Your own words condemn you if you reverence Jesus in the Host you wouldn't accept The Host to be administered as a wafer your a liar a hypocrite you'd be perfect for the Judasian order; worshiping Jesus in the way that the individual wants not in the way Jesus wants because in the end only the individuals interpretation of The Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist matters not that of the church. As far as the hate in my heart you're right, the hatered for the lgbtqia that I have is for that lifestyle which obviously doesn't bother you or you wouldn't have defended it by calling me out. Well I can tell you now it bothered God so much that he destroyed the towns that practiced it. It also bothered the apostles so much that they themselves condemned them. But according to you it's Ok. Just goes to show that your modernist B.S has no direction it goes in every which way but the right. You mentioned you could've been a protestant personally your already there you just dont know it. TRUE MODERNIST NUT JOB just like Martin Luther

I never said I was against on the tongue. I have said a paten could be used with By the hand. I have said particles get dropped on the tongue too, I've seen it and I've said that the what's in the heart matters more than outward displays, all true.

If you love Jesus Christ you'll be reverent. This idea that you're going to hell with reception by hand is insane.

You can call me part of this world all you want and I can say you seem very much like Judas who was all about the appearance of piety. That's not fair is it? Off you go.

"I have said a paten could be used with By the hand."

Now who's being disingenous? . ;-)

It could be, but it isn't. Inb4 some obscure cherry-picked example of the paten being used with communion in the hand.

In overwhelming, near-universal general Novus Ordo practice, the paten isn't used at all. The paten isn't used because communion in the hand is inherently less reverential and inherently less mindful of the Real Presence.

What you said earlier is true. "Communion in the hand isn't sacriligous". But that should be clarified with, "in principle". However, in the modern age, the practice naturally facilitates sacrilege, both through accident and through over-familiarity. The Eucharist gets handed out anywhere, anytime, by anyone who wants to be a pretend-priest.

From a sacrament administered only by the priest, only on the tongue, always ever-mindful of Christ's Real Presence, the Novus Ordo Eucharist is casually handed out like cookies at a day-care by volunteer church ladies.

The reverence simply isn't there which is almost certainly why those "demons" who conjured up the liturgical reforms of Vatican Council II re-instituted the practice in the first place in conjunction with all their other great ideas.

"I have said particles get dropped on the tongue too, I've seen it"

Particles get dropped on the tongue? Guess where they go? Exactly where they should. :D

"I have seen it,"

You Fallacy Is:
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

"and I've said that the what's in the heart matters more than outward displays, all true."

Not all true at all. Argumentum ad Nauseam, though.

That line of reasoning justifies any form of irreverence and blasphemy.

Early Christians gladly went to their deaths before they'd submit to "outward displays" that would contradict "what's in the heart". Sure, they could pay lip-service to the official, compulsory pagan religion of the Roman Empire but they knew better.

Novus Ordo defenders will be using that same argument when statues of the Blessed Mother are torn down and replaced with Pachamama. We can still pray to Her. "what's in the heart matters more than outward displays."

Yeah, no.

I am not in error. And if I was of the world I wouldn't be focusing so much on the idea of sin, repentance, and forgiveness which only comes from Jesus,

My reality is basic Christian logic: we are all unclean. We are allowed to consume Jesus if we are forgiven of our sins. We can't consecrate Jesus, nor are we able to handle the host in any way except reception. But we are allowed to consume the host. If one part of us is not worthy, our whole body and spirit are unworthy.

This isn't V2 nutters, it's basic Christian logic. I believe in the sanctifying grace of Jesus Christ.

Your question about my marital status was inappropriate because you could've made the same point without an open question that, predictably allowed jerks to comment.

@Peter4God How many people did Jesus physically touch on earth with his miracles? And how many people touched Him? Quite a bit. Was he not still God? Of course He was.

And how can we touch Jesus with our mouths and not our hands? By your b.s. logic we cannot touch Jesus at all. Didn't Jesus rail against inner sin, the sins of the heart?

Who is worthy?

The answer lies in confession and repentance. We are permitted to receive Jesus when we are forgiven by Him of our sins. This is why it is not and can never be a sin to receive communion by hand.

*And maybe Mary Magdalen had to go to confession first before touching Jesus.

You can call me a b.s.-er all you want, but I have basic Christian dogma on my side.

