Communion under both kinds

[blackthorn fairy]

I referred to this in a different topic - but it needs its own thread I think. What is your experience of communion under both kinds (or not)? When I went to Ireland 2 or 3 years ago I asked the presider (in a cathedral) why it was only under one kind and his reply surprised me - he said 'At the time we in Ireland decided not to take up that option.' In my parish all those years ago, we did 'take up that option' (and have continued ever since - except on rare occasions for logistical reasons. I was equally surprised when attending Mass at a church in my diocese during August (when I was away from my own parish) that, not only was there communion under one kind only, there was no peace greeting. When I asked a parishioner I was told 'It's Father's wish.' And - sorry again - the peace greeting is perhaps a separate matter, but as they both happened at the same place (and I received the same answer), it would seem that they are linked. Can anyone throw any light on this?

[markyboy2000]

I thought, maybe wrongly, that Communion under both kinds and the Sign of Peace were part of the Mass, and should be offered, even if not everyone partakes.

[AGM]

The Order of Mass has:

“127. The Priest, turned towards the people, extending and then joining his hands,
adds:
The peace of the Lord be with you always.
The people reply:
And with your spirit.
128. Then, if appropriate, the Deacon, or the Priest, adds: Let us offer each other the sign of peace.
And all offer one another a sign, in keeping with local customs, that expresses peace, communion, and charity. The Priest gives the sign of peace to a Deacon or minister.”
So the “if appropriate” makes this optional.

In "Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass" for "Rite of Distributing Holy Communion Outside Mass – I. The Long Rite with the Celebration of the Word" it has:
“31. The minister may invite the people in these or similar words:
Let us offer each other the sign of peace.
All make an appropriate sign of peace, according to local custom.”

The Sign of Peace is not included in the Rite of Distributing Holy Communion Outside Mass (Short Rite), the Ordinary Rite of Communion of the Sick and Short Rite of Communion of the Sick. For Viaticum there is no Sign of Peace after the Our Father, but the end of the Concluding Rite has: “The minister and the others may then give the sign of peace to the sick person.”

Regarding Communion under both kinds, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal has:
“161. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the Priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying: The Body of Christ. The communicant replies: Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes the whole of it.
If, however, Communion is given under both kinds, the rite prescribed in nos. 284-287 is followed.”

The above is from the section “Mass Without a Deacon”. In Mass with a Deacon it has:

“182. After the Priest’s Communion, the Deacon receives Communion under both kinds from the Priest himself and then assists the Priest in distributing Communion to the people. If Communion is given under both kinds, the deacon himself administers the chalice to the communicants; …”

For Concelebrated Mass:

“248. The Communion of the concelebrants may also be arranged so that each concelebrant communicates the Body of the Lord at the altar and, immediately afterwards, the Blood of the Lord.
In this case the principal celebrant receives Communion under both kinds in the usual way (cf. no. 158), observing, however, the rite chosen in each particular instance for Communion from the chalice; and the other concelebrants should do the same.”

From the section “Communion Under Both Kinds” (281-287):
283. In addition to those cases given in the ritual books, Communion under both kinds is permitted for:
a) Priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate Mass; 
b) the Deacon and others who perform some duty at the Mass; 
c) 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.
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 a community has been entrusted as its own shepherd, 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 cause.
As to the manner of distributing Holy Communion under both kinds to the faithful and the extent of the faculty for doing so, the Conferences of Bishops may publish norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See.”

I think the instructions of 283(b) are confusing. From 182 the Deacon receives Communion under both kinds. From 248 the concelebrants do. But 283 does not list the concelebrants, but does list the Deacon. In 283(b) it has “permitted for the Deacon and others who perform some duty at the Mass”. So should it be offered to altar servers, lectors, psalmist, ushers, choir, cantor, commentator and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion – the same as it is to the Deacon?

[Excerpts from the English translation of The Roman Missal (c) 2010 International Commission on English in the Liturgy Corporation. Excerpts from the English translation of Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass (c) 1974 International Commission on English in the Liturgy Corporation. All rights reserved.]

[Southern Comfort]

The most important paragraph in GIRM concerning Communion under both kinds is one that AGM did not mention:

85. It is most desirable that the faithful, just as the Priest himself is bound to do, receive the Lord’s Body from hosts consecrated at the same Mass and that, in the cases where this is foreseen, they partake of the chalice (cf. no. 283), so that even by means of the signs Communion may stand out more clearly as a participation in the sacrifice actually being celebrated.

