@@VeronicasVeil333 God Bless you.

Yeah, it aint right for their to be EMEs usually, op (hence “extrordinary”) Also, women shouldnt do this, nor be inbthe sanctuary during liturgy. Just tell the priest you dont think its right and to find a male colunteer, or to let mass be 4.5 minutes longer so that he and deacon can do all distribution

Thank you!!!! God bless your efforts and faithfulness.

Y E S ...GOD bless you ......!!!!

Same here

What did those nuns teach you on the subject? Would you mind going into further detail for us please?

Communion in the hand was introduced by evil priests from the Netherlands Belgium and slowly into France.... When the Americans came to hear about it they pestered the pope who granted them an indult ( temporary permission) however the pope just let it go and it became entrenched..... If you want to know the history watch a channel called Baylis

@cosmicallyderived You might find this article helpful: fatima.org/news-views/the-truth-about-communion-in-the-hand/

Absolutely

The apostles were chosen by Christ to be his first priest's who would consecrate the host by their holy hands to become the body and blood of Christ at the future mass 🙏✝️

Well they better had pay more visits to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament and He will change them.

Show them the way. Go to a novo's ordo, dress like you are meeting Jesus and fall to your knees in the sight of all to recieve on the tongue. It takes courage but we can make a difference.

@@kzs5594 In Samoa alone, there have been more than a dozen miracles of the Bleeding Host since 2017. Only 19 percent of the population are Catholic. Is The Lord trying to Catholicise Samoa and convince most Catholics of His Real Presence in The Holy Eucharist?🙏❤️

@@user-hs6kt9zp4w I sure hope so!

Pray for lukewarm people.

Lead

Go to the traditional Latin Mass

I try to go to the Latin mass, sometimes its not possible to make the drive to the TLM and we nust go to the NO closer to us. The worst abuse is the hand sanitizers they use before touching Jesus, treating our Lord like a virus infected snack cracker😢

I can relate to this as well. This is why I love going to weekday mass. Faithful Catholics go then and it's more reverent and most everyone kneels and receives on the tongue.

Respect is gone!

What's wrong with our hands?

@@Catholicity-uw2yb Thank you for your comment. The point is that there is something very special about the priest's hands. They have been consecrated for this purpose of confecting and administering the Sacraments. It should terrify the conscience of a layman to think of administering Holy Communion to himself, and then committing the added sacrilege of negligence toward the particles of the Sacred Host which are dropped or carried off on his hands. This culpable negligence is the cause of those Particles' desecration underfoot. God help us.

@@TheFatimaCenter The priest's hands are not special. And they have not been consecrated in the ordination ritual.

Does everyone wash their hands before mass?​@@Catholicity-uw2yb

@@BillyJoeBob-hd9fm It is the case even in the New Rite of ordination. See section 133 of the ritual, directing that the palms of the candidates be anointed with holy chrism. God bless you. ordination.ceegee.org/rite.pdf

Have you done scientific testing to prove this?

I've seen Our Lord fall from a lady's tongue into her bosoms. But I guess that's more reverent.

Me too, only on the tongue from a priest!

@@kennethselinger6494same. Me and my family will receive only from deacon or priest. If the laity all agreed to just bypass the cringe EMEs, they would quit using them.

Sacred Heart of Jesus was given to us a long time.

You are most welcome. God bless you!

Yes, and it diminishes faith in the true presence of Our Lord.

thats right , we do t have the right to received by the hand , only the priest could touch the eucharist

People received the Eucharist in the hand for the first several hundred years.

@@anthonymckinney9904 On the contrary, administering Holy Communion on the tongue is of apostolic origin, as a decree of the Council of Trent affirms: “Now as to the reception of the Sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God that laymen should receive the Communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained.” (Council of Trent, Session 13, canon 8.) God bless you.

Agree

What is the date of that message? Through which visionary?

Not true. Jakov, the youngest visionary, has answered the question of receiving in the hand by saying “whatever the Church allows is acceptable.” That being said, I receive communion on the tongue. It just seems the appropriate way to receive.

Our Lady has never said a single word in Medjugorje, because She has never once appeared in Medjugorje. The devil has of course, and still does. And why anyone who believes in the Fatima message can make your above claim, shows just how successful Satan has been in detracting Her actual appearance in 1917. The fruits of Medjugorje? You are living through them.

Medjugorje is a hoax.

