Last week, I admit I might have thrown a “curve ball” to you – I changed the liturgy without exploding my reasoning: I decided to distribute the Eucharist only under one species during Lent.

Let me tell you the reasons behind my decision. It started on Ash Wednesday, when I was pleasantly surprised by the large crowds that came for Mass and ashes. When I saw the crowds, and realized that everyone would come to the altar twice (one for ashes and once for Communion), I decided that it would be faster if we had 4 stations for ashes and 4 stations for the Body of Christ (rather than two for the Body and two for the Blood, since we only had 3 Eucharistic ministers). After all, most people didn’t anticipate a 90 minute Mass on Ash Wednesday! This “short term” decision led me to reflect that the Lenten liturgies are meant to be more “sparse” and “solemn” (i.e. no Gloria, no Alleluia). So I decided that our Lenten liturgies would be sparser, more solemn and shorter. And one way to accomplish was by distributing the Eucharist only under the species of bread.

But there are other reasons behind my decision. First of all, while receiving Communion under both species is more perfect from the point of view of the sign, it is important to remember the Church's teachings that Christ is received whole and entire under either species. Thus, one's Communion is perfectly complete when it is received under the species of bread alone. One is not deprived of extra graces by not receiving from the chalice. Secondly, the Church has established norms for the reception of both species, and those norms do not anticipate Communion under both kinds at every Mass. In the General Instruction to the Roman Missal (the “GIRM”), three occasions are specifically mentioned when Communion under both species may be given: for priests who are not able to concelebrate, for the deacon and others who perform some role at Mass, and for a "community" Mass, such as a small group. The GIRM also states that the diocesan Bishop may lay down norms for the distribution of Communion under both kinds for his own diocese. And those occasions (“may be done”) constitute exceptions to the longstanding norm (one that has existed since at least the 11th century) of receiving under one species. So Communion under both species may be given according to the pastor’s discretion, but it is not the norm.

So that’s my reasoning. But I’m sorry that I didn’t enunciate it before the change. And on Easter Sunday, we will joyfully celebrate the “fullness” of the sign of both species as we turn from the “sparseness” of Lent to the fullness of joy at the Resurrection.