As you might expect, Mario cannot afford to pay $770,000,000 for this wonderful medicine. However, he is reassured by the doctor that, as long as he believes in the power of this medicine, he will not have to pay anything for it. The cost of the medicine is covered for Mario by the benevolence of the doctor.
Then, just as Mario is readying himself to receive this medicine, a hospital administrator enters the room and says something strange: “Mario, the wonderful medicine is completely sufficient in pill form to cure you of your ailment; but the medicine is also available in liquid form. This liquid, which is also worth $770,000,000, can be given to you in a cup that you would hold yourself and drink from, while standing up. If you spill this liquid, you will have to pay for it. Again, the liquid gives you nothing at all that the pill hasn’t already given you. However, the nice thing about the liquid is that it provides a more complete sign of you being healed.”
I think we can all agree that the administrator’s time would be better spent on some other project. I mean, who cares about comprehensive symbolism when there’s no medical reason at all for it and when the effort to get it could result in an extremely expensive mishap?
Yet this is exactly the line of reasoning that proponents of Holy Communion under both kinds use to justify their position. They have to concede, due to the plain-as-day teachings of the Councils of Constance, Trent and Vatican II, that reception of the Precious Blood is not at all necessary, but they glom onto the idea of fuller sacramental expressions.
To take their “fuller expression” concept to a little further, we could have all Masses said in upper rooms with 12 priests whose feet have been washed by the main celebrant. We could also have someone play Judas and leave the Mass, and we could even name every parish after Joseph of Arimathea. If those ideas aren’t silly enough, try this one: In order to be symbolically precise, we could have the laity banned from all Masses, since only priests were at the first Mass.
So much for “fuller expressions.”
Don’t get me wrong. Symbolism is good in general, but not when the symbol pursued is completely unnecessary and can easily become an occasion of sacrilege. In addition to the conciliar teachings, hundreds of saints could be presented as examples of how receiving Holy Communion under the host alone produces the highest sanctity. Thomas More, Stanislaus Kostka, Bernadette of Lourdes and Therese of Lisieux are four of the many people whose holiness was in no way hindered by lack of comprehensive sign value.
As for the dangers of distributing Holy Communion under both kinds, consider this: When was the last time, outside of Mass, you stood in line to drink from a common container of liquid passed back and forth from a dispensing person to those in line? I can’t think of a last time, either. It just doesn’t happen. And why? Many reasons, one of the chief being that it is an inherently dangerous proposition. We drink liquids from our own glass, usually while sitting down, so that we will not spill what we are drinking.
Why, then, do we show far greater caution for what is infinitely less valuable than the Precious Blood? If we don’t want to spill beer, cranberry juice, or even water, why do we show so little concern for spilling the blood of the God-Man?
If anyone thinks this is an overstatement, a quick perusal of the Catechism of the Council of Trent will be enlightening. In that catechism’s chapter on the Holy Eucharist, we read the following:
It is clear that the Church was influenced by numerous and most cogent reasons, not only to approve, but also to confirm by authority of its decree, the general practice of communicating under one species [that of the sacred host]. In the first place, the greatest caution was necessary to avoid spilling the blood of the Lord on the ground, a thing that seemed not easily to be avoided, if the chalice were administered in a large assemblage of the people…
The inherent awkwardness of a chalice being passed back and forth between communicants (many of whom are either very young or very old) and a priest or deacon was recognized by the Fathers of Trent. Why is it that we no longer see this danger and are instead fixated on a “fuller” but totally unnecessary sign? Could it be we’ve lost sight of the Person we are receiving?
The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council did mention the possibility of Holy Communion under both kinds in specific situations. In Sacrosanctum Concilium we are informed that:
…The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, Communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism. (Art. 55)
Clearly, the Council Fathers did not authorize Holy Communion under both kinds indiscriminately. There were specific occasions mentioned in which it could be allowed for specific persons, but a regular Sunday Mass for the entire congregation is not one of them. The possibility of the practice was explained more fully in 1970 when Pope Paul VI approved a document from the Congregation for Divine Worship called Sacramentali Communione. In this document we are told that:
Having considered the petitions of many bishops and conferences of bishops, as well as of superiors of religious families, this Congregation, at the direction of Pope Paul VI, therefore decrees the following regarding permission to administer Communion under both kinds.
1 Communion may be distributed under both kinds, at the discretion of the Ordinary, in those cases determined by the Apostolic See, according to the list in the Appendix to this document.
2 The conferences of bishops moreover have the power to decide to what extent and under what considerations and conditions Ordinaries are empowered to grant Communion under both kinds in other instances that are of special significance in the spiritual life of any community or group of the faithful.
