galea salutis

(If you’re in a rush, jump down to the “In brief” section)

To answer my friend’s question, I went first to Redemptionis Sacramentum. There we find expansion for the use of Communion under both species in No 100,

So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.

Thus the use of both kinds is available, “in the cases set forth.” The Church then expresses the primacy of reverence for the Sacred Species as she continues in 101,

In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned. With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”. (Emphasis mine)

“Even a small danger” These words make it abundantly clear that avoiding profanation is a great concern. Then I read the key passage to answer my question in 102,

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.

This paragraph is key because it gives a practical limit for using Communion under both species. Therefore, if there is a Mass which conforms to a “case set forth in liturgical books” and there are a large numbers of communicants, it is not permissable to distribute Communion under both species.
So what are the case “Set forth in the litugrical books”? The various ritual books (books containing the rites for the sacraments and particular celebrations of the Church) indicate usage for both species at their specific celebrations. For instance, in the circular letter, Paschale Solemnitatis , from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the usage of both kinds is recommended for the Easter Vigil. No 92,

It is fitting that in the communion of the Easter Vigil, full expression be given to the symbolism of the Eucharist, namely, by consuming the Eucharist under the species of both bread and wine. The local ordinaries will consider the appropriateness of such a concession and its ramifications.

However, we are mainly concerned here with the ordinary Sunday Mass. On these days, when no particular rituals are celebrated, we have specific allowance for the use of both species. The Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (General Instruction of the Roman Missal), No 283 states:

In addition to those cases given in the ritual books, Communion under both kinds is permitted for

1. Priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate Mass;
2. The deacon and others who perform some duty at the Mass;
3. 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.

Now, the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani and Redemptionis Sacramentum have not given an allowance for the use of Communion under both species for an ordinary Sunday or weekday Mass. Where, then, do we look for such permission? The Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani points us in the right direction in the very next paragraph of No 283,

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.

The only place that such a permission could be given would be ‘norms’ of the Bishops’ Conference. So what do the bishops of the United States have to say on the matter. They published a document call the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America. This document simply restates the directives of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani. Under the heading of “When Communion Under Both Kinds May Be Given,” it cites the above quote, No 283. Then it goes on, in No 24,

In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.

This is a very important point. Given the rampant use of extraordinary ministers in this country, the use of both species should be greatly limited if not ruled out for the majority of American parishes. So, the Bishops’ Conference has not specified any new instances to allow the use of both species. Our last stop for the answer is the individual diocesan bishop. I have not heard of any bishop publishing any additional permission for the use of this form of distribution. The pastor would have any written permission issued by the bishop or you can go to the chancery of your local diocese for such documentation. However, there is one last point. The Church qualifies the permission the bishops are allowed to grant. Sacramentali Communione from the Congregation for Divine Worship explains in No 3,

Within such limits, Ordinaries may designate the particular instances, but on condition that they grant permission not indiscriminately but for clearly defined celebrations and that they point out matters for caution. They are also to exclude occasions when there will be a large number of communicants. The groups receiving this permission must also be specific, well ordered, and homogeneous.

Therefore, the Church explains that bishops do not have the authority to grant indiscriminate permission, cannot sanction everyone all the time. This mandate is reiterated in another document from the Congregation for Divine Worship, Liturgicae instaurationes in No 6,

In its sacramental sign value communion under both kinds expresses a more complete sharing by the faithful [27]. 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. b

• 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.

The situation in our country (everyone, all the time) is therefore illegitimate, but not only that, it specifically contradicts the law of the Church.

In Brief

• Only the bishop can grant permission for use of Communion under both kinds (SC No 1-2, LI No 6, IGMR No 283, RS No 101)
• The bishop may not grant blanket permission for Communion under both species (SC No 3, LI No 6)
• Communion under both kinds may not be used at Mass with a large number of people (RS No 102, SC No 3, LI No 6)
• In the US, Communion under both kinds should not be used when it obscurs the role of the clergy and laity by employing excessive use of extraordinary ministers (NDCUBK No 24)

Please stay tuned for my next post: Communion under both kinds - How did we get where we are? and What’s the big deal?