Indult for communion under both kinds?


#1

I didn't know communion was distributed under both kinds (in the Latin Church) outside extraordinary occasions until I read about it here. I've had no luck finding an indult that allows for the distribution of communion under both kinds outside extraordinary occasions. Can someone point it out to me?


#2

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/

  1. In 1963, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council authorized the extension of the faculty for Holy Communion under both kinds in Sacrosanctum Concilium:

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. . . .29

  1. The Council's decision to restore Holy Communion under both kinds at the bishop's discretion took expression in the first edition of the Missale Romanum and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum:

Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father.30

The General Instruction further states that "at the same time the faithful should be instructed to participate more readily in this sacred rite, by which the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is made more fully evident."31


#3

As you can see above, no indult is required because it is expressly permitted by liturgical law.


#4

If I recall correctly (full disclosure = too busy to look it up now), communion under both forms was the norm for 1,000 years in the early church. It was stopped as a means to combat the false belief that one does not get "the full Jesus" if one only takes the host or only takes the blood. It is at the discretion of the Bishop to allow or not allow.


#5

[quote="TheDoctor, post:4, topic:310769"]
If I recall correctly (full disclosure = too busy to look it up now), communion under both forms was the norm for 1,000 years in the early church. It was stopped as a means to combat the false belief that one does not get "the full Jesus" if one only takes the host or only takes the blood. It is at the discretion of the Bishop to allow or not allow.

[/quote]

Yes, that was known as the Utraquist heresy.

It is not only the bishop's discretion, but also an option for the pastor and the presider, if it is permitted from above, whether or not to allow the species of wine (which term I prefer to "Precious Blood" because it does not imply a separation of Christ.)

It should be noted that the Deacon is the proper minister of the chalice, so he should be given preference for it when distributing Holy Communion. Also, the practice of offering the species of wine tends to tie up a lot of EMHCs, because the guidelines suggest two stations of the chalice for every one station of the species of bread. With a priest and deacon, my visiting parish still uses 4 EMHCs to distribute on Sundays because they do it this way.


#6

While a 2:1 ratio is suggested in the US document, that is really only necessary in parishes where a majority of the population receives from the Cup. In our parish fewer than 25% of those who receive do so under both species.

On Saturday Fr. distributes the Hosts himself and there is one EMHC with the Cup. On Sundays, there are two EMHCs with the Cup and one helping Fr. with the distribution of the Hosts.

On weekdays the Cup isn’t offered.


closed #7

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.