Not too long ago the practice of Communion under both species (both the consecrated hosts and the consecrated wine) was instituted at the Sunday Masses in my parish, and I believe throughout the diocese. Of course, this has been done in many parishes throughout the country for some time now, and in the past year or so many more have adopted the practice. There has been a push for a while now towards extending the use of Communion under both species, and the guidelines now in place on this practice in the United States very much encourage the extension of it. This is all part of an increasing trend for many years in favor of the practice, particularly in the United States. I personally do not take the consecrated wine at Mass, and I think I would find it more of a distraction than anything else to do so on a regular basis. That said, some people seem to appreciate the opportunity, and in a way I can understand that. The Church as a whole and the American bishops conference in particular are certainly well within their rights to encourage this practice if the hierarchy considers it pastorally advantageous at this time, although I admit I have some reservations about it. I write here, not to attack the current policy, but to express some of my own thoughts on the policy, and to raise some points that perhaps should be considered in the future in determining the prudence of the universal availability of Communion under both species.

The primary issue at stake in any debate over the advisability of distributing the Eucharist under both species has almost always been the possibility of doctrinal confusion among the faithful. From a catechetical perspective, it is difficult to explain the truth about Communion under one species and Communion under both species. When receiving the consecrated host, and not the consecrated wine, a person receives the Eucharist fully, and receives Jesus Christ--body, blood, soul, and divinity. If the person also consumes the consecrated wine, he or she does not receive another sacrament, or receive anything "extra" sacramentally. The difference is purely in the fact that receiving under both species provides more symbolism for those receiving. One problem with this is that sacraments themselves are symbols which effect what they signify, so it is difficult to talk about additional symbolism in a sacrament without making people think that the added symbolism somehow makes the sacrament better. That is not the case here. The symbolism may be better in Communion under both species, but the sacrament is exactly the same.

It is one thing to state the doctrine on the Eucharist clearly, but it is another thing to get all the people in the Church to understand the doctrine correctly. This was always one of the main advantages of prohibiting, or restricting to special circumstances or occasions, the general distribution of Communion under both species. By not allowing this as a universal practice, the Church made clear by its actions what not everyone might easily understand in words: that the full sacrament was contained in the reception of Jesus under one species alone. When reception of Communion under both species is widely introduced, a certain amount of confusion among the faithful is likely, and indeed probably inevitable. In my parish I would guess that the parishioners generally speaking are better catechized than the average Catholic in the United States. The parish has been fortunate in the quality and number of priests it has had, and in the long-standing presence of a good parochial school. However, when it was announced that the consecrated wine would be available at all Sunday masses, there was confusion, at least for some people. I know that the priests received questions from people wondering whether they had to receive the consecrated wine, a question that in itself indicates some misunderstanding of the issue. Furthermore, the priests felt that it was necessary for all of them to give some explanation of Communion under both species during each mass at the time that the change was made. This was done, but it is an indication of the difficulty of the topic that the explanations I heard from these priests, all intelligent and educated men, seemed to me not entirely clear and adequate. In one case the explanation was, probably through a simple slip of the tongue in one sentence, outright wrong. This is not intended as a criticism of these priests or any other priests. It is simply an example given for any people who might think that catechesis of the faithful is not a legitimate problem with the practice of Communion under both species.

Confusion about the nature of the sacrament is not the only disadvantage to Communion under both species. There are also practical and aesthetic considerations, one of the most obvious of which in our own day is the excessive use of extraordinary ministers. The distribution of Communion under both species often requires at least twice the number of eucharistic ministers as would otherwise be needed. As a practical matter, in the United States, all of these extra eucharistic ministers will be extraordinary lay ministers. Since extraordinary ministers were never intended in the first place to be the ordinary and regular ministers of the Eucharist, this extension of their use for something that is not essential to the liturgy seems like a matter of questionable wisdom. Also, while in the past the role of the extraordinary minister was limited to the actual distribution of Communion, the distribution of Communion under both species now often means that the extraordinary ministers are also involved in the cleaning of the sacred vessels, since there are too many for a priest or deacon to conveniently clean after the distribution of Communion. At large Masses, the number of extraordinary ministers can become almost absurd. At three of the five Sunday Masses celebrated at my parish church, there are customarily at least six extraordinary ministers among the eight eucharistic ministers at each Mass. While there are no specific rules on such numbers, the number of extraordinary ministers is not supposed to be expanded to the point of obscuring the role of the priest and deacon as the ordinary ministers of the Eucharist. When the vast majority of the eucharistic ministers every Sunday are "extraordinary" ministers, it seems at least reasonable to suggest that perhaps the role of the "ordinary" ministers is being obscured, since priests and deacons are no longer literally the "ordinary" ministers in any meaningful sense. The point here is not to criticize the priests in this particular parish for using too many extraordinary ministers. The point is that the practice of distributing Communion under both species at Sunday Masses whenever possible has left these priests with no practical choice but to use a veritable army of extraordinary ministers. I am sure the same thing must be happening at many other churches in the United States.

So far only the disadvantages of Communion under both species as a regular and universal practice have been discussed. However, it seems to me that there are also positive advantages to another option: restricting the use of Communion under both species to special circumstances or occasions, determined and specified by the Church. It is desirable to have ways in which to acknowledge the special character of particular events or feasts with additional symbolism and ceremony within the context of the Mass. There are only so many ways in which this can be done, while still preserving the integrity of the Mass, and the availability of Communion under both species might be a perfect opportunity. To me, the ideal situation would be one in which Communion under both species is not allowed under normal circumstances, but rather is preserved for occasions meriting special recognition. Examples of such occasions might include: Easter, the Holy Days of Obligation, Holy Thursday and the Feast of Corpus Christi because of their special Eucharistic character, and perhaps Masses at which the life-defining sacraments of Confirmation, Matrimony, or Holy Orders are being received. There might be other cases as well, but regardless of the exact occasions included, there would be some defined list of acceptable occasions. Communion under both species would only be allowed on these occasions, and on these occasions it would be encouraged, although certainly not mandated. This policy would be similar, although not identical to, the policy that was officially in place throughout much of the Roman Rite for much of the second half of the twentieth century. Limiting the use of Communion under both species to such special occasions has a number of advantages. First, the symbolism of receiving the consecrated wine would by no means drop out of the experience of the laity, since there would be close to ten opportunities every year for receiving the consecrated wine, even if only the examples I gave above were included. Second, the practice of using large numbers of extraordinary ministers for the distribution of Communion and the cleaning of sacred vessels would be made literally "extra-ordinary," as it should be so that the roles of priests and deacons are not obscured every Sunday. Third, the reception of the consecrated wine on special occasions, but not every Sunday of the year, would more perfectly communicate to the average Catholic the reality that this reception involves an added symbolism, which has value, but is not essential to receiving Jesus fully in the Eucharist. For these reasons, it seems to me that it would be prudent for the Catholic Church, particularly in the United States, to limit at some point in the future the distribution of Communion under both species to specified feasts and occasions, on which additional ceremony and symbolism in the Communion Rite is particularly appropriate.