Reconsidering Communion "Under Both Kinds"?

[ASimpleSinner]

I know this will not make me popular in the least, but after 25+ years of watching communion “under both kinds” I am inclined to say it may be time to reconsider this practice.

Where I grew up we had four Masses per weekend with 6 people distributing under the element of the host, and 6 distributing under the element wine.

The smallest particle or drop of the Eucharist in either species is whole and complete. Never minding that one element is sufficient… (I always wondered if recieving both seperately could count as two communions!)

1. 
   *]This practice necessitated 40-44 layman participating per weekend. That is a lot of hands handling the Eucharist, and a lot of souls the oversee to see that they are prepared for it
   *]This practice necessitated 12 vessels - 6 for “hosts” and 6 for “wine”… the parish I attended in my youth ended up using wooden bowels and crystal-cut wine glasses. Neither had any particular religious symbolics or could said to be of craftsmanship. (It was explained to me that more expensive sacred vessels would be burdensome to the parish financially.) They were of the same sort you may eat a salad or drink wine out of at a restaraunt
   *]This practice largely precluded pre-conciar pieties and “safety measures” of servers using patton to protect the host from falling. In fact…
   *]This practice means more vessels to monitor and clean properly… and when it came to mishandling the element…
   
   *]The Eucharist in the appearance of wine is not only more difficult to prevent from spilling and profaning, commonly enough, droplets (which are just as complete as a “host” the size of a hubcap) would natrually fall down chins, spill on clothing, and then (if things go as planned) also be absorbed into the linens the EMCs were using to wipe the lipstick off the wine glasses being used… Where I attended, those linens were tossed into a plastic basket after Mass.
   *]
   
   http://www.jelldragon.com/images/wooden_bowl_400.jpg http://www.johnlewis.com/jl_assets/product/230176126.jpg
   
   Now I know some will point out that the vessel types used were against the Church directives on the matter to begin with, as was the improper disposal of the Eucharist in the element wine… But I respond, the more chance for abuse, the more abuse seems almost demanded.
   
   In the end my simplest thesis is this: Would restricting the administration of the Blessed Sacrament to only the element of the host possibly (1) aid improving catechesis on the nature of the Sacrament and (2) help reduce abuses to the Blessed Sacrament through better controlling administration, and (somewhat related!) (3) help reduce abuses or other problems with sacred vessels and their proper purification?

 

[tcraig]

Many parishes have just as much “opportunity” for abuse as yours does, yet the problems you list do not occur.

Rather than reconsidering communion under both kinds, you might want to first address the problems in your parish.

Personally, I generally think its best to make sure things are being done as the Church directs before deciding that the Church needs to change her practices.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Many parishes have just as much “opportunity” for abuse as yours does, yet the problems you list do not occur.

Rather than reconsidering communion under both kinds, you might want to first address the problems in your parish.

Personally, I generally think its best to make sure things are being done as the Church directs before deciding that the Church needs to change her practices.

It isn’t my parish.

But you really address just a very small portion of my concern here.

Even following instructions to the “T” leaves wide open the door in large parishes making effort to consecrate large quantities of wine for greater chance of accidentally profaning the Blessed Sacrament. Leaving alone the matter of purification of the vessels, a parish with several hundred communicants needs a great deal of the Blessed Sacrament in the form of wine if they intend to commune a significant number in that form. That is a great deal of spillage, chin dripping, and the Blessed Sacrament absorbed unto the purificators.

In parishes where red wine is consecrated, keep an eye on the white purificators…

I also have heard on numerous occasions, Catholics make reference to receiving both the “body and the blood” with some now of the opinion that they make an incomplete communion if they don’t receive under both species. Even the smallest amount of either would be complete…

Personally, I also think its best to make sure things are being done as the Church directs before deciding that the Church needs to change her practices. Then again, the re-introduction of “the cup” in this fashion, is a pretty recent change to begin with.

Re-considering how well its going seems fair enough

 

[Rolltide]

I don’t necessarily think I agree with your premise. There are a lot of different issues to address in your statement, and many of them have to do with abuses. Quite a number of these can be addressed in other ways. Here are some points that I think should be looked at:

1. Eastern Catholics have offered Communion under both kinds since the early days of its practices, through intinction offered on a golden spoon. They seem to have done a very good job of controlling abuses, so perhaps that is a solution that can be looked at instead. It is allowed in the Latin Catholic Church.
2. There have been allowances for reception of the cup even before the Council of Trent. Historically, although the widespread reception of the cup is a recent phenomenon, indults have been allowed for hundreds of years.
3. Many of the abuses you speak of are not the fault of the practice of receiving under both species, but the fault of the overuse of Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers and their poor training. The problem with the vessals used would not necessarily be solved simply by reverting to reception of the bread alone, since wine would still end up being consecrated. Perhaps its time to seek out some donations for some proper vessals for your parish. Further, the pope is aware of the problem of vessal purification, and has recently addressed this issue in a document.
4. There are small numbers of parishoners that suffer from Celiac Disease, which renders it impossible for them to digest wheat gluten. In other words, they are allergic to bread and can ONLY receive the wine. Provisions would still have to be made for them.

