Thank you! I think I understand now. Based on earlier posts, I am guessing that reception of both Species is not desired by Rome because (1) it gives occasion to sacrilege and (2) it encourages the heresy that the entire Christ is not present in bread alone. Am I correct?
No, this is not correct at all!
There is no “Rome doesn’t want us to do this.” Rome doesn’t have a negative attitude toward the reception of the Chalice by the laity, provided prudent care is taken (ie, is the congregation too large for it to be practical). And accidental spillage (that for which prudent care is advised) isn’t sacriledge anyway. An accident is an accident, not morally culpable and not a sin. “Sacriledge” inherently means an evil intent. You don’t see the Chalice administered to the congregation at Papal masses for the simple reason that the number of the faithful is too large.
“Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom… (However,) Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament, is received even under only one species, and consequently that as far as the effects are concerned, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any of the grace that is necessary for salvation” (
General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 281-282).
The Diocesan Bishop is 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" (
General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 283
We cannot call the practice “wrong” because it’s what the whole of the Church generally practiced from the Apostles up until the 11th or 12th centuries, B) because it is the practice of the Eastern Churches that are in union with us under the Holy Father (you mention having Orthodox friends and family. The Easter Churches of which I speak have exactly the same Divine Liturgy, but they still recognize papal authority) and C) the practice is permitted by the Church (it is a matter of traditional Catholic theology that the Church is incapable of leading the faithful into impiety by the establishment of or abolition of a discipline. The Church is incapable of legislating anything contrary to Her own teaching).
There may be Catholics who think you HAVE to receive both Sacred Species for it Communal Grace to be effective or valid, but I’ve never run into one in the 23 years I’ve been a Catholic! If anyone is so mistaken, then the fault lies in bad catechesis, not in a liberty granted by the Church.
