@Roberto 55 I've had to go to N.O. masses my entire life, I've never seen parts of the host on the floor. I did see a guy take it on the tongue and it almost fall out of his mouth.

Communion on the hand isn't a sacrilege.

"my point remains the same, communion on the hand isn't sacrilegious."

Since I was quoting you directly in my previous reply, a claim that your point remains the same is debatable, Jmy1975

"Of course I'm speaking and have only been speaking of morality, which is clear from the context,"

...actually, from your context, you were discussing spiritual uncleanliness. As shown by your question "if the hands of a parishioner are unconsecrated, unclean, isn't his body?"

Consecration is a spiritual act.

Likewise, "When we are forgiven of our sins..." That refers to a sacramental act, something spiritual.

Church history shows that morality (i.e what is considered sinful) has changed over the years. Not always for the better, either. If creatures like Cardinal Marx and Fr. James Martin have their way, that morality will change even further.

"but you're a nitpicking psycho, so you did your thing."

...namely correcting your errors, as that other nit-picking psycho Roberto55 did regarding the paten.

Since English isn't his first language, that's a 2x Win for him. :D I was, believe it or not, making a half-hearted attempt at Christian charity so I passed on it.

"Subversion doesn't require consent. It requires ignorance."

Absolutely it requires consent, else no subversion can occur. To subvert something is to pervert or corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance, or faith.

If one is subverted (passive tense, as I originally used the verb) then one IS perverted or corrupted by an undermining of morals,s allegiance, or faith.

One must consent to getting perverted or corrupted, otherwise subversion can not take place. Perversion or corruption are forms of change. There has to be consent for that change to take place.

Christians in the past gladly went to their deaths before conceding even a minor change to what they knew to be true.

Modernism subverted a number of Church leaders. They were exposed to corruption and they chose not only to adopt those heresies but also to promote them. They grew up with the True Church and they chose to change it.

Even a Pope foresaw the dangers of modernism and bitterly inveighed against it.

Those "demons" did have guidance away from such errors. They chose, in their pride to ignore that guidance. Thus, they consented to their subversion and the blame for their doing so is entirely on them.

"But there's no way you can call the folks who established V2 ignorant, again they had the Truth."

Well... *sigh* Now you're making a common mistake of impugning motive absent proof.

Officially, according to their own extensive writings, the folks who established V2 did so entirely for noble-sounding, seemingly positive reasons.

They weren't sitting around cackling like cartoon villains, rubbing their hands in glee at how they would undermine the Church. At least not officially.

Instead, they wanted to make the Church more relevant to the modern age, the liturgical reforms were going to make the Church more "accessible" to (increasingly dumbed-down) lay-people.

The Church needed to repsond to the enormous changes in society that were happening (courtesy of other modernists and worse). The reformers were promising a groundswell of new Catholics, etc.

Now on paper, those are all laudable goals. As such, Vatican Council II's architect can point to their goals and say, THIS is what we wanted to achieve.

As for the outcome...

It's just pure coincidence that what they proposed ended up perfectly designed to secularize the Church and Her Sacraments in nearly every way possible. It's just happenstance their policies had exactly the opposite effect of what they promised would happen.

It's alllllll a big mistake. That's assuming you could even get a consensus among Vatican Council II's leaders that it even WAS a mistake. BXVI still hasn't admitted it and probably never will.

There's the problem... proving that it was intentionally malign, what you describe as "willful".

We may "know" (as in believe strongly) their intent was malign, but proving that is another matter.

Showing they should have known better given the warnings of no one less than a post could show negligence, but not intentional harm.

Using a very simple example, proving a motive of harmful intent, that's the difference between manslaughter and murder.

In a GTV context, this is how our pal FM Shanky-Wanky beat his prostitution bust.

His attorney was able to argue (on appeal) the prosecution failed to prove his intent when he showed up with cash, condoms and lube when replying to a sleazy online ad.

There's the genius of his attorney. Having the cash doesn't prove the intent for which it was to be used.

After all, he might have had the cash for something entirely unrelated to paying for a hooker that night. Perhaps he was planning later in the evening to buy drugs from his favourite dealer or place a few bets on a back-alley dog-fight.

This is why proving intent is such a difficult thing, even when it's seemingly self-evident.

Ultimately at this point, proving the original intent of Vatican II's architects becomes more difficult and more irrelevant with each passing decade.

The long-term results of Vatican Council II speak for themselves -even when weighed against the optimistic "good intentions" of its original promoters.