 

[benedictgal]

Here is what Francis Cardinal Arinze said regarding Communion under both species. This is most interesting:

I noticed in this country many people insist on receiving under two forms – that means, the form of Body of Christ and Blood of Christ. If the bishop has approved it, that’s all right. ***But it means it demands a lot of care because it is so easy to spill the Precious Blood.

It is so easy, and, as you mentioned earlier, in these days of disease, some people are worried if there are up to 50 people drinking from the same cup. Some people are hesitant.***

Why would people not accept intinction? You [the priest] take the Body of Christ and just dip in the Precious Blood and give it to the person on the tongue. But the ministers must be priests or deacons, if they want that.

Something else troubled me in the previous post. We need to refer to the Sacred Species using proper terms. It is not “wine”. It is the Precious Blood. It is not “bread”. It is the Body of Christ. Let’s try to be more precise in our terminology.

 

[Fillmont]

…Even following instructions to the “T” leaves wide open the door in large parishes making effort to consecrate large quantities of wine for greater chance of accidentally profaning the Blessed Sacrament. Leaving alone the matter of purification of the vessels, a parish with several hundred communicants needs a great deal of the Blessed Sacrament in the form of wine if they intend to commune a significant number in that form. That is a great deal of spillage, chin dripping, and the Blessed Sacrament absorbed unto the purificators…

With diligent planning and execution your concerns are non-issues to a point. We have about 1,000 communicants per Mass. That’s 8 chalices with about 4 ounces of Precious Blood per chalice or one quart per Mass. That’s not a large quantity and it would be smaller in most parishes.

I would say better than 90% of that “red” you see is women’s lipstick wiped from the chalice. In any even if the sacred linens are handled correctly, having Precious Blood on them should not be a great concern.

NOW, communion under both kinds in a huge place like Saint Peter’s or even a venue like the National Shrine would be very difficult indeed – but again, it could be carried off reverently with proper and dilligent planning.

 

[japhy]

NOW, communion under both kinds in a huge place like Saint Peter’s or even a venue like the National Shrine would be very difficult indeed – but again, it could be carried off reverently with proper and dilligent planning.

If you mean Communion under both kinds not via intinction, but rather simply presenting the chalice to communicants, then no, it is not permitted for such large venues:

The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”. The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated. (Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 102)

 

[benedictgal]

If you mean Communion under both kinds not via intinction, but rather simply presenting the chalice to communicants, then no, it is not permitted for such large venues:

The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”. The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated. (Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 102)

You make an excellent point, japhy. That’s why at Papal Masses (even in smaller venues, like when the Holy Father celebrated Mass at San Sabino and at the Roman juvenile detention center), Holy Communion is administered under one species. Having 1,000 communicants certainly should not warrant both species as there are dangers involved.

 

[Walking_Home]

A major problem in reference to communion under both kinds is the danger of the Ultraquist heresy. Frankly – after reading many a thread and being involved in some — It seems that it is already being disseminated within the Church.

 

[japhy]

A major problem in reference to communion under both kinds is the danger of the Ultraquist heresy. Frankly – after reading many a thread and being involved in some — It seems that it is already being disseminated within the Church.

Seriously, when’s the last time you heard the word “concomitance”?

 

[Cristiano]

Even following instructions to the “T” leaves wide open the door in large parishes making effort to consecrate large quantities of wine for greater chance of accidentally profaning the Blessed Sacrament.

Profanation is not accidental, it is intentional and it is due to abuse, irreverence and contempt. If things were done to a “T” I would not see any issue with it.

 

[Cristiano]

A major problem in reference to communion under both kinds is the danger of the Ultraquist heresy. Frankly – after reading many a thread and being involved in some — It seems that it is already being disseminated within the Church.

Seriously, when’s the last time you heard the word “concomitance”?

I think that concomitance itself is not an insurance to prevent heresy. Heresy is not due to validity or not of the Eucharist. It is due to people’s poor understanding of the Truth.

