It is simply because people are different. Some priests are traditional and prefer Communion rails & the pipe organ while others dislike these and prefer the modern way of doing things. The priests are different just like how laymen are different in how they practice the faith and in what they like the Mass to be like.
I’m afraid I must respectfully disagree with this opinion. It transcends our personal preferences and the fact that, as individuals, we are different.
Much of it goes back to fundamental principles and how we were formed as priests. That formation impacts how we read implementation documents and apply directives that we receive. Often, too, our decisions are impacted by our experiences as a priest, what we’ve done in the past as well as what we see as preferable. The distribution of Holy Communion is a good example.
The norm in liturgical practice is that for every station where the Body of the Lord is distributed (Please…never “the communion bread and wine” as one wrote. After the consecration, they have ceased to be bread and wine), there should be two ministers with a chalice. This is a logistical practicality to avoid a traffic jam. If you have 4 ciboria, this means 8 chalices…12 ministers of Holy Communion, with some combination of ordinary and extraordinary; unless you’re at a monastery of monks, the Chrism Mass or an ordination Mass, you are unlikely to have 12 ordinary ministers of Communion present.
Due to the doctrine of Eucharistic concomitance (that those who receive one species receive Christ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) and given the logistical hardship, personally I normally refrain from having Communion by both species. The sign value of having Communion with both species is greater (take and eat, take and drink), it’s true, but those who have received both the Body of the Lord and the Blood of the Lord have not received “more” of Jesus than those who have received only from the ciborium or only from the chalice. That is not to underestimate the value of the sign of both eating and drinking. But neither must we underestimate the value of the doctrine that those who receive do receive Christ whole and entire under either as well as both species.
On the other hand, some of my brother priests will say that the sign of receiving from both the ciboria and the chalice is so great that it should override other concerns. The liturgical norms broadly permit either and it is a matter of discretion. Two priests may come to different courses of action. Neither is wrong. Personally, I am grateful for the breadth in the norms so that the option is there. There are special occasions where I will say that indeed Communion should be under both species – and I have the latitude to do it. Other occasions, I will say it is not practical – and I have the latitude not to do it.
Similarly, the rubrics stipulate when and how we are to deploy Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion…but when is the need real and urgent? Where I am from, we interpret it strictly and we must demonstrate that the need is both urgent and otherwise unsolvable without them. If I had another priest and two deacons, as one poster describes, my judgement would be that I did not need an extraordinary minister unless I were encountering many hundreds of communicants. On the other hand, if there is no other cleric and I am alone as celebrant with several hundred communicants, then yes I would need more than one to help.
Some priests in parishes where I have been prefer a standard situation in which only the priest celebrant and the deacon assisting at the Mass should distribute and this should be augmented by extraordinary ministers present at that Mass, if necessary. This is because priests go on vacation, have to answer sick calls, have other duties and are otherwise not always available…so one should not presume that other clergy that may or may not be on the premises will always be available to help with Communion. The presumption for them is that only the clergy present at the Mass should be counted on as available and contingencies (in terms of assigning and deploying extraordinary ministers) should be in place to assure the smooth unfolding of the liturgy.
On the other hand, I have known priests who insist that, if the clergy CAN be there, they MUST. Not only is it proper to the clergy to be the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion and extraordinary ministers must be truly “extraordinary” but many people only interact with their parish clergy by seeing them at Mass. If you are not the celebrant and you are not distributing communion (or preaching) you are not seen and contact is important. It is a difference of values, priorities and legitimate differing interpretations of norms that are deliberately broad to allow a necessary latitude to deal with varying situation. If someone is called to the hospital, then someone unassigned can be tagged in an emergency to help distribute Communion without disruption. At the end of the day, both models I have presented work.
The liturgical norms are written such as to give the priest some latitude in choices we make and implement. The values that we hold will underlie what concrete applications we make of those norms. The pride of place to be accorded to the organ would move some priests to say this is a value such that it must be implemented, even in a parish that may not have an organ at present or that has an organ but lacks an organist. Another priest may examine the same situation and conclude that there is a music program that, while not including an organ, is well situated, does a good job and the people are content and satisfied; other situations should be given a higher priority.
But, returning to the questions, all of this can result in widely varying practices between parishes and also between individual priests.
