You will have to look for this document on the website of the Holy See under the Pontifical Council for the Laity. You won’t find it easily by looking on the website under the other dicasteries or by using their so-called “search” feature. [Links in original--E.M.]
Father then shares this document's discussion of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, parts of which are below:
§ 2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100) [...]
To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:
(...) — the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful”. [Emphasis in original--E.M.]
Seems pretty clear, yes? EMHCs are not supposed to be used every Sunday at Mass.
However, we then read--at the USCCB website--the following:
And under the norms for distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds on the same page, the use of EMHCs is mentioned.
19. In 1963, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council authorized the extension of the faculty for Holy Communion under both kinds in Sacrosanctum Concilium:The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, Communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See. . . . (29)
20. The Council's decision to restore Holy Communion under both kinds at the bishop's discretion took expression in the first edition of the Missale Romanum and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum:Holy Communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet shines forth. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father's kingdom. (30)
The General Instruction further states that "at the same time the faithful should be guided toward a desire to take part more intensely in a sacred rite in which the sign of the Eucharistic meal stands out more explicitly." (31)21. The extension of the faculty for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds does not represent a change in the Church's immemorial beliefs concerning the Holy Eucharist. Rather, today the Church finds it salutary to restore a practice, when appropriate, that for various reasons was not opportune when the Council of Trent was convened in 1545. (32) But with the passing of time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the reform of the Second Vatican Council has resulted in the restoration of a practice by which the faithful are again able to experience "a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet." (33) (All links in original--E.M.)
So the question then becomes: which is the priority, in the mind of the Church? That EMHCs be used rarely or, preferably, not at all at Mass, but only to take Communion to the sick of the parish--or that the faithful be able to receive Holy Communion under both kinds? The objection that I'm quoting from the USCCB site, by the way, in no way changes that the USCCB is quoting from official Church documents expressing a preference for Holy Communion under both kinds.
It is true that in some places in the world, this is not an either/or question. There are enough ordained priests and deacons present at every Mass in some places that the laity are not needed to help in this way.
But where I live, for instance, we have one priest handling one parish consisting of two churches--the main church and our mission church. It could be argued (especially at the main church at some Masses where the crowd overflows onto the porch) that the Mass would be unduly prolonged if Father had to give only the Body of Christ, by himself, to all the people present. There would almost never be an occasion for people to receive under both kinds.
And here is where I find myself, as a lay person, completely unable to say with any certainty what the Church herself wants. Does she want Communion under both kinds frequently or even regularly available to the faithful? Or does she want EMHCs phased out of the liturgy completely and only permitted (a little grudgingly, perhaps) to take Communion to the sick since there aren't enough priests and deacons everywhere to do that work of charity? Because aside from a few pockets where there are enough priests and deacons to make EMHCs totally unnecessary, these are mutually exclusive goals.
This is just one example--there are many. But this kind of thing is why I find myself a little out of patience with, for instance, people who think the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite will be eradicated in the relatively near future; or, on the other hand, with those who think that permitting the Extraordinary Form was a bad mistake, and that the E.F. should be suppressed (not that I know any such people, but I hear they hang out at the NCReporter). There is a tendency to take what one would prefer for oneself and convince oneself that this is what the Church really wants.
Which is not to say that the Church doesn't really want some specific reforms to take place; she does, and she is good about making those things relatively clear (new translation, anyone?). But it highlights the danger of thinking that what we think the Church wants is actually so.
And I'll close with a poll (low tech, as always), to show how different faithful Catholics might answer the same question differently, all of us thinking that we probably have a good idea of what the Church really wants:
What does the Church really want for the Roman Rite of the Mass?
a) She wants the Ordinary Form to prevail, with some reforms, and the Extraordinary Form eventually to be phased out.
b) She wants the Extraordinary Form to prevail, with no reforms at all, and the Ordinary Form eventually to be phased out.
c) She wants both Forms to continue side by side for at least the next several hundred years, each informing the other, each enriching the other.
d) She wants a new single Rite to be created which will look more like the E.F. than the O.F.
e) She wants a new single Rite to be created which will look more like the O.F. than the E.F.
f) She wants something else (and if you choose this option, please describe).
I lean toward "C" of these options. I think both Forms will continue for the lengthy future, and if there is a blending of the two into one it will be an organic development in which neither form "wins" everything. But I look forward to hearing what you have to say--so please leave your comments in the comment box!