The one paragraph in the guidelines that refers to Communion under both kinds is as follows:
Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father's Kingdom (General Instruction on the Roman Missal n.281).In the context, the reference to Ministers of Holy Communion is to commissioned lay ministers, and there can be no doubt about this being the intended reference.
Now that we have had the experience of Communion under both kinds for a good number of years, made possible by Ministers of Holy Communion, I would like to re-emphasise that this should be the norm at all Masses.
Now, as I suggested in my first post in this series, there is every reason to encourage the reception of Holy Communion under both kinds.
Now, the word "ordinary" does have an everyday meaning in addition to its technical meaning with regard to different ministries in the Church. Something is "ordinary" when it happens regularly, frequently or, indeed, all the time. Now, in Brentwood diocese (and, I expect, in many other English dioceses) the use of lay ministers to distribute Holy Communion is "ordinary" in this second sense though "extraordinary" in the first sense. This every day use of lay ministers does act as a counter-sign, a kind of going against the sign-value of the office of the ordained ministry with regard to the Eucharist. Expressing this in traditionalist terms, some would talk about the hands of the priest being anointed or consecrated in order to handle the Body and Blood of the Lord, and therefore the lay faithful should not handle them or, the sacred vessels. This counter-sign to the office of the priest or deacon is why many, and not all of us traditionalist by any means, prefer not to receive under both kinds when doing so involves receiving the Precious Blood from a lay minister.
There are situations where the use of lay ministers is quite understandable - taking Holy Communion to the sick and housebound or in situations of genuinely large Mass attendance, for example. But I do find it a bit ironic that, in many situations, the positive sign-value of Holy Communion under both kinds provides a basis, by the use of lay ministers, for undermining the sign-value of the office of the ordained minister with regard to the Eucharist. It would be very helpful if something could be done to deliver a better balance between these two sign-values in pastoral practice. I offer some suggestions below, based on the principle that lay ministers are only used in a way that is clearly "extraordinary".