 

[japhy]

I think that concomitance itself is not an insurance to prevent heresy. Heresy is not due to validity or not of the Eucharist. It is due to people’s poor understanding of the Truth.

I just meant that I don’t think concomitance is being taught. I’m quite sure I never learned it in CCD 16 years ago. Instead of teaching concomitance, people are told (in very poor terminology) about the “fuller sign value” of receiving under both kinds.

 

[Cristiano]

I just meant that I don’t think concomitance is being taught. I’m quite sure I never learned it in CCD 16 years ago. Instead of teaching concomitance, people are told (in very poor terminology) about the “fuller sign value” of receiving under both kinds.

Oh!!! I think that you are quite right with this statement. I am glad that you brought it up. I have to teach two day class on the Mass and I will keep in mind the idea when we will discuss the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

 

[japhy]

Oh!!! I think that you are quite right with this statement. I am glad that you brought it up. I have to teach two day class on the Mass and I will keep in mind the idea when we will discuss the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Teach both topics: by all means, people should know about Sacrosanctum Concilum’s point of liturgical reform that “[t]he dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit” (n. 55). In other words, Vatican II did not change or ignore Trent (as some people like to claim), but reaffirmed Trent’s teaching on concomitance, while relaxing the restrictions on the concession of the chalice to the laity.

Make sure people know that they are not receiving “less” or “more” of Jesus’s Real Presence in Holy Communion when they receiving under one or both kinds. It is simply a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet (cf. Sacramentali Communione).

 

[Newbie2]

I know this will not make me popular in the least, but after 25+ years of watching communion “under both kinds” I am inclined to say it may be time to reconsider this practice.

Where I grew up we had four Masses per weekend with 6 people distributing under the element of the host, and 6 distributing under the element wine.

The smallest particle or drop of the Eucharist in either species is whole and complete. Never minding that one element is sufficient… (I always wondered if recieving both seperately could count as two communions!)

1. 
   *]This practice necessitated 40-44 layman participating per weekend. That is a lot of hands handling the Eucharist, and a lot of souls the oversee to see that they are prepared for it
   *]This practice necessitated 12 vessels - 6 for “hosts” and 6 for “wine”… the parish I attended in my youth ended up using wooden bowels and crystal-cut wine glasses. Neither had any particular religious symbolics or could said to be of craftsmanship. (It was explained to me that more expensive sacred vessels would be burdensome to the parish financially.) They were of the same sort you may eat a salad or drink wine out of at a restaraunt
   *]This practice largely precluded pre-conciar pieties and “safety measures” of servers using patton to protect the host from falling. In fact…
   *]This practice means more vessels to monitor and clean properly… and when it came to mishandling the element…
   
   *]The Eucharist in the appearance of wine is not only more difficult to prevent from spilling and profaning, commonly enough, droplets (which are just as complete as a “host” the size of a hubcap) would natrually fall down chins, spill on clothing, and then (if things go as planned) also be absorbed into the linens the EMCs were using to wipe the lipstick off the wine glasses being used… Where I attended, those linens were tossed into a plastic basket after Mass.
   *]
   
   http://www.jelldragon.com/images/wooden_bowl_400.jpg http://www.johnlewis.com/jl_assets/product/230176126.jpg
   
   Now I know some will point out that the vessel types used were against the Church directives on the matter to begin with, as was the improper disposal of the Eucharist in the element wine… But I respond, the more chance for abuse, the more abuse seems almost demanded.
   
   In the end my simplest thesis is this: Would restricting the administration of the Blessed Sacrament to only the element of the host possibly (1) aid improving catechesis on the nature of the Sacrament and (2) help reduce abuses to the Blessed Sacrament through better controlling administration, and (somewhat related!) (3) help reduce abuses or other problems with sacred vessels and their proper purification?

1. 
   A thesis isn’t in the form of a question, is it?
   
   I guess at some point the probability of inadvertant or abusive handling of either species might outweigh the liturgical desirability of offerning both.

 

[NoSweat]

I’m curious. If the Pope went through whatever process he would use to prohibit offering the chalice to the laity, what percentage of parishes in the USA would follow the new direction?

Would it be higher, lower or the same compared to those who still pour the Precious Blood? How about compared to those who still have non-ordained/instituted people purifying the vessels?

If the Pope were to also rescind the USA’s indult to receive communion-in-hand at the same time, would more or less parishes adhere to the prohibition of not offering the chalice to the faithful or not not allowing communion in hand?

