Ofcoarse its a priority, because it is Christ centered rather than centered on a modernist like Fr. Longenecker, or any other priest. It is about how much reverence and respect is owed to the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. In the end nothing else matters, yes some may say that those that receive The Eucharist on the tongue can be hypocrites. But why not let God decide if thy are or not, in the end we are only responsible for ourselves to get to heaven; that is priority number one, as far as ourselves are concerned. While, trying to get our own house in order, we are to help others without forgetting that we ouselves are not perfect either, since we too may also have been hypocrites, at some stage; and some of us probably still are, maybe not as much as before but its still there. In the end being reverential to Jesus in the Eucharist is the same as building God a Temple as they wanted to do in the Old Testament but it will never be to the grandiosity that God deserves that only exists in heaven and so in other words the reverence that is owed to God will never be attained here on earth it will only be done in heaven; here we can only do our best and let God take care of the rest.

@Peter4God What does the Church allow?

Well, “happy” infighting.

No, the church does not allow happy infighting; erroneous, weak, wicked bishops and past popes alike, allow the happy infighting. Using your arguement one could say that God allowed the "happy infighting" between Abel and Cain there was no church to speak of from what we know but we do know that there was a manner of a ritual where God was worshipped and reverenced. Both Abel and Cain had choices to make in how to worship God. Abel did what was asked Cain did not, is God to blame, ofcoarse not is Abel to blame, again ofcoarse not he did what God asked of him, so in the end Cain is the only one left, he refused to do what was asked and so he killed his brother. Why? possibly because he was jealous, or maybe because he, Cain could not sway his brother Abel to reverence God less as some people have been doing so since the time of Abel and Cain; and so we now have this "happy infighting" as you put it like Abel and Cain we each know in our own hearts how God is best worshipped within our own limited capabilities so to claim a right that has not been granted to all ie; the touching/handling of the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is one of them

It is absolutely not an artificial argument and I am certainly not getting into politics to support reception on the tongue. It is true that many particles of the Host are dropped on to the ground and trampled under foot as a result of the practice of receiving in the hand. There is a lot more movement of the Host by reception in the hands, so the chances are much greater.
I’ve heard a talk by a blessed person who lives solely on Holy Communion and the Precious Blood. It saddens the person to see reception in the hands, so the person only receives on the tongue, because of not wanting to chance having the consecrated Host, Jesus, falling to the floor and being trampled underfoot.

@Ultraviolet my point: just because you're into the Latin mass doesn't mark you as a better person, just as participating in the NO doesn't make you a heretical. People committed unspeakable crimes during the Latin mass era and the new mass era. Reverence, one more time for the idiots out there, isn't always confirmed by outward signs of piety. Jesus Christ spent a lot of time on the hypocrisy of the "traditionalists" of his day. the ritual alone doesn't save the man.

Bye now !

Your "point" changes every time I correct it, you witless moron. EDIT: -and- so do your posts, after I've replied to them, you naughty little phoney. This isn't the first time, you've pulled either stunt when you've really dropped the ball. Both are standard tactics in your play-book of forum BS.

"The point I am making is that just because you're into the Latin mass doesn't mark you as a better person..."

That wasn't the "point" you made at all. You conflated Vatican II's excesses with the last century's worth of priests. Now "duh point i'm makin is dat...".

Like hell it is. When your original point gets BTFO'd, at least have the grace to admit it. Don't re-write your post, either. That's as much an admission of guilt as any other. If nobody's replied, hey, that's what the edit button is for. But once someone -has- you don't go back and change things.

"just because you're into the Latin mass doesn't mark you as a better person,"

...and if THAT is your point, it's still irrelevant to the default licitness of receiving Communion on the tongue.

Your "point" is tangential support for the same erroneous argument this Novus Ordo priest is using to unlawfully deny parishioners what The Church states explicitly is their right.

"People committed unspeakable crimes during the Latin mass era and the new mass era."

...and the overwhelming worst of those happened in the New Mass era.

You're forgetting VC II has been around for nearly sixty years now. ;-)

Most of the priests who (as you claimed) "were brought up and even said the Old Latin Mass" are either retired or long dead.

If Father "x" was just 21 when he was ordained in 1962, he'll be 79 this year.

No, the "fruits" of Vatican Council II, including the abuse-scandal "fruits" come directly from "the spirit of Vatican Council II".

The rampant orgy of abuse that followed in the 70s and 80s, the basis for the overwhelming majority of lawsuits today, are Novus Ordo priests, doing decidedly Novus Ordo things in Novus Ordo parishes. This is all on you.

"Reverence, one more time for the idiots out there, isn't always confirmed by outward signs of piety."

One more time for only one idiot out there, that statement is no justification to unlawfully deny parishioners their rights under the Church's regulation.

"Nice try, Granite State Karen @uktraviolet but I'm right, you're wrong."

Redemptionis Sacramentum 92-95 says otherwise, you numbskull. To misquote you. The Catholic Church trumps your idiocy.

Oh, and one last thing... you're still wrong. My name isn't Karen. :D Even there you're still wrong.

Looks like you struck out three for three here, slugger. Your first point was worng, your second point, 'the point I'm making' was wrong and even this big "reveal" is worng.

You began in error, your point changed and it was still in error, and even your last "snappy" rejoinder remains in error.

It's a truism of you Novus Ordo types. Error defines you.

...it -does- excite me that you're trying to muck around online and find a real person behind my user-name.

Careful, home-boy... Don't make this personal. ;-)

Excellent points -ultraviolet! Thanks for the missing piece that's always absent when this topic arises. Romano Amerio in Iotum Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the 20th century, mentions that reception of Holy Communion in the hand was regarded as illicit and brought to American Catholics through subterfuge and stealth by the head post Vatican 2 archbishop of the Bishops Conference. Several votes were taken on whether to allow standing communion in the hand following the trends in Holland and France. The majority of the bishops were against it with some writing that it would weaken and lead to a loss of faith. The lead bishop at the time began canvassing retired bishops to vote in favor of it and then changed the Bishops Conference rules to allow the more liberal retired bishops to vote. The next rallying vote to allow standing communion in the hand passed. Romano Amerio was a Thomistic scholar and a periti or advisor to the Second Vatican Council.