Let us test and examine our ways

Again: Time for An Intervention
I originally wrote this post last September, saying that my heart was heavy because it had been brought to my attention that “accidents” during the distribution of Holy Communion under both species occur not infrequently in parishes, i.e., the Most Precious Blood is spilled during the administration of Holy Communion from the chalice. Recently I learned of other such “accidents.” And so I decided to post this entry again.
Even if such “accidents” occur no more than twice or three times a year in a given parish, they give sufficient reason to review, and, I should think, modify the manner in which the Most Precious Blood is distributed.

The use of this photo is in no way a reflection on the good faith of the young people appearing in it. It does, however, effectively demonstrate the great chasm that has opened up between the liturgical practice of the Eastern Churches (see the photo above) and certain liturgical practices that are currently widespread in churches of the Roman Rite. It also demonstrates that some members of the clergy have failed to address the legitimate hopes and praiseworthy aspirations of the faithful, by neglecting to offer a consistent mystagogical catechesis (explanation of the unfolding of the liturgical rites and texts), capable of fostering true, conscious, and actual participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in accordance with liturgical law and in organic continuity with tradition.
A few questions?
Are these incidents reported directly to the Ordinary, so that the he can, when necessary, limit Holy Communion under both forms, and exercise vigilance over the manner in which it is carried out?
Should not parish priests be required to submit to their Ordinary a yearly report of any such incidents, so that the Ordinary, taking into account their number and frequency, can revise existing policies and promulgate suitable stricter norms for his diocese?
Why is there no critical review of a practice that, in fact, poses serious problems of irreverence?
Why are certain passages of Pope Paul VI’s Sacramentali Communione (29 June 1970) systematically ignored? I give the relevant passages here in boldface:

Among the ways of communicating prescribed by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, receiving from the chalice itself ranks first. Even so, it is to be chosen only when everything can be carried out in fitting order and with no danger of irreverence toward the Blood of Christ. When they are available, other priests or deacons or even acolytes should be chosen to present the chalice. The method of communicating in which the communicants pass the chalice to one another or go directly to the chalice to take Christ’s Blood must be regarded as unacceptable.

Whenever none of the ministers already mentioned is available, if the communicants are few and are to receive communion under both kinds by drinking directly from the chalice, the priest himself distributes communion, first under the form of bread, then under the form of wine.

Otherwise the preference should be for the rite of communion under both kinds by intinction: it is more likely to obviate the practical difficulties and to ensure the reverence due the sacrament more effectively. Intinction makes access to communion under both kinds easier and safer for the faithful of all ages and conditions; at the same time it preserves the truth present in the more complete sign.

Why is this clear statement in favour of Holy Communion by intinction systematically ignored?

Both Orthodox and Eastern Catholic rites have, for centuries, practiced a form of Holy Communion by intinction? Latin Rite Catholics have something to learn from this centuries-old experience.

From Redemptionis Sacramentum:
[103.] The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon”.[191] As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue.[192]
[104.] The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand. As for the host to be used for the intinction, it should be made of valid matter, also consecrated; it is altogether forbidden to use non-consecrated bread or other matter.

Have our Bishops given thought to the grave scandal given to the Orthodox Churches by the current Roman Catholic practices of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, often in casual street attire, distributing the Most Precious Blood directly from the the chalice without so much as a cloth held beneath the chin of the communicant?

Why are Protestants not offended by the same practice? Why are they indifferent to it? The answer is, I think, obvious.
Has Holy Communion under both forms been used as a justification for the multiplication of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion?
In the choice of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, why are the principles and the order for selection of fit persons indicated in Immensae Caritatis (29 January 1973) not followed? Alas, there are even parishes where an open appeal for volunteers is made from the pulpit!
With regard to the first, we read that Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion may be employed:
a. whenever no priest, deacon, or acolyte is available;
Why are acolytes (now, effectively equivalent to subdeacons in the reformed Latin Rite) not employed?
Why have Ordinaries not instituted a course of preparation for acolytes, similar to that in place for deacons?
Why are men preparing for the permanent diaconate, who have already been instituted as acolytes, not preferred to Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion?
b. whenever the same ministers are impeded from administering communion because of another pastoral ministry, ill-health, or old age;
Should not the Ordinary be consulted before determining that such is, in fact, the case?
c. whenever the number of faithful wishing to receive communion is so great that the celebration of Mass or the giving of communion outside Mass would take too long.
This is frightfully vague and subject to misinterpretation.
What is too great a number of faithful? 20? 50? 100? 300? 500?
Who decides this?
What is “too long”? Who decides this?
Further, we read in the same Instruction Immensae Caritatis:
IV. The fit person referred to in nos. I and II will be designated according to the order of this listing (which may be changed at the prudent discretion of the local Ordinary): reader, major seminarian, man religious, woman religious, catechist, one of the faithful–a man or a woman.
There is an order here.
Why, in practice, do instituted readers (lectors) fall below the radar screen?
Are not deacon candidates (at least those in the final years of formation) “major seminarians”?

A Crisis
It is time to address these questions. The use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion is completely out of control, as is the distribution of Holy Communion under both forms. The faithful are confused and misled by current practices. It is not uncommon to hear the Most Precious Blood referred to as “the wine” — by some Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion themselves!
Might the beginning of a solution not be a “pastoral moratorium” on the appointment of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and on Holy Communion under both forms until these questions are studied, and suitable remedies mandated by the competent authority?
An Element of Solution: Acolytes
The obvious solution, it seems to me, while waiting for the restoration of the subdiaconate, would be the formation and institution of acolytes in accord with Pope Paul VI’s Motu Proprio Ministeria Quaedam (15 August 1972). Acolytes instituted in accordance with Ministeria Quaedam could, effectively, replace Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, and contribute to the resacralization of the ministration of the Holy Mysteries. They could, at solemn celebrations, be vested in amice, alb, cincture, and tunicle; in less solemn celebrations they would vest in cassock and surplice, or otherwise, in amice, alb, and cincture.
The acolyte is appointed in order to aid the deacon and to minister to the priest. It is his duty therefore to attend to the service of the altar and to assist the deacon and the priest in liturgical celebrations, especially in the celebration of Mass; he is also to distribute communion as a special minister when the ministers spoken of in the Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 845 are not available or are prevented by ill health, age, or another pastoral ministry from performing this function, or when the number of communicants is so great that the celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged. In the same extraordinary circumstances an acolyte may be entrusted with publicly exposing the Blessed Sacrament for adoration by the faithful and afterward replacing it, but not with blessing the people. He may also, to the extent needed, take care of instructing other faithful who on a temporary basis are appointed to assist the priest or deacon in liturgical celebrations by carrying the missal, cross, candles, etc., or by performing other such duties. He will perform these functions more worthily if he participates in the Holy Eucharist with increasingly fervent devotion, receives nourishment from it, and deepens his knowledge about it.
As one set aside in a special way for the service of the altar, the acolyte should learn all matters concerning public Divine Worship and strive to grasp their inner spiritual meaning: in that way he will be able each day to offer himself entirely to God, be an example to all by his gravity and reverence in church, and have a sincere love for the Mystical Body of Christ, the people of God, especially for the weak and the sick.
(Ministeria Quaedam VI)
Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you: and many sleep. (1 Corinthians 11:27:30)