What would you guess the approximate percentages for each would be in the USA? What do you think would be the real world impact in the first couple of years?

 

[japhy]

It might also be interesting to examine the evolution of Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 55 (which suggests that Communion under both kinds be re-instated) over the years.

1963, Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 55: The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact , communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.

1967, Eucharisticum Mysterium, n. 32:… at the discretion of the bishops and preceded by the required catechesis, communion from the chalice is permitted in the following cases, granted already by earlier law or granted by this Instruction:

1. *]to newly baptized adults in the Mass following their baptism; to confirmed adults in the Mass of their confirmation; to baptized persons who are received into the communion of the Church;
   *]to the spouses in the Mass of their wedding;
   *]to those ordained in the Mass of their ordination;
   *]to an abess in the Mass of her blessing; to the consecrated in the Mass of their consecration to a life of virginity; to religious in the Mass of their first profession or of renewal of religious profession, provided they take or renew their vows within the Mass;
   *]to lay missionaries in the Mass at which they are publicly sent out on their mission and to others in the Mass in which they receive an ecclesiastical mission;
   *]in the administration of viaticum, to the sick person and to all who are present when Mass is celebrated, with conformity to the requirements of the law; in the house of the sick person;
   *]to the deacon, subdeacon, and ministers exercising their proper office in a pontifical or solemn Mass;
   *]when there is a concelebration:
   a. to all exercising a genuine liturgical ministry in that concelebration; even lay people, and to all seminarians present;
   b. in their own churches, to all members of institutes professing the evangelical counsels and members of other societies in which the members dedicate themselves to God either through religious vows or oblation or promise, and also to all who reside in the house of the members of these institutes and societies;
   *]to priests present at large celebrations and unable to celebrate or concelebrate;
   *]to all groups making retreats, in a Mass celebrated especially for those actually participating; to all taking part in the meeting of some pastoral commission, at the Mass they celebrate in common;
   *]to those listed under nos. 2 and 4, in the Mass of their jubilee;
   *]to the godfather, godmother, parents, and spouse of baptized adults, and to the laypersons who have catechized them, in the Mass of initiation;
   *]to the relatives, friends, and special benefactors taking part in the Mass of a newly ordained priest.
   
   (The above list is also found in Sacramentali Communione from 1970.)
   
   1970, Liturgicae Instaurationes, n. 6: 6. In its sacramental sign value communion under both kinds expresses a more complete sharing by the faithful. Its concession has as limits the determinations of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (no. 242) and the norm of the Instruction of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Sacramentali Communione, on the extension of the faculty for administering communion under both kinds, June 29, 1970.
   a. Ordinaries are not to grant blanket permission but, within the limits set by the conference of bishops, are to specify the instances and celebrations for this form of communion. To be excluded are occasions when the number of communicants is great. The permission should be for specific, structured, and homogeneous assemblies.
   b. A thorough catechesis is to precede admittance to communion under both kinds so that the people will fully perceive its significance.
   …
   
   1980, Inaestimabile Donum, n. 12:With regard to Communion under both kinds, the norms laid down by the Church must be observed, both by reason of the reverence due to the Sacrament and for the good of those receiving the Eucharist, in accordance with variations in circumstances, times and places. Episcopal conferences and ordinaries also are not to go beyond what is laid down in the present discipline: the granting of permission for Communion under both kinds is not to be indiscriminate, and the celebrations in question are to be specified precisely; the groups that use this faculty are to be clearly defined, well disciplined, and homogeneous.

 

[japhy]

It might also be interesting to examine the evolution of Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 55 (which suggests that Communion under both kinds be re-instated) over the years.

Continued:

2000, (US) GIRM, n. 283:283. In addition to those cases given in the ritual books, Communion under both kinds is permitted for
a. Priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate Mass;
b. The deacon and others who perform some duty at the Mass;
c. Members of communities at the conventual Mass or “community” Mass, along with seminarians, and all who are engaged in a retreat or are taking part in a spiritual or pastoral gathering.

The Diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups. The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason. In all that pertains to Communion under both kinds, the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America are to be followed (see nos. 27-54).