You should give the Traditional Latin Mass a shot. I won't lie to you, it takes some getting used to. You really should study the Mass before going the first time and even then, for the first few times, it's better to go to a "Low" Mass, just to get a sense of it.

There's a ton of YouTube and some very good books out there designed for Catholics who are new to it.

If you don't like it at one parish, try it at a different one.

These days, many priests are taking up the Traditional Latin Mass to expand their parish's offerings

I can't prove their intent, but it may be to bolster flagging attendance numbers by appealing to a demographic known for being zealous, financially well-off and... generous... to The Church, notably their local parish..

What an irony that is after 50+ years of Vatican Council II. Let's bring more people in by going back to the way things were. :D

Anyway, the experience/ formal training/ dedication of the celebrant makes a noticeable difference.

I'm happy to say you've got plenty of options, more than I do in fact.

www.ecclesiadei.org/masses.cfm

www.latinmasstimes.com/Ohio

You guys even have dedicated Latin Mass community website for your state.

columbuslatinmass.org

I'll be probably much later tonight...

Jmy1975 you disregard basic science (see below) like the sect of jehowa's witnesses. Communion on the tongue through the hands of any layman distributing to oneself on demand is against Church law as mentioned above and praxis contrary to dogmatized canons at the Council of Trent.
Table 1 : quantity of particles remaining on hands

photo 1: visible particles 10 times magnifying

photo 2: particles from hosts reamaining on gloves

ps You have not replied on private chat: "Provide me with 2 papal magisterial documents one from before 1958 and the other after 1958 in which any layman is allowed (including) to minister (distribute) Holy Communion to mouth."

@Ultraviolet Spiritual uncleanliness and being immoral are the same thing.

Idc.

Jmy1975 science and Magisterium proves you wrong and you are unable to cite any documents to support your claim . There is no such act as "Communion on the hand" as a recipient could then misuse it , i.e. place it in a purse, pocket etc. Therefore the act of distribution of every Holy Communion is only in the mouth and on the tongue for immediate consumption purpose only in the most perfect (through consecrated minister on tongue and kneeling) way so as to eliminate any possible loss of particles. This terminology was purposely used by heretics (especially Episcopal collegial bodies) to pressure Vatican to open the backdoor for universal engagement of all laypeople in distribution of HC, as well as misuse and profane the Eucharist. With end to completely destroy reverence of the Most Holy Sacrament, the value of Holy Orders (consecrated priesthood) and to undermine faith in the Real Presence in the Church what unfortunately has already occurred....

You should care. @Jmy1975 For people who are capable of recognizing these distinctions, and I'm giving you the credit that you can, they matter very much in how they impact our spiritual life.

Morality (and its opposite) immorality are standards set by society. Spiritual uncleanliness is the state of our soul as it's measured against standards set by God and clarified by The Church.

There was a time, even within living memory for some, when interracial marriage -notably between Caucasians and Negroes- was not only immoral but a criminal act. Laws change, morality changes. Today it's considered a sign of "progressive" enlightenment, being colour-blind to race. "Love Is Love, etc..."

To my knowledge, The Church never made such a condemnation. If a man and a woman were both Catholic, The Church gave Her blessing on their desire for matrimony.

So there's an example of something being "immoral" yet according to The Church certainly NOT "spiritually unclean".

Today we see just the opposite.

Riffing my earlier paragraph... there was a time, even within living memory for some, when homosexuality (much less homosexual marriage) was not only immoral but a criminal act. Laws change, morality changes. Today both are considered a sign of "progressive" enlightenment, being blind to gender. "Love Is Love, etc..."

The Church has always held homosexuality to be an abomination and those indulging in it to be spiritually unclean.

This is what monstrosities with in the Church like Fr. James Martin (SJ) wish to change. He seeks to somehow "re-write" the Bible and the last umpteen centuries of Church teachings so homosexuality is NOT considered "spiritually unclean" at all. He's counting, I think, on secular society to accomplish a similar goal for morality and there is precedent for his hope.

Therefore, morality may be determined by the whims of society, but spiritual uncleanliness is determined using a much higher standard.

Have fun with Rafal, btw. I'm almost tempted to start writing amicus curiae just for the sheer amusement of it. I mean...

Did you see any citations for those graphs and bad black and white photos? I didn't.

Or "the Magisterium" of the Church? C'mon... shooting that one down is TOO easy. Like so:
www.praytellblog.com/…/john-paul-ii-an…

'course for a winner like Rafal, The Magisterium began and ended whenever he pretends it did.