Being empowered to grant something is not the same as being empowered to demand something. In other words, a bishop may allow Holy Communion to be distributed under both kinds, but he may not require it to be done. In order for something to be granted, it must first be requested by someone other than the one doing the granting. A priest may ask for the practice, at which point the bishop can allow or disallow as he sees fit, but we are not told that the bishop may obligate a priest to carry out the practice.
In Sacramentali Communione it is stated that permission must also not be granted arbitrarily:
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.
A regular parish Sunday Mass is in most cases not a situation with a small number of communicants who are well ordered and homogenous. Additionally, distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds is meant for “particular instances”—in other words, for specific occasions, not as an ongoing policy.
Continuing in the same document:
4. The local Ordinary may grant this permission for all churches and oratories in his territory…[he must] ensure observance of the norms laid down by the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops. Before granting the permission, [he] must have assurance that all measures can be carried out that will safeguard the holiness of the sacrament.
5. The necessary catechesis must precede admission of the faithful to Communion under both kinds in order that they will have a clear knowledge of the meaning of this rite.
Where has this happened? Where has the necessary catechesis centering on the Council of Trent’s teaching been carried out prior to (or even after) the enforcement of a practice that was not meant to be enforced in the first place?
In1980 Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the general discipline of the Church by approving the Instruction Inaestimabile Donum, in which it is clearly stated that
Episcopal conferences and ordinaries…are not to go beyond what is laid down in the present discipline: the granting of permission for Communion under both kinds is not to be indiscriminate, and the celebrations in question are to be specified precisely; the groups that use this faculty are to be clearly defined, well disciplined, and homogeneous.(No. 23)
In 2004, the Holy Father approved the instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. After calling to mind the circumstances in which the Precious Blood may be distributed to the laity—all of which are to be “preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the ecumenical Council of Trent”—we encounter a warning. It is one that, similar to many others by the Church, has gone unheeded: Distributing the Precious Blood to the laity “is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.” (No. 101)
Aside from the many places where profanation is nearly guaranteed, is there any place where a small danger of sacramental profanation does not exist? Even with proper catechesis, the intrinsic difficulties of distributing the Precious Blood were too much for the Fathers of Trent to allow the practice. Nonetheless, some people in high places insist on marching ahead in pursuit of comprehensive sign value.
In the latest General Instruction on the Roman Missal, a few more instances where the practice of Holy Communion under both kinds is allowable are given. It is necessary to point out that the priest and deacon referred to in the first two instances are to be the recipients of Holy Communion under both kinds, not the dispensers.
These instances of reception under bother kinds are: 1. for priests who are not able to celebrate Mass, 2. for deacons who perform some duty at the Mass, and 3. for “members of communities at the conventual Mass or ‘community’ Mass, along with seminarians, and all who are engaged in a retreat or taking part in a spiritual or pastoral gathering.”
The ambiguity of the latter part of No. 3 demands the question, “Isn’t every Mass a ‘spiritual or pastoral gathering‘?” If the intended meaning were every Mass, however, this would have been stated more clearly, especially in light of the post-conciliar popes’ “restrictive” instructions. Furthermore, if every Mass is open to Holy Communion under both kinds, why would any other specific instances (such as 1 and 2 above) be mentioned at all?
Taken in context, the third listing would appear to be some sort of event similar to a retreat, such as a day of reflection for those who work in a given parish. In any event, there are certain conditions which must be met before permission may be granted. The GIRM states that the diocesan bishop
has the faculty to allow Communion under both kinds, whenever it seems appropriate to the Priest to whom charge of a given community has been entrusted as [its] own pastor, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants or for some other reason. (No. 24)
After looking more closely at what is allowed by the Church, shouldn’t we step back and exercise more caution when it comes to distribution of the Precious Blood, putting reverence above symbolism? Shouldn’t we prevent “hospital administrators” (ignorant or even malevolent liturgists and functionaries) from encouraging sacrilege and harming souls? The last thing any of us need is to have a beautiful means of salvation twisted into an ugly means of reprobation.
Padre Pio lamented the carelessness with which we can treat the sacraments, saying that “[Jesus] sees the sacrileges with which priests and faithful defile themselves, not caring about those sacraments instituted as necessary means for our salvation, now, instead, made an occasion of sin and damnation of souls.” Let us not be included among those he refers to, and instead treat the sacraments with the respect they deserve, thereby showing an important—and necessary (in the ordinary course of events)—sign of our salvation.
