. Here is what came to mind:

Advantages to Holy Communion via both kinds:
  • The sign value of Holy Communion is improved by making it fuller when distributed under both kinds.
  • Those who have difficulty swallowing solid/dry matter can opt to receive communion under the appearance of wine only.
Disadvantages to Holy Communion via both kinds:
  • Can foster the false belief that neither species alone contains the full Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
  • Can make some feel “cheated” by those parishes that distribute Holy Communion under one kind.
  • Doubles the number of sacred vessels which need to be purified, which reduces the probability they will be purified by clerics or instituted acolytes as required by the Church.
  • Does not allow for underscoring the particularly solemn nature of certain Masses (Easter, Christmas, etc.) by limiting communion under both kinds to these Masses.
  • Typically results in more than doubling the use of extraordinary ministers of holy communion which often leads to a host of problems, including the feeling of entitlement to serve as a EMHC.
  • Increases the possibility of profaning the Blessed Sacrament (double the number of communions.)
  • Fosters the horrible abuse of pouring the Precious Blood to individual chalices, particularly in large parishes or cathedrals.
  • Can cause consternation if the chalice is drained before one has a chance to receive communion.
  • Can greatly congest the activity in the sanctuary and the flow of communion distribution in many churches.
  • Greatly increases the probability that EMsHC will publicly refer to the Blessed Sacrament as “wine” or “bread.”
  • Cost of wine.
What’s the common practice in the parishes where you live? What do you prefer?
 
Last edited:
I am geographically equidistant between two Catholic churches. One church has both kinds, the other church has one kind. I have noticed that even when both kinds are available, not everyone receives both.

Personally I like simplicity of one kind.
 
I think that your Cons are highly overinflated.

These are all matters of perception and besides the cost of wine can easily be remedied by having good training of EM’s and good teachings to their parishioners. Stationing EM’s well can keep order.

The cost of wine strikes me as a bit petty. More than a bit petty.

I have a strong gag reflex with alcohol when I smell it…so I don’t miss it when it goes away for flu season.

But allowing both is probably best. They are both beautiful and given by God for the fullness of our faith even if each has the fullness of themselves.
 
I was going to add one more to the “advantages to Holy Communion via both kinds” – those suffering from Celiac disease can choose to receive under the appearance of wine without special preparation. However whenever I have witnessed someone who suffers from this disease receive Holy Communion, they did so from a chalice prepared specifically for people who suffer from the disease.
 
Last edited:
Duesenberg said:
I was going to add one more to the “advantages to Holy Communion via both kinds” – those suffering from Celiac disease can choose to receive under the appearance of wine on their own. However whenever I have witnessed someone who suffers from this disease receive Holy Communion, they did so from a chalice prepared specifically for people who suffer from the disease.
Click to expand...
Yes, for the most severe sufferers a wise pastor will prepare an individual chalice to ensure that there is no cross-contamination.

Still, some people will simply prefer the species of wine…there are entire monistaries dedicated to the Sacred Blood of Jesus.
 
A pastor might also elect to have communion under both kinds using intinction only. The host is dipped into the chalice and placed on the tongue. I might add that this method requires the consecration of a lot less wine.

But in most parishes I have been where both kinds are offered, the majority of the congregation elects to receive the host only.
 
I miss the cup during flu season. I guess because I FIRMLY believe that the contents of the chalice will NEVER bring me physical harm.
 
What is the purpose of this thread? The Church has spoken.
In our Archdiocese intinction is forbidden.
Take and drink.
 
JimG said:
A pastor might also elect to have communion under both kinds using intinction only. The host is dipped into the chalice and placed on the tongue. I might add that this method requires the consecration of a lot less wine.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed. I think Holy Communion via intinction is a wonderful thing. Something very special. That’s how I received first communion. I especially like the way Francis distributes via intinction: he holds the chalice of Precious Blood and someone next to him holds a ciborium of consecrated hosts – the reverse of what I am used to. Works out very well and it’s very secure from what I have seen,
 
joeybaggz said:
I miss the cup during flu season. I guess because I FIRMLY believe that the contents of the chalice will NEVER bring me physical harm.
Click to expand...
Is the cup commonly withheld where you live during flu season? I only remember it happening twice here – when people were actually dying in this state from influenza. Even then it cause quite a stir – many felt they weren’t receiving “full” communion.

Last Easter Vigil Mass I helped the celebrant purify the vessels after communion. Pouring water (we should have used wine) from vessel to vessel, the main chalice ended up holding a cup of rinse water. The priest wisely motioned for me to consume it and I did. I had a scratchy throat and a cold (but not flu) the next morning. Next time on the set-up, I’m going to have a small vessel of wine ready.
 
Last edited:
My dioceses, and the 8 dioceses that surround me (encompassing 3 different states) all pull the Cup during flu season. It has been that way for a decade or more. That said, according to the CARA study 75% of those attending Mass are over 55, so the flu is a major concern. Those with gluten issues still are given a reserved chalice.

It doesn’t take much to have a well-trained congregation. People are extremely respectful and there’s no EM’s with big heads, people getting the wrong idea or any of the craziness you imply.
 
I guess it is up to the bishop or at least the pastor. Self-intinction by the communicant is always forbidden. Intinction, if done, must always be done by the minister and placed on the tongue. There are special intinction ciboria available wherein the hosts are in a ciborium which has a small chalice secured to the center.
 
JimG said:
I guess it is up to the bishop or at least the pastor. Self-intinction by the communicant is always forbidden. Intinction, if done, must always be done by the minister and placed on the tongue. There are special intinction ciboria available wherein the hosts are in a ciborium which has a small chalice secured to the center.
Click to expand...
Yes there are. I have used those a number of times. They work out well also.

I really wish intinction was more common. It’s wonderful to see Pope Francis and earlier, Pope Benedict XVI distribute communion via intinction. It’s also interesting to note that most of the cardinal concelebrants (licitly for them) take communion via intinction over the altar at St. Pete’s.
 
Last edited:
In Italy (where we spend half the year), the Precious Blood is not offered to the congregation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top