A while back, on one of the Facebook forums, there was a discussion about how one Ordinariate community was forced to give up the Chalice during flu season because the local Roman Catholic archbishop decreed so for health reasons.
This led to concerns among some of the members.
In our community in Ottawa, we have always been used to receiving Holy Communion in both species, kneeling at the altar rail. First we receive the Body of Christ; then the priest comes around with the Chalice. A couple of people may let the Host remain in their cupped palm for the priest to come and intinct it before placing it on the tongue of communicant.
We have never, to the best of my recollection, had the Chalice suspended during flu season, though I personally avoid receiving from the Chalice if I am feeling a little ill so as not to risk passing something on.
In some of our bigger communities, such as our cathedral Our Lady of Walsingham and at St. Thomas More in Scranton, Communion is by intinction.
I would imagine that if we got word our community was moving to intinction alone, we might have some consternation and concern among our people, especially those who have a gluten intolerance. We have several in our congregation.
Today, I received the following in an email from a friend, who suggested the issue might be worthy of discussion on the blog:
Communion under both kinds has been recognized as a worthy element of the patrimony by Anglicanae Traditiones. Fine. But what is patrimonial about it? Is it the form of reception of the chalice (the externals), in which case there is an argument against the practice of intinction? Or is it the so called “fuller sign” of reception of both species of the Eucharist, which is accomplished just as well by intinction as by reception of the precious blood from the chalice directly? In other words, is the manner of reception under both kinds more important than the meaning of reception?
In a larger sense, this can open a discussion about the relationship between praxis and doctrine – and that is something that is VERY important to be talking about these days.
How patrimonial is reception under both kinds? What is the difference between “we’ve always done it this way” as we have in Ottawa vs. true patrimony?
Would our experts kindly chime in?