In other words, the most desirable thing to do is what Our Lord himself commanded us to do: take and eat, and take and drink. (And of course eat bread that was consecrated at the Mass you are present at.)

This is backed up by the England & Wales Bishops' document Celebrating the Mass, 2005, which has this:

209. Faithful to the Lord’s command to his disciples to “Take and eat,” “Take and drink,” the assembly completes the Eucharistic action by together eating and drinking the elements consecrated during the celebration. It is most desirable that the faithful share the chalice. Drinking at the Eucharist is a sharing in the sign of the new covenant (see Luke 22:20), a foretaste ofthe heavenly banquet (see Matthew 26:29), a sign of participation in the suffering Christ (see Mark 10:38-39).

Most of AGM's other GIRM quotations date back to a time (the early 1970s) when Communion under both kinds was not permitted very much at all, except on specific occasions. Now it is permitted, and even encouraged, on all occasions, as the above quotations show.

However, it is not yet a universal practice. In England, while in the southern part of the country receiving from the chalice is found pretty much everywhere, the further north you go, the less this is true. Some have said that this is down to a desire to save money on wine, others that it's because it's just too complicated to organise, yet others that most of the priests who don't do it are of Irish descent. Any or all of these could be true. Some have even said that it's cultural: receiving under one kind alone is a "northern thing".

In the USA and Canada, receiving from the chalice is virtually universal. In Europe, it is only infrequently found. Amazingly, in countries like France and Italy, where drinking wine is part of the everyday culture, receiving under the form of wine at Mass is rare. You can even attend a Mass celebrating the vintage, with much praising of God's gift of the grape, and then receive only under the form of bread!

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I think the omission of the Sign of Peace is not really connected with Communion under one kind alone, except insofar as it betrays a tendency towards minimizing symbols.

For what it's worth, once again the paragraphs quoted by AGM failed to mention this from GIRM:

82. There follows the Rite of Peace, by which the Church entreats peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the
faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.

As for the actual sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by the Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. However, it is appropriate that each person, in a sober manner, offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest.
_________________________________________________________
In Australia: There follows the Rite of Peace, by which the Church entreats peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.

In the dioceses of Australia the most common form of the gesture of peace is the handshake, although different practices according to region and culture are not excluded. However, it is appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner.

So, although it is technically optional, it is nevertheless encouraged by the Church. Once again, Celebrating the Mass gives us not only a good theological rationale but also tells us that in England and Wales "the peace is always [sic] exchanged".

202. A ritual kiss is mentioned in the oldest writings of the New Testament and is found in the Eucharistic liturgy from the earliest days of the Church (see Romans 16:16). In most traditions it occurs before the Presentation of Gifts and is understood as a manifestation of that mutual love and reconciliation that Jesus called for before the offering of sacrifice (see Matthew 5: 23). Eventually in the Roman tradition it found its place after the Lord’s Prayer, whose themes of mutual forgiveness it echoes. In the early Church it was described as a “seal” placed on prayer.

203. The biblical concept of peace includes total well-being, a life in harmony with God and with ourselves, with our neighbours and with the whole of creation. Such peace can only be the pure gift of God. It is won for us by the risen Christ, present in the midst of the assembly, and so it is the peace of Christ that is exchanged.

204. The exchange of peace prior to the reception of Communion is an acknowledgement that Christ whom we receive in the Sacrament is already present in our neighbour. In this exchange the assembly acknowledges the insistent Gospel truth that communion with God in Christ is enjoyed in communion with our sisters and brothers in Christ. The rite of peace is not an expression merely of human solidarity or good will; it is rather an
opening of ourselves and our neighbours to a challenge and a gift from beyond ourselves. Like the Amen at Communion, it is the acceptance of a challenge, a profession of faith that we are members, one with another, in the body of Christ.

• The peace is always exchanged, though the invitation which introduces it is optional.

• In England and Wales the customary sign is a handshake, however, it is important that this is not seen simply as a greeting but as expressing peace, communion and charity. A handclasp may be a more authentic sign than the customary handshake.

• All the members of the assembly, ministers and people, turn to those immediately around them. It is not transmitted in sequence, as it were from a single source. Christ, who is its only source, is present and active in the assembly.

• The sign is sufficiently strong and expressive in itself not to need explanatory song or commentary.