Thank you for your question. That is one of many problematic passages in that Diary. In spite of the fact that the Divine Mercy devotion is highly endorsed by present-day Church authorities, and is even fairly popular among traditional Catholics, nevertheless it is also true that these supposed revelations and the associated devotions are held in suspicion by many trustworthy Catholic sources (we would say, with good reason). In fact, in 1959, the Divine Mercy devotion was condemned by the Holy Office. (See volume 51, page 271 of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis in which the distribution of this image and the spreading of the writings of Sr. Faustina were forbidden. www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-51-1959-ocr.pdf) What could be wrong or dangerous about such a devotion? Msgr. Patrick Perez writes at length about this topic. (www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f072_DivMercy.htm) We would stress these things: First, regarding the image: It is very instructive to consider the original image painted under Sr. Faustina’s direction (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Divina_Misericordia_(Eugeniusz_Kazimirowski,_1934).jpg), in which we see that none of Our Lord’s wounds are visible. His side and feet are strangely covered, and even His hands (which are exposed) appear without wounds! We recall from the lives of the saints that it was precisely this aspect of a diabolic manifestation (in which the devil attempted to delude St. Martin of Tours by appearing as if he were Our Lord, but without the wounds of the crucifixion) by which the saint recognized the devil’s ploy. Second, regarding the red and white rays of light (which everyone agrees must represent the Blood and water which flowed from Our Lord's side when His Sacred Heart was pierced) -- we must ask, why mere rays of light rather than the depiction of actual blood and water? In the pivotal apparition of our time, of unquestionable authenticity, in Tuy, Spain, in 1929, when Our Lady of Fatima made Her formal request for the Consecration of Russia - very near to the time of these supposed apparitions to Sr. Faustina - there was a vivid demonstration of Our Lord’s Precious Blood (dripping from His face and from the wound in His side, running over the Host and into the Chalice) and the water representing the Graces and Mercy which Our Lord merited for us by His Passion, flowing over the altar in crystal letters. We have here in the Divine Mercy image another inexplicable retreat from a clear manifestation of Our Lord’s glorious Passion and Death, by which the devil’s power over mankind was shattered. It is also very remarkable that these rays have no visible source. Why are they not depicted as coming from His Heart? From the time of the 17th Century when Our Lord revealed His Sacred Heart to St. Margaret Mary, Our Lord's expressed will has been more and more explicit about the reparation and devotion that He seeks toward both His Own Sacred Heart and Our Lady's Immaculate Heart. His express desire is that the explicit images of these Hearts be displayed and honored in public places and in private homes. And He has said that this trajectory established by the arduous and lengthy work of the apostles of His Sacred Heart is to continue through the long-awaited time of Our Lady's Triumph when His Church places the devotion to the Immaculate Heart alongside the devotion to His Sacred Heart (see Sr. Lucy's May 18, 1936 letter to her confessor, cited in The Whole Truth about Fatima, vol. II, p. 631). It is really amazing that a 20th-century apparition would reverse this course and leave His Heart covered, especially when that Heart's image is naturally called for as the source of those bizarre rays. Finally, regarding the prayers of the devotion: While the invocations may be unobjectionable in themselves, we fear that they have been catastrophic in the omissions which they have occasioned - namely and above all, in the spirit of true penance and reparation for sin. The Message of Fatima repeatedly calls us to make reparation to the Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary, especially on behalf of sinners who will otherwise be damned. “So numerous are the souls which the justice of God condemns for its sins committed against Me,” pleaded Our Lady, “that I come to ask for reparation. Sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray.” And the angel in the Third Secret vision pointed his fiery sword menacingly at the earth, crying with a loud voice: “Penance! Penance! Penance!” Meanwhile the Divine Mercy devotion and supposed promises represent an inverted notion of sin without costs: forgiveness without satisfaction, both as a clean slate in regard to temporal punishments due to our own sins each year, and in eternity as a wound-less Redeemer bearing no marks of the terrible price He paid on the Cross for our salvation. Likewise, there can be no doubt that for many people, the Mercy Devotion has, practically speaking, served to eviscerate the practice of the Marian devotions that Heaven has so urgently recommended for our preservation. For some people, no doubt, the Mercy Devotion has been adopted in addition to the Rosary, but for a great many it has replaced the recitation of the Rosary. What a shame that people have often gone so far as to pick up their Rosary beads (which Padre Pio referred to as our best weapon against the errors and dangers of our time), only to be diverted from using it in the way that Heaven intends and so richly rewards. And this at a time when everything -- the preservation of our lives and the salvation of many souls, likely including our own -- depends on our application to the devotions requested by Our Lady of Fatima. As Sister Lucy told Father Fuentes, “The Most Holy Virgin in these last times in which we live has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary, to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or above all spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families, of the families of the world, or of the religious communities, or even of the life of peoples and nations, that cannot be solved by the Rosary. There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary. With the Holy Rosary we will save ourselves, we will sanctify ourselves, we will console Our Lord and obtain the salvation of many souls." Given, then, that the Divine Mercy apparitions and devotions are at best a distraction from the crucial Fatima revelation and devotions, and that they may well be of demonic origin, we suggest that you have nothing to do with them and that you regard with caution anything contained in Sister Faustina's Diary. God bless you.

