Quote from: Marlelar

No Traditional Mass ever has or ever will give communion under both species.   If it was given, it would no longer be a Traditional Mass.

No traditional Latin rite Mass.

Communion under both Species is the normal practice in the Eastern rites.  Trent says that it is heresy to maintain that both Species are necessary, or that one does not receive the Body and Blood of the Lord in one Species.  It doesn't say that there is anything wrong with both Species essentially.  

The Church could never maintain that there is anything wrong with
sharing the Body and Blood under both species. To do so would
contradict the Words and actions of Our Lord. It's rather unsettling
to see that merely saying such in a prior post has received 3
thumbs down.

Unleavened bread did not even appear in the Latin Rite
until the 9th century. Before that, the breaking of bread was literally the
breaking of leavened bread baked in homes. The wafer-thin hosts
confected by monks and nuns did not appear until the 12th century.
(paraphrased from The Mass: Its Rituals, Roots and Relevance in Our Lives,
Joan Carter McHugh, pp. 223-224).
The practice of giving Holy Communion only in the form of bread became
dominant in the Western church of the 13th century. Only the celebrant
communicated from the chalice, though this custom was contrary to the
practice of earlier centuries. (paraphrased, ibid. pp. 230-231)

Quote from: Marlelar

No Traditional Mass ever has or ever will give communion under both species.   If it was given, it would no longer be a Traditional Mass.

has ever ? will never ? are we certain of that ?

there is no formal prohibition of both species.

What the Church condemned was not communication under both species but the doctrine that one did not fully receive Holy Communion if communicating under one -- in that this entailed false doctrine regarding the Blessed Sacrament.

Quote from: snowball

Quote from: Marlelar

No Traditional Mass ever has or ever will give communion under both species.   If it was given, it would no longer be a Traditional Mass.

has ever ? will never ? are we certain of that ?

there is no formal prohibition of both species.

What the Church condemned was not communication under both species but the doctrine that one did not fully receive Holy Communion if communicating under one -- in that this entailed false doctrine regarding the Blessed Sacrament.

I never said reception of both condemned.

Can the Chalice be allowed for health reasons which are more common than in the 1910s?

Yes, using a kind of straw (called a fistula - be careful googling images though, it's also the name of a medical condition) or a spoon:

No Traditional Mass ever has or ever will give communion under both species.   If it was given, it would no longer be a Traditional Mass.

I attended Mass in Pennsylvania once at an SSPX chapel, and at the very end of Communion, a father and young daughter approached the rail.  The father received normally, and then walked up to the altar, where he retrieved a very small gold chalice, which I assume had a small amount of the Precious Blood in it.  He walked down, held it to the young girl's mouth, and she drank it.  I've always assumed she had some kind of medical condition that prohibited reception of the Precious Body, so the priest allows her to received the Precious Blood in this fashion.

or by intinction