[markyboy2000]

Thank you Southern Comfort, I was recalling how we were instructed in preparation for the new translation 2011, using Celebrating the Mass. Our PP at the time took great trouble to explain the changes, which led to an interesting meeting with a number of attendees rattling off the Latin as learnt as schoolchildren!
He encouraged Communion under both species, which was very well taken up, sadly this fell back during the SARS outbreak and hasn't recovered. I now take from the chalice only when I'm not driving because of medication, but it is offered at all Masses in our parish.
The Sign of Peace is usually handshakes with the immediate benches, though a few just bow, grin manically and hold back as if we are all contagious (again SARS). At Requiem Masses our PPs have been in the habit of greeting the family personally.

[AGM]

Southern Comfort wrote about Communion under both kinds: “Now it is permitted, and even encouraged, on all occasions, as the above quotations show.”

The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum has:

“[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants[189]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”.[190] 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.”

The footnotes are:
"[189] Cf. S. Congregation for Divine Worship,Instruction, Sacramentali Communione, 29 June 1970: AAS 62 (1970) p. 665;Instruction, Liturgicae instaurationes, n. 6a: AAS 62 (1970) p. 699.
[190]Missale Romanum, Institutio Generalis, n. 285a.”

The complete document is at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... um_en.html and the section on Communion under Both Kinds is 100-107.

[High Peak]

The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum has:

“[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants[189]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”.[190] 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.”

But the tone of this still strongly suggests that the norm should be that all receive Communion under both kinds UNLESS there are good reasons not to do so. "It's Father's wish" is not, I would suggest, a good reason!!

[JW]

Just to point out that some priests bypass all these recommendations by saying Mass in the Extraordinary Form. The Extraordinary Form doesn't provide for Communion under both kinds nor for the sign of peace among the People.

I haven't experienced it myself but have heard of priests imposing the Extraordinary Form against the will of most of their parishioners and in contravention of Pope Benedict's instruction.. Yet another example of Clericalism.

[alan29]

Just to point out that some priests bypass all these recommendations by saying Mass in the Extraordinary Form. The Extraordinary Form doesn't provide for Communion under both kinds nor for the sign of peace among the People.

I haven't experienced it myself but have heard of priests imposing the Extraordinary Form against the will of most of their parishioners and in contravention of Pope Benedict's instruction.. Yet another example of Clericalism.

There is a growing number of parishes that have been handed over to religious organisations that celebrate only in the EF.
I cannot think of a single occasion when the members of the parish were consulted about this this major change to their liturgical/prayer lives.
The infant people of God.

[Keraulophon]

At an abbey in NW France, where I have sometimes attended Mass, distribution under both kinds involves intinction, which is not permitted in England & Wales. (Perhpas becuase it smacks of self-administration, which is reserved to the ordained?) On my first visit, not having watched what those in front of me had done, I took the chalice into my hands and sipped: apparently the priest who had been holding it took some while to recover from his shock.

[alan29]

At an abbey in NW France, where I have sometimes attended Mass, distribution under both kinds involves intinction, which is not permitted in England & Wales. (Perhpas becuase it smacks of self-administration, which is reserved to the ordained?) On my first visit, not having watched what those in front of me had done, I took the chalice into my hands and sipped: apparently the priest who had been holding it took some while to recover from his shock.

Intinction apparently runs the risk of bits of the host dropping off, or of drips down the front of peoples clothes.
Apparently.

[Southern Comfort]

Southern Comfort wrote about Communion under both kinds: “Now it is permitted, and even encouraged, on all occasions, as the above quotations show.”

The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum has:

“[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants[189]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”.[190] 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.”

The footnotes are:
"[189] Cf. S. Congregation for Divine Worship,Instruction, Sacramentali Communione, 29 June 1970: AAS 62 (1970) p. 665;Instruction, Liturgicae instaurationes, n. 6a: AAS 62 (1970) p. 699.
[190]Missale Romanum, Institutio Generalis, n. 285a.”

The complete document is at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... um_en.html and the section on Communion under Both Kinds is 100-107.

The thing about Redemptionis Sacramentum is that

(a) Communion under both kinds for lay people never happens in Rome, so the people who draft these documents don't actually know what it looks like. (Even bishops are expected to receive from the chalice by intinction!). Therefore

(b) those drafters are frightened by what they don't know but have only heard about. They have no idea that in most situations not only is it reverently done but the logistics that they are terrified of are not a problem because we sorted out all that sort of thing years ago.

In particular they don't know what commissioned lay ministers of Communion look like because these do not exist in Rome. They are deemed not necessary because the place is crawling with priests and deacons who can act as ministers when required!