​@@TheFatimaCenterBe carefull in your care with the faith to not condemn God's own action as being a work from the devil. This is a sin against the Holy Spirit, which has no forgiveness! Don't make the same mistake as the farisees did, in their urge to protect their faith they put to death the Son of God, their promised Messiah!

​​@@rossanasparvoli1438and don't make the mistake of following Simon Magus. Read the objections carefully. Your defence comes from a good place, I'm sure, but don't be too eager to assume that because you haven't heard the concerns, they can't be real.

@@TheFatimaCenter Holy heck, nice effort post!!! Also, i heard a mason was commissioned to do the painting. Never realized His hands were without blemish in the image…

@@rossanasparvoli1438 That was a sin against the Holy Spirit because they knew it was by Gods power but they decided they did notbwant their temporal positions as esteemed religious leaders threatened.

Most countries you can choose hand or tongue. Some countries dip the host in the precious blood, so it must be on the tongue.

Thank you for this important question. The permission which is generally understood to exist for “Communion in the Hand” depends on strict conditions requiring that the practice includes no danger of profanation, that it serves to increase the recipient's faith in the Real Presence, and that it incorporates adequate care that no particles of the Blessed Sacrament are lost. But such conditions are manifestly impossible to fulfill since these dangers (of profanation, loss of faith, and desecration of particles) are inseparable from the practice of Communion in the hand. Clearly, then, as the law of the Church requires Holy Communion to be administered on the tongue unless these impossible conditions are satisfied, there exists in fact no permission for this travesty. Father Gruner took great pains to demonstrate the fact that Communion on the tongue remains the law of the Church even today, as is officially published in the 1969 Instruction Memoriale Domini. (In the meantime, other documents including the April 3, 1980 Instruction Inaestimabile Donum issued by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship confirm that the Instruction Memoriale Domini is still in effect.) In Appendix IV of the book, Fatima Priest (online at fatima.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Fatima-Priest.pdf beginning on page 358), Father Gruner provided an unofficial translation of the above-mentioned Instruction issued by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship to the Conferences of Catholic Bishops which had petitioned the Holy See for permission to allow the practice of Communion in the hand. Outside sources are also easily found. The official Latin text of Memoriale Domini, along with an accompanying letter (in French) issued by the same Congregation, is found in the 1969 volume of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis on pages 541-547, here: www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-61-1969-ocr.pdf Inaestimabile Donum begins on page 331 here: www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-72-1980-ocr.pdf Two unofficial English translations of Memoriale Domini can be found online at these sites: www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/memoriale.htm www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/instruction-on-the-manner-of-distributing-holy-communion-2195 and a translation of Inaestimabile Donum here: www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/instruction-on-the-holy-eucharist-2179 (see paragraph 2 of the Forward). A more recent document, the 2004 instruction Redemptionis sacramentum (regulating certain matters to be observed or avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist), also upholds the fact that each of the faithful always has the right to receive on the tongue, and that it is illicit to deny Communion to any of the faithful who are not impeded by law. A subsequent response issued by the same Congregation in July 2009 verified that these facts of Church law remain unaffected during times of pandemic (at that time, the swine flu pandemic). www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-upholds-bishop-over-reception-of-communion-on-tongue-77862 God bless you.

Thanks this is very informative for me

Jesus ordained all of the apostles as priests, so this is not the same.

Thank you for your comment. What is certain of the practice of the Apostles is that administering Holy Communion on the tongue is of apostolic origin, as a decree of the Council of Trent affirms: “Now as to the reception of the Sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God that laymen should receive the Communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained.” (Council of Trent, Session 13, canon 8.) As to the circumstances of the Sacrament’s Institution at the Last Supper, the assumption which you express cannot be used to justify the current practice of laymen receiving the Blessed Sacrament into their hands and administering Holy Communion to themselves. This certainly was not the precedent given there since the Apostles were bishops, ordained by Our Lord Himself to confect and handle the Blessed Sacrament. But even the supposition that the Apostles communicated themselves, rather than receiving Holy Communion directly from Our Lord, is problematic. A simple online image search for "Communion of the Apostles" will yield surprising results to those of our generation whose experience in Novus Ordo liturgies has slanted their assumptions in this regard. The works on this subject by, for example, Fra Angelico, Giordano, Ribera, Hofmann, Poussin, and Tissot demonstrate that historically speaking, the assumption has been the opposite. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Comunione_degli_apostoli,_cella_35.jpg God bless you.

