|ROME, 16 DEC. 2008 (ZENIT)
Answered by Legionary of Christ Father
Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum
Q: I understand that the use of extraordinary ministers of Holy
Communion is to be just that, "extraordinary." I also understand that
the distribution of the Blessed Sacrament under both species to all the
faithful has been allowed by the U.S. bishops' conference, given its
fuller sign value. Thus my question is this: Which trumps which? It is
almost unheard of for a parish to distribute Communion under both
species without recourse to extraordinary ministers. Is it preferable to
avoid using extraordinary ministers and distribute under one species
only? Or is it preferable to distribute under both species and have
recourse to extraordinary ministers on an ordinary basis?
V.D., New York
A: I would say that the word "extraordinary" has several shades of
meaning and this probably leads to some confusion.
From the liturgical point of view, an extraordinary minister is one who
performs a liturgical act in virtue of a special delegation and not as
an ordinary minister. Thus, in the case of Holy Communion, the ordinary
ministers are the bishop, priest and deacon. That is, it is a normal
part of their ministry to distribute Communion.
Anyone else who distributes Communion does so as an extraordinary
minister. That is, it is not a normal part of their liturgical
functions, but they have received this mission in virtue of a
delegation. The instituted acolyte receives this delegation ex officio,
so to speak, in virtue of his institution. He may also purify the sacred
vessels in the absence of the deacon as well as expose and reserve the
Blessed Sacrament in a simple manner for a period of adoration.
All other ministers act in virtue of a habitual delegation from the
local bishop, usually acting through the pastor, or an immediate ad hoc
delegation from the priest celebrant to respond to difficult
Therefore, the status of extraordinary minister is not dependent on the
ministry's frequency but rather pertains to the nature of the ministry
itself. Even if one were to assist in administrating Communion every day
for several years, one never becomes an ordinary minister in the
canonical or liturgical sense.
Another case of the concept of extraordinary minister is the role of a
priest with respect to the sacrament of confirmation in the Latin rite.
Canon law Nos. 882-888 state that the bishop is the ordinary minister of
confirmation, but the law foresees the possibility of priests
administering this sacrament under certain conditions.
For most other sacraments, especially penance, Eucharist, holy orders
and anointing of the sick, there is no possibility of extraordinary
However, the current use of the word extraordinary is not unknown in
liturgical norms. For example, the 2004 instruction "Redemptionis
Sacramentum" says: "It is the Priest celebrant's responsibility to
minister Communion, perhaps assisted by other Priests or Deacons; and he
should not resume the Mass until after the Communion of the faithful is
concluded. Only when there is a necessity may extraordinary ministers
assist the Priest celebrant in accordance with the norm of law" (No.
This same document refers to the practice of Communion under both
"[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.
"[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 …."
Thus, while Communion under both species is praised there might be
circumstances where prudence recommends forgoing it because of the
practical difficulties entailed. Hence "Redemptionis Sacramentum"
continues in No. 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
From this text we can adduce that, in principle at least, Church norms
recognize the possibility of using well-formed extraordinary ministers
to assist in distributing Communion under both species. Therefore,
rather than one norm trumping the other, it is a question of evaluating
all the pertinent circumstances before deciding what to do. The mere
fact of having to use extraordinary ministers does not appear to be a
sufficient reason not to proceed with Communion under both species,
provided that the ministers are duly qualified.
While Communion under both species is graced with indubitable spiritual
advantages, it is not an absolute value and, as the norms suggest, it
should be omitted if there is any danger of profanation or due to
serious practical difficulties.
Nobody is deprived of any grace by not receiving from the chalice, as
Christ is received whole and entire under either species.
* * *
Follow-up: Extraordinary Ministers and Both Species of
In the wake of our comments on Communion under both species (see Dec.
16), a Drogheda, Ireland, reader asked for a clarification on the role
of the instituted acolyte with respect to purification. After
summarizing the relevant documents, he asked: "Am I right in thinking
that if acolyte, deacon and priest are present, then the deacon should
purify; if priest and deacon are present, then the deacon should purify;
and if priest and acolyte are present, then the acolyte should purify?"
In a nutshell, yes! This is the proper procedure in the cases described.
Other readers had asked specific questions about the distribution of
Communion under both species. A Calgary, Alberta, reader asked: "Is it
appropriate to have Communion under both species at weekday Masses and
Sunday Masses in Ordinary Time, or should this be reserved for feast
days and other celebrations? If there is more than one Mass on a Sunday,
can just one of the Masses be in both species or should all Masses be
There is no universal answer to this question. The decision as to when
to offer Communion under both species now falls primarily on the local
ordinary who, in some cases, may delegate the decision to the local
Distributing the Precious Blood in parishes on weekdays is rare, but the
bishop could permit this practice if circumstances warrant it. It is
quite common in seminaries and religious houses and during spiritual
Similarly there could be good practical reasons why a parish would offer
the Precious Blood at only some Masses on a Sunday, for example, if one
particular Mass was so packed that there was real danger of spillage or
of overly extending the time of communion. In such cases the reasons
should be explained to the faithful so that they may choose at what Mass
Finally, a Colorado reader asked: "If the body, blood, soul and divinity
of Christ are present in both the consecrated bread and wine, does not
one receive Communion twice if one receives under both species? If not,
The answer is no! The reason is a tad more complex. Receiving Communion
should always be related to participation at Mass and the context of
completing the holy sacrifice, and not be seen exclusively from the
point of view of the doctrine of the real presence. This is one reason
why the priest celebrant must, with rare exceptions, communicate under
both kinds at every Mass.
Even if one occasionally may receive Communion outside of Mass, it is
always related in some way to the sacrifice in which this host was
In this light, for the faithful, receiving Communion at Mass is the high
point and completion of each person's personal participation in the holy
sacrifice. From the point of view of the sign this completion is fuller
when Communion is received under both species but are, so to speak, two
moments of a single act of communion.
Nor is there any difference, from the point of view of communion, in
receiving the Precious Blood directly from the chalice or by intinction
of the sacred hosts.
At the same time, while Communion under both species is a fuller sign of
participation at Mass, the fact that Christ is fully present in both
species means that reception under just one species is sufficient for