Hello,
Just to clear up what is meant by–divine right. Our Lord instituted the Holy Eucharist (Holy Communion)—this is the divine right that we (if properly disposed) have a right to receive. The Church cannot withdraw this divine right from Her people.
The Council of Trent states that by the discourse of John 6 – we are not bound of divine right to receive from the Chalice. The Church can withdraw the Chalice from the laity or offer the Chalice --it is Her decision.
Even now–that She has allowed the Chalice–the Church does not demand that every church offer the Precious Blood or that all the laity receive. She teaches that Holy Communion can be received via the Host alone, or the Host and Chalice, or the Chalice alone in certain circumstances.
A church can offer Holy Communion via the Host alone or both species. If you attend Mass where both are offered–it is your choice if you receive both. If you walk into a church that offers only the Host–this church is still offering you the divine right of Holy Communion–even if the Chalice is not offered.
What we the laity cannot do—is demand from the Church–that the Chalice be offered in every church–for we do not have a divine right to the Chalice. We can partake from the Chalice—IF the Chalice is offered or not—this is our choice.
I still don’ know if I totally agree with your definition of ‘divine right’ in the context used at Trent. But let me tell you my viewpoint.
Do we have an inherent right to the Chalice, not necessarily. We have a right to the sacraments (canon 214). That means, barring anything that impedes us, we have a right to receive the Eucharist. The Church cannot deny us that. We receive the whole of the Sacrament in the tiniest particle of the Host and the smallest drop of the Cup. So, we receive the Host and our rights have been fulfilled. Beyond that, the Church has the authority to regulate. For instance, the Church cannot deny us absolution in the Sacrament of Penance (provided no impediments), but She can regulate it so that you would have to go to the Altar, kiss the Book of the Gospels and confess in the Sanctuary. The Church has that authority. Likewise, the Church has the authority to regulate how we receive Communion, provided we receive access to the full graces in the Sacrament. She could just as easily say that only the Chalice is to be given and the Host only received by the Priest. I doubt this will be done for numerous practical reasons.
The reception of Communion under one kind goes back to around the eleventh century. The text from Trent, says to me, that laity are not bound to receive from the Chalice, not expressly forbidding it (though this became the norm). At the Second Vatican Council, the use of the Chalice to distribute to the laity was more freely given, up to the discretion of the Bishop. Again, the Church can do this. She can say that we cannot receive from the Cup and She can say that we must receive from the Cup - so long as somehow (the norm is through the Host) we are give the whole of the Sacrament.
So recap:
We receive the whole of the Sacrament, access to all the graces, the entire Jesus - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - in the smallest particle of the Host and the smallest drop of the Cup.
We have a right to receive the Sacrament (fulfilled in reception of the smallest amount of either Species).
Beyond providing this right, the Church has the authority to regulate the Sacraments as She sees fit. (i.e. grant access to both Species).
The Church currently allows for the reception of both Species, under the discretion of the local Ordinary.
Reception of both Species is a fuller sign (symbolism not efficacious grace) of the Sacrament.
This allowance should presumably still be if and when the Motu Proprio is issued.
The most practical solution for the reception of Communion under both Kinds is via intinction (my thought).
I can’t see any good reason why the Precious Blood should be deprived to those faithful who so choose to receive It in the Church today.