You should have an easy time with him.

@Ultraviolet I don't care abt your comments. Your "distinctions" are dreck. For example, it's clear from the context I was talking about Christian morality, and morality, real morality comes from God. And it is the same thing as spiritual cleanliness.

By the way, morality ultimately cannot come from society. That's basic Christian dogma.

Only an idiot or a very sad human being with a superiority complex could ever think I was talking about anything else.

I have a deeper understanding of what words actually mean, and I am sincere. You are a nitpicking psychopath who needs therapy. You add nothing to any discussion except superficial emotion and overrated displays of your intellect.

You're disingenuous and vain.

I'll end this by saying this truism, again: receiving communion on the hand is not sacrilegious. It simply cannot be.

And we are done.

" I don't care abt your comments."

...thus explaining yet another reply to them.

"Your "distinctions" are dreck."

...which doesn't explain why they invariably prompt you to further qualify your previous statements. "Context" seems to be your new fall-back...

"it's clear from the context I was talking about Christian morality"

No it isn't. You made a declaraitve statement with zero distinction between the secular and the spiritual. There is no associative -context- Being wrong doesn't give you "context". It just means you're wrong -and you almost certainly recognize it.

That's the problem. You're trying to retroactively invent context to cover your mistake. .

...and, here's the part you'll really enjoy. I was expecting you'd go this route and planned for it. ;-)

"real morality comes from God."

You're venturing into Sola Scriptura Territory.

"Real morality" or so-called "Christian morality" exists through interpretation of God's word and that's where the problems appear

Consider the shifting and at-times contradictory standards of "Christian morality" connected with slavery.

Christ Himself praised a centurion for his faith when asking for a cure on behalf of his slave. Luke 7: 1-10.

Christ praised the centurion's faith yet He didn't use the incident as a teaching opportunity to denounce slavery or servitude. He could have, the opportunity was right there, yet He didn't.

Likewise, St. Paul told slaves to obey their masters and masters how to treat their slaves, Eph. 6:5-11; Col. 3:22-4:1.

Paul himself insists he preached "the whole counsel of God" Acts 20:27.

Yet at the same time, the institution of slavery contradicts what Christ teaches in Matthew 19:19: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." After all, it's impossible to love your neighbor and simultaneously use force to deny his freedom while imposing your will upon him.

Both sides of the argument on the "Christian morality" of slavery have Scriptural support -even if they confine themselves only to discussing Christ alone. ;-)

By contrast, spiritual uncleanliness is far more simple. It arises from being in a state of sin. Something is either sinful or it is not.

"Only an idiot or a very sad human being with a superiority complex could ever think I was talking about anything else."

No True Scottsman Fallacy. Sheesh.

"I have a deeper understanding of what words actually mean, and I am sincere."

:D :D :D

Stuff like this is why replying to you is such an endless source of entertainment.

You're forced to keep qualifying what you orignally said, backing up again and again and then you'll drop a winner like that.

It's gorgeous.

Then there's your sincerity. :P

You???

You'll be sincere when you admit to being argumentative, egotistical and arrogant. Unlike you, I readily admit to such characteristics and my arrogance is well founded.

"You are a nitpicking psychopath who needs therapy."

You're resorting to your "psychiatry" gimmick again. The appearance of this is always a good sign, especially combined with the name-calling.

When you're losing the game, you go back to the same pages in your play-book.

"You add nothing to any discussion except superficial emotion and overrated displays of your intellect."

Worth noting my last display of that intellect was beating your opponent in one sentence with one citation, something you had failed to do.

"You're disingenuous and vain."

You're confusing being snide and flippant with being disingenous. As you should have learned by now, I'm ruthlessly direct, especially when error presents itself. ;-)

As for your unkind accusation of vanity. Yes. I am. Exceedingly sp and these little spats only fuel it, btw.

"I'll end this by saying this truism, again: receiving communion on the hand is not sacrilegious."

By truism, you probably should qualify only in the sense of logic, in it states nothing beyond what is implied by any of its terms. It certainly isn't a conventional truism in the sense of being self-evidently correct.

I suspect you intended to use the word in that sense, but... well.. you do have trouble "context". :D

You've repeated that "truism" to me, to others, often enough and as Rafal correctly notes (as much as it pains me to admit it) you haven't supplied any factual support for your view.

...save the repeating of it,

Rafal should have pointed that out if he'd been clever enough to slam the door on his debate with you, which he isn't.

"And we are done."

Until the next reply. Because, you know, you don't care abt my comments. ;-)