How many of you really great Catholics like you and UV receive Jesus on the tongue and then continue your sinful lives?

Receiving communion on the hand isn't a sin. And I just proved it. Again.

Remind me never to get on your bad side, Holy Cannoli :) Like the old proveb says, when a quiet dog bites, it goes for the throat first. I'll freely admit I've taken personal shots at GTV users myself... on occasion... from time to time... ;-) But that was just vicious. :D

Peter4God, based on the times he posts, I would speculate he isn't married -regardless of the answer he chooses to give. I'd also like to make it clear I'm not mocking the guy for his marital state. Or that I have any personal interest in it.

Btw... you need to use the "@" feature if you'd like GTV to send him a notificaton he's being mentioned like so @Jmy1975

Now @Jmy1975 will notice I mentioned him, That ought to get his attention!

The two of us are close pals on GTV, regular BFFs, so so he'll scoot right over to see why I brought up his name and perhaps you'll get your answer. :)

Of coarse communion in the hand is sacrilegious the reason why we have the B.S of Communion in the hand is because of Eucharistic Ministers and they jystify communion in the hand because of Eucharistic Ministers so yes communion in the hand IS SACRILEGIOUS JUST AS EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS ARE SACRILEGIOUS BOTH ARE VATII PERVERSITIES that have happened and continue to happen because of weak Popes and erroneous Bishops to accept an error because it supports your erroneous interpretation does not make it right it is still an error

@Jmy1975

Of coarse communion in the hand is sacrilegious the reason why we have the B.S of Communion in the hand is because of Eucharistic Ministers and they justify communion in the hand because of Eucharistic Ministers so yes communion in the hand IS SACRILEGIOUS JUST AS EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS ARE SACRILEGIOUS BOTH ARE VATII PERVERSITIES that have happened and continue to happen because of weak Popes and erroneous Bishops to accept an error because it supports your erroneous interpretation does not make it right it is still an error.

@Jmy I can ask you the same question can you find dogma that justifies the receiving of The Holy Eucharist; the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Our Lord in the hand is just as reverential if not more so than on the tongue, no you can't.

The first reason why ONLY A PRIEST should handle the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ is because there is no others means of salvation thus it shows the necessity of a Priest while giving as much glory and reversnce to God as we can The second reason is the Priests hands, yes as much as it pains me to say even the bad ones their hands are consecrated yours aren't mine aren't so to have unconsecrated hands touch the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus shows very little if any respect and more important still reverence

Jmy1975 you continuously adhere to pertinacious error and remain in grave sin in regards to distribution of Communion on the tongue through the hands of any lay person on demand. This is against Church law since the whole distribution act, from chalice to mouth, is to be done regularly by ordained priest with consecrated hands. Only in real extra ordinary situations, i.e. death of priest, an extra ordinary lay minister may distribute but always after an adequate preparation. In the communion on demand through any layman distributing to himself from hand to one's own mouth the above requirements are not satisfied, therefore null and void.
"But one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them. How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary!
To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation." pp John Paul II

Jmy1975 you are misrepresenting the Roman-Catholic Church in regards to proper reverence of the Most Holy Sacrament by profaning Holy Communion through shared distribution of Holy Communion. The complete act of distribution from beginning when regular minister grasps the HC from chalice to the end when finally HC is placed on the tongue of recipient should only be the consecrated priest's sole and regular function in accordance with papal Magisterium. If you place HC from your unconsecrated hands in your mouth then you illegally partake in the consecrated minister's function of distribution in the final stage because he is binded to be the privilaged minister in the whole act and not share any part of the act. Moreover, from one's hands, as there is no patena neither chalice under the chin, the particles are dropping on the floor (see scientific tests below) to have the Body and Blood of Christ being finally stepped on the floor etc.. This is one of the most serious crimes in canon law to drop species of Holy Body and Blood in any place!!! Every courteous human being eats a meal with utensils instead of using hands!!! In every Holy Communion there is GOD therefore it is sacrilegious (not allowed) for any unprepared layman to consume God with own hands!

I have been rightly told, to put the @ symbol in front of your name or GTV will not pass on the message so to ensure that you get message/question here it is again.

A question for @Jmy1975 if it's not that personal a question, are you married?

@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.