@Don Reto Nay , @tbswv , particles will drop and have dropped with on-the-tongue communion. That's why there is a paten. Secondly, if the hands of a parishioner are unconsecrated, unclean, isn't his body? This is maddening. When we are forgiven of our sins, we may receive communion. If we are full of reverence and love we will not mishandle the host. Hands or tongue, the way you receive it irrelevant If you're doing it for rote.

So no, the sacrilege is receiving communion in a state of rebellion against God. And I'll add that the demons that came up with Vatican II grew up receiving communion on the tongue. As did Luther.

Stop the madness.

@l'ubica if Jesus forgives you of your sins in confession and you receive Him in hand, full of reverence , you're not going to hell. It's impossible. Nowhere has the Church taught that you'll be led to hell or go astray. Indeed, Martin Luther received communion on the tongue, distributed it on the tongue. Are you saying he's in better shape than a devout Catholic who received it in her hand?

Madness. You're mad.

To Jmy1975 - Practice of the Church is giving Holy Eucharist on the tongue and it is definitely more than thousand years. Modernist approach is sacrilegious, if you know about particles of Eucharist=Jesus, are dropping on the floor in the church and you receiving Holy Comunion on your hand you participate on this sacrilege. It doesn't matter if you confess your sins before, cause you are sinning during communion...
Regarding ML-he was augustinian monk (catholic) so he didn't change his customs. The question is if he did believe in real presence?
and usually catholic (I mean real catholic) is receiving Holy Eucharist kneeling and on the tongue. What is better shape?

@Roberto 55 There are particle problems with on the tongue too thats why there's is a plate. Sorry, it is not a sin to receive with the hands. And, if you receive on the tongue and then go out and commit adultery you're not better off. And if you're a priest and distribute on the tongue and then commit a sin you're not better off. As I speak the "Church" is getting ready to remove communion entirely and you're upset about how it is received.

Again: it isn't sacrilegious to receive communion on the hand. What matters is your reverence, your heart. If hands are "unclean" so is your mouth.

If,If,If, too many ifs and nothing has to do with the problem.
There is no problem w. particles if you are receiving on your tongue and particles on the "plate" are carefully moved into the chalice and consumate by priest.
Receiving of Holy Eucharist has only this condition: " you must be clear of so called mortal sins and have an intention and faith that you are receiving Jesus.
What's happen after has nothing to do w. present! We are people, so we are also sinners...

@Roberto 55 You just made my point: receiving Jesus has ONLY this condition: be cleared of mortal sins and have an intention and faith that you are receiving Jesus.

Think about that. As I've said, repeatedly, it's what is in your heart.

Plate/paten/dish, don't be a smarta$$. You're not as smart as you think.

It's not sacrilegious to receive communion on the hand.

Questions to ask:

1) Can the Church authoritatively and validly allow communion in the hand?

2) And is the allowance valid even if the intentions of those pushing for the change was to increase the ways to outrage Our LORD in the Blessed Sacrament?

Another approach:

Right now the Bishops have dispensed the faithful from Sunday Obligation. God is not being publicly worshipped by all who can as he has commanded. To whom will this be charged against?

People err by being scrupulous or by one side wanting to force on to the other what the Church within her power has allowed.

"Secondly, if the hands of a parishioner are unconsecrated, unclean, isn't his body?" -Jmy1975

If you want to get really picky, that's probably a fallacy of composition. One could argue only the outside of the body is unclean and (spiritually speaking) the inside is clean. Since hand-washing, even ritual hand-washing, is NOT a part of the Novus Ordo liturgy for parishioners, it's indisputable that in a spiritual sense the outside of the body, notably one's hands ARE unclean.

This is true also in a very temporal sense.

Take a moment to think of every single thing you touched from the moment you left home to the moment you pick up the Eucharist when Mrs. Extraordinary-Every-Mass-Minister drops it (reverently, we'll assume) into your hands. You're touching everything everyone else has been touching starting with the handle on the Church door, the pews, the Missals, and everything else. Man... your mitts are filthy!

Things were probably just as bad, if not worse, in previous centuries. It might be a surprise, but Communion On The Tongue does have an entirely temporal basis for being both more sanitary and more reverential.

"If we are full of reverence and love we will not mishandle the host."

Accidents happen. The more steps between the moment of Consecration, and reception, the greater the probability for such an event to occur.

At the risk of being snide (something I take such efforts to avoid) this is a good time mention when we are full of reverence and love, we remember to properly capitalizing the word "Host". ;-)

I'm citing both the official Style Guide of the Liturgical Press (7th ed.) and the Archiocese of St. Louis Glossary of Catholic Terms and Style Guide

As for the issue of "doing it for rote", well, the entire Novus Ordo liturgy is naturally conducive to a casual, "rote" mentality.