2001, the USCCB’s Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds, nn. 23, 25:When Communion Under Both Kinds May Be Given

1. The revised Missale Romanum, third typical edition, significantly expands those opportunities when Holy Communion may be offered under both kinds. In addition to those instances specified by individual ritual books, the General Instruction states that Communion under both kinds may be permitted as follows:

a. for priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate
b. for the deacon and others who perform some role at Mass
c. for community members at their conventual Mass or what in some places is known as the “community” Mass, for seminarians, [and] for all who are on retreat or are participating in a spiritual or pastoral gathering

…

Catechesis for Receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord

1. When Communion under both kinds is first introduced by the diocesan bishop and also whenever the opportunity for instruction is present, the faithful should be properly catechized on the following matters in the light of the teaching and directives of the General Instruction:

a. the ecclesial nature of the Eucharist as the common possession of the whole Church;
b. the Eucharist as the memorial of Christ’s sacrifice, his death and resurrection, and as the sacred banquet;
c. the real presence of Christ in the Eucharistic elements, whole and entire – in each element of consecrated bread and wine (the doctrine of concomitance);
d. the kinds of reverence due at all times to the sacrament, whether within the Eucharistic Liturgy or outside the celebration; and
e. the role that ordinary and, if necessary, extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist are assigned in the Eucharistic assembly

Also see this article from CatholicLiturgy.com.

 

[centurionguard]

I know this will not make me popular in the least, but after 25+ years of watching communion “under both kinds” I am inclined to say it may be time to reconsider this practice.

Where I grew up we had four Masses per weekend with 6 people distributing under the element of the host, and 6 distributing under the element wine.

The smallest particle or drop of the Eucharist in either species is whole and complete. Never minding that one element is sufficient… (I always wondered if recieving both seperately could count as two communions!)

1. 
   *]This practice necessitated 40-44 layman participating per weekend. That is a lot of hands handling the Eucharist, and a lot of souls the oversee to see that they are prepared for it
   *]This practice necessitated 12 vessels - 6 for “hosts” and 6 for “wine”… the parish I attended in my youth ended up using wooden bowels and crystal-cut wine glasses. Neither had any particular religious symbolics or could said to be of craftsmanship. (It was explained to me that more expensive sacred vessels would be burdensome to the parish financially.) They were of the same sort you may eat a salad or drink wine out of at a restaraunt
   *]This practice largely precluded pre-conciar pieties and “safety measures” of servers using patton to protect the host from falling. In fact…
   *]This practice means more vessels to monitor and clean properly… and when it came to mishandling the element…
   
   *]The Eucharist in the appearance of wine is not only more difficult to prevent from spilling and profaning, commonly enough, droplets (which are just as complete as a “host” the size of a hubcap) would natrually fall down chins, spill on clothing, and then (if things go as planned) also be absorbed into the linens the EMCs were using to wipe the lipstick off the wine glasses being used… Where I attended, those linens were tossed into a plastic basket after Mass.
   *]
   
   http://www.jelldragon.com/images/wooden_bowl_400.jpg http://www.johnlewis.com/jl_assets/product/230176126.jpg
   
   Now I know some will point out that the vessel types used were against the Church directives on the matter to begin with, as was the improper disposal of the Eucharist in the element wine… But I respond, the more chance for abuse, the more abuse seems almost demanded.
   
   In the end my simplest thesis is this: Would restricting the administration of the Blessed Sacrament to only the element of the host possibly (1) aid improving catechesis on the nature of the Sacrament and (2) help reduce abuses to the Blessed Sacrament through better controlling administration, and (somewhat related!) (3) help reduce abuses or other problems with sacred vessels and their proper purification?

1. 
   Sadly; I still see liturgical abuses in my own diocese and also read and hear about such abuses multiplying every year in so many places and so many countries. In actual truth it’s as if people were slapping Jesus across the face. Cafeteria type Catholics are everywhere, and it’s regrettable to say that YES even amongst some who are priests.
   
   I have read the Liturgical Reforms regarding reception of the Blessed Sacrament under both species: usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml
   
   The Canadian CCCB have written almost an identical liturgical consensus outlining the Reception of the Blessed Sacrament under both Species.
   
   Still I have a difficult time emotionally dealing inside with all that I have witnessed in liturgical abuses. It just doesn’t stop !
   
   REVERENCE, REVERENCE, REVERENCE.
   How do you instill this in the conscious minds of all the Faithful ?
   You can’t because it’s purely an inward spiritual gifted grace given by the Holy Spirit to Truly believe that the Son of God is Fully Present in the Body and Blood of Christ.
   
   The other part of the emotionality that stirs in my conscious is the fact that I like a number of other Catholics don’t partake of the Blessed Sacrament under Both Species. Why ? is uncertain. Is it because of all the liturgical abuses ? Or is it because I cling to my old catechises belief that JESUS is fully present in BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, and DIVINITY in every particle of the EUCHARIST.