So, Redemptionis Sacramentum comes from the sometimes unreal world of the Eternal City. It was produced primarily to squelch perceived abuses, most of which were not happening anywhere except in Rome, where you can find all kinds of liturgical abuses that don't often exist elsewhere. In fact in some cases it gave people ideas! Other documents produced to combat abuses were the 1980 instruction Inaestimabile Donum concerning practices in the celebration of Mass and worship of the Eucharist outside Mass, including keeping consecrated wine in the tabernacle and 'self-service' Communion, the 1988 instruction Paschale Solemnitatis on the Celebration of Easter, which had been primarily motivated by Italian priests who were getting through the Easter Vigil, including baptisms, in 45 minutes flat!, and the 1987 instruction De Concentibus on Concerts in Churches, produced in reaction to heavy metal concerts in San Damiano in Rome. In all these cases, the image of sledgehammers to crack walnuts comes to mind.....


Some further points about Redemptionis Sacramentum: it was circulated in draft to bishops around the world for consultation before it was finalised. The bishops and their consultors were aghast. You simply cannot say A, B and C, they said; instead you should say X, Y and Z. What happened? The final document retained A, B and C in defiance of the bishops' wishes, and incorporated X, Y and Z alongside! The result is the largest number of internal contradictions in any recent Roman document.

Another example of internal contradictions is the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, where the theological rationales for various ritual actions in the Mass were produced by the major drafting group. Another more conservative group that didn't agree with those rationales then added the paragraphs that tell you how to do it in practice. They often contradict the theological rationale..... Later editions have introduced other contradictions as successive editors plugged their own agendas.

Another (amusing) point about Redemptionis Sacramentum is that for months if not years before it came out, it was predicted that this would be the Vatican document that banned liturgical dance. In the event, it didn't even mention it!

So, like many recent instructions, it is like the curate's egg: some good stuff, but a lot of less good stuff as well. And of course in England and Wales this 2004 document was in some respects superseded by local liturgical law in Celebrating the Mass, 2005, as previously cited.

One major problem with documents such as Redemptionis Sacramentum is that their authority is undermined by inconsistency, actively encouraging people to take a smorgasbord-like approach to what they will and will not observe. It does help to have a knowledge of the history of how such documents were produced — puts a lot of things into perspective — which is why I have gone on at such length about them!

[Southern Comfort]

distribution under both kinds involves intinction, which is not permitted in England & Wales. (Perhpas becuase it smacks of self-administration, which is reserved to the ordained?)

It can smack of self-administration (banned by Inaestimabile Donum as mentioned in the previous comment) when self-intinction is involved. Even deacons cannot serve themselves but must receive from a priest. Self-intinction can also risk fostering a competitive attitude ("My way of receiving is 'more reverent' than yours").

The primary reason, though, why this practice is not permitted in England and Wales is to do with intinction by a minister. In these countries liturgical law is that the choice of whether to receive in the hand or on the tongue is reserved to the communicant, not to the minister. When a minister, whether ordained or lay, presents an intincted host to a communicant, the minister is effectively removing that choice from the communicant. The minister is forcing the person to receive Communion on the tongue because you can't very well receive a soggy host in the palm of your hand.

[blackthorn fairy]

Thank you everyone for all these (very full!) answers.It seems that there are some apparent contraditions in the various documents (and I wonder if this is deliberate). My personal view is that communion under both kinds should be the norm - unless there are good reasons (e.g. logistics) for not doing so. And now I understand about intinction - the point that it denies choice (which I hadn't thought about) is a good one. And some people will refuse the chalice (but it is their choice), though whether this is because it is the chalice or because it is being offered by a lay eucharistic minister (which is generally the case in my parish) I have no idea - and I suppose it's irrelevant.

[AGM]

Keraulophon wrote “At an abbey in NW France, where I have sometimes attended Mass, distribution under both kinds involves intinction, which is not permitted in England & Wales.”

Perhaps “self-intinction by the laity” is what is meant, since this is not permitted. I think intinction is an option in England and Wales, since the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum has (with my highlighting of the important part):

“[103.] The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon”.[191] As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue.[192]
[104.] The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand. …”

Celebrating the Mass (at https://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resour ... ts/CTM.pdf ) has:
“• If Communion under both kinds is given by intinction (which is not recommended in England and Wales), the communicant may choose to receive under the form of bread only. When Communion in the form of intinction is given, the following formula is said, “The Body and Blood of Christ,” and the communicant responds, “Amen”. 309 Intinction can only be administered by a minister and may not be self-administered.310”

Clearly “not recommended” is not the same as “not permitted”.