Sometimes it is good to have distinctions between the ordained clergy and the laymen
This was not the reason the Cup was withheld from the laity in the Roman Rite.
It may not have been the “reason” but my statement is still true. Those that insist on relieving under both species for some reason think the Mass is all about them.
The Cup was only withheld in the Roman Rite. Both Sacred Species of Communion has always been offered everywhere else in the Church (ie the five other Rites). I don’t see how you can come to such conclusion, although I wouldn’t discount that there are some who do think that way. Christ instituted the Eucharist to be both kinds and there is a good reason that every Sacrament carry specific outward signs. I say we keep the way it was intended to be by Christ.
Your question, I believe is based on some erroneous information. Communion for the faithful under one kind is not a “Traditionalist” practice, per se. In many OF Masses, including my own parish, Communion is only offered to the faithful under one species. In many countries outside the US, Communion is only offered under one species, even in very non-Traditional Masses.
The reason that Communion is offered under one kind in the Tridentine Mass was because the decree to withhold the Cup throughout the Roman Church came at about Trent, although there is evidence that it has been happening centuries prior to Trent. So for the last few hundred years with a single universal Liturgy in the Roman Church, the Cup was never offered. The Cup was allowed back at Vatican II (in or around, I can’t remember). Many EF Masses today follows all the practices to the pre-V2 Mass which includes withholding the Cup. I know some members here have said that the Cup was offered at an EF Mass.
Offering under both is a more complete sign. The Church allows for it, but as it is a disciplinary measure the Church may change it if necessarily.
But the reception under both species by the laity was permitted in the TLM, it was just not that common, especially in the US.
)Distinctions need not be in the Sacraments. Jesus did not establish the Sacraments for there to be distinctions, except for Holy Orders which is obviously reserved for those seeking Ordination.
The opposite question is also a good point to ponder, why not?My main point is since the Consecrated Host contains the fullness of the Eucharist, why should there be the need for the laity to receive from the Chalice? Reception of the Chalice by the laity only increases the risk of spilling the most Precious Blood of our Lord. If one receives both the Host and the Chalice, they are not receiving anything more than someone who only receives the Consecrated Host.
If you’ll permit me to stand on my soapbox:
In the Philippines, EMHCs are made to dress formally and wear a simple stole to remind people of their special ministry during the Liturgy. Even though they are not priests, you know that they are not just any other lay person, so it can be done with a semblance of sacredness.
The Church decided to do this because of lack of belief that the consecrated host is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord. With the dismal % of Catholics who believe in the Real Presence this should be the rule across the board. Most of the OF Masses around me only give under one form as well.
I don’t know how that can bolster belief in the Real Presence. If you don’t believe that you are receiving the Body of Christ, then it doesn’t matter if you receive under one or both kinds. The reception under the form of bread only was to enforce the teaching of the undivided Christ, that Christ is whole all the time and that he doesn’t only beceome complete after receiving under both kinds. It has nothing to do with Real Presence.
My answer-spilling. To me that is enough of a reason to withhold the Chalice from the laity. However that is just my opinion.
I don’t think we should be too worriesome about it. The Host can as easily be dropped…
I’m glad you agree with that. I think having EMHCs dress appropriately would improve their image and the opinion of them. Yes, even as lay people if we are called to a special ministry, shouldn’t we have some sort of external to relfect the specialness of that ministry? I never had that sense of equality with them because in the Philippines they always have been displayed to be separate from the laity. They alway dress formally (they wear Barong Tagalog which is the formal costume of the culture) and the stole. Plus they always sit in a special place in the church, or usually have the front pew reserved just for them. Also as you can see in the picture, the ministry is kept for men only. Most of them would also double as altar servers and readers. They’re more like minor orders without actually being minor orders.