This was, I suspect, intentional, and the results are everywhere in view.

The "casualization" of the Mass, which inevitably DOES lead to the entire experience turning into something by rote starts literally from the moment when Mass is scheduled.

Originally, going to Mass on the Sabbath meant just that. For "Trad Inc.," as one writer called them, it still does.

Sunday Mass is on Sunday, not "Saturday counts as Sunday". Yes, it can be inconvenient, but planning their weekend around Sunday morning means "Trad Inc." has a conscious awareness of the importance of Mass and NOT doing it by rote.

They're worshipping God on His chosen day, not fitting God in to their weekend-schedule sometime between shopping/ dinner/ or a visit to Chunky's Cinema-Pub.

Casualizing the time one goes to Mass also naturally leads to undermining Eucharistic discipline, the fasting required under Canon Law 919.1-3

Then there are the cultural results of the "new Mass," notably how people dress for Mass. Let's both skip the cherry-picked examples, okay?

Most Novus Ordo parishioners do not dress up for Mass. They dress casually without too much thought about where they're going -again, that leads naturally to doing something by rote..

Most Novus Ordo parish men do not wear suitcoats or ties. Most Novus Ordo women do not wear a mantilla. By contrast, "Trad inc." parishioners respectively do. Again, that forces a conscious awareness of what they're doing. It's just the opposite of doing something by rote. They're dressing "up" just like they would for any other special event. Traditional Mass means dressing traditionally for Mass.

It's a sad reflection of contemporary Catholic culture, that nww parishioners need to have that explicitly spelled out for them.

I know this reply is dragging on, (a glaring contrast to my usual one or two word replies) so I'll refrain from comparing and contrasting each aspect of the Novus Ordo Liturgy with the Traditional one.

TL;DR Participating in the Traditional Latin Mass "for rote" hasn't been an option since Vatican Council II and over half a century of active suppression that continues to this day.

"And I'll add that the demons that came up with Vatican II grew up receiving communion on the tongue."

You really shouldn't have added that, Jimmy.

Those demons were subverted by the heresy of Modernism. When you state those "that came up with Vatican II" are demons, then by extension, you've indicted their reform of the Liturgy as the work of demons.

...that covers a lot of ground, including their motives for changing how the Eucharist is distributed.

Ooops. ;-)

@Ultraviolet that's a lot of words to say you don't understand my point. And sorry, the demons that came up with V2 weren't victims, especially since Jesus' teaching doesn't change. They knew better.

Also, my name isn't James, Jimmy, Jimbo, Jim-Bob or anything else you call me by. It's Michael.

Have a good night kiddo!

Your "point" tends to change each time it gets disproven. Jmy1975

"You don't understand my point" is a variation of "I never said..." We've been down this road before, you and I.

"And sorry, the demons that came up with V2 weren't victims,"

When I said, "Those demons were subverted by the heresy of Modernism." -you forget that subversion requires consent and agreement. ;-)

"They knew better."

I fully agree with you.

However, it's nearly impossible to prove their intent was malign (requires entirely too much circumstantial evidence for my debating tastes), but since we're both in agreement on the point, then this isn't an issue.

Since we're in agreement, apply your reasoning further.

Demons are, by their very nature, the enemies of God. They seek to lead humanity into error.

If Vatican Council II was the work of demons, and you claim it was, then all the reforms stemming from Vatican Council II are also the work of demons.

All of it...

--"the widespread use of vernacular languages in the Mass instead of Latin, the subtle disuse of ornate clerical regalia, the revision of Eucharistic (liturgical) prayers, the abbreviation of the liturgical calendar, the ability to celebrate the Mass versus populum (with the officiant facing the congregation), as well as ad orientem (facing the "East" and the Crucifix), and modern aesthetic changes encompassing contemporary Catholic liturgical music and artwork."--

That's literally the whole of contemporary Catholic liturgy and culture. You can't claim Vatican II is "the work of demons" without indicting the Novus Ordo liturgical reforms.

"Also, my name isn't James, Jimmy, Jimbo, Jim-Bob or anything else you call me by. It's Michael."

People routinely address each other by their names. I abbreviate them and others do as well, typing UV when they don't feel like typing the whole thing out.

Since you've raised the issue, my name isn't "kiddo", either.

Yet somehow I suspect I'll continue to see this form of address in use. ;-)

@Ultraviolet my point remains the same, communion on the hand isn't sacrilegious. That if one part of us in communion is deemed unclean, i.e. our hands, then the rest of us have to be. Of course I'm speaking and have only been speaking of morality, which is clear from the context,

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

Subversion doesn't require consent. It requires ignorance. But there's no way you can call the folks who established V2 ignorant, again they had the Truth. Everything else, including modernism, which was already forcefully denounced decades before by the pope. So it was willful.

My name is Michael.