@@jamesyoung187 Please provide documentation for this; I see nothing of it in the Bible nor Catholic doctrine.

@@TheFatimaCenter Yet the practice of priest-to-mouth communiion did not take place for at least the first 300 years of the Catholic church. Please do not limit the divinity of Christ nor his body at Communion with human interpretations and conclusions.

@@TheFatimaCenter Yet such practice did not exist for the first 300 years of Catholic church practices.

Thank you for your comment. Of course, it would be far better to forego receiving Holy Communion than to participate in a sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament. God bless you.

But they dobt provide any kneelers to make it safe, or easy for the old, disabled, etc

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that ONLY Consecrated hands of the Priest should touch the Body of Christ.

Op, do you turn your hand over and distribute with your index finger up? If not, that is your problem. And doesnt help that people are not steady holding onto an altar rail, and that there is not patten to reduce over insertion for fear of dropping. And the whole concept of EME is grossly abused (“Extraordinary” means only in rare odd circumstances.) Also,

@@johnmorgan4313 …so you should reconsider your participation in this practice which is corrosive to faith in the TP

@@johnanon658 hi yeah I hear what you’re saying I am used very rarely as an extraordinary minister and only in extreme circumstances, my parish priest is very strict on that. As to how I distribute on the tongue no, index finger below thumb it’s just easier that way for control, unfortunately some individuals just slop with the tongue. Completely agree about using a patten it would make life so much easier, trouble is we do not have any altar servers who could do the job. It’s been a real problem in my parish for years.

No, v2 never actually soecified this. Was pressed by stone cutter bishops, in w europe, then was allowed by PVI AFTER V2

"He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself" (1 Cor. 11:29).

@@TheFatimaCenter Are you using the Protestant King James version of the Bible?

@@BillyJoeBob-hd9fm The Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims, a 16th-century translation of the Church's official Clemintine Vulgate. drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=53&ch=11&l=29-#x

@@TheFatimaCenter Well it sounds protestant. You should ditch that thing. This is 2024, not the 16th century.

“Jesus dont care if i receive Him without reverence or respect!” Okay, sure op.

@@fload46d no. We have a holy priest and a very reverent N.O mass. Sorry but you’re making things worse. Just stay away from the rainbows 😳

Why is this becoming an issue today when it has not been an issue for decades? If ever there was a time to object to the changes to the Mass, it should have been 50-60 years ago. I’m in my 50’s. The first I ever heard of the existence of a Latin Mass in today’s world was a year or two ago. I grew up in a military family, and married into the military and traveled to multiple countries and states so it’s not like I have spent my entire life in one parish or otherwise in isolation.

@@lisapippin1695 Thank you for your comment. You might find a biography (or the biographical video linked below) of Archbishop Lefebvre interesting. God bless you. MARCEL LEFEBVRE: THE BIOGRAPHY angeluspress.org/products/marcel-lefebvre-biography Archbishop Lefebvre: A Documentary - Full Movie kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ecxpotxo3KrPnac.html

Also view online the Apostolic Constitution QUO PRIMUM issued in AD 1570 by POPE SAINT PIUS FIFTH, "Open Letter to Confused Catholics" & Binding Council of TRENT. 🙏

All well and good if you have that option, I cannot drive, so have to go to my local Catholic church, sadly no Latin Mass near me

Let us reject V2 and N/O religion

@@delgado49hatch55I reject the new order!!!

​@@delgado49hatch55Amen! ✝️

Don't you think if a catholic went to novos ordo mass and had the courage to show the reverence proper to the sacred mystery you could affect a change? I saw a 9 year old girl drop to her knees to recieve on the tongue. Since then others have followed suit. Her actions have done more than these comments

So does that mean my whole life I've been going to a heretical mass, with heretical priest, and invalid sacraments recieved?

No one ever explains why receiving in the hand is so horrible.

What magisterial teaching are you referring to?

So the magesterium is liable for it, but a sin or wrong practice is still corrosive to our faith

It's in the history of the events. It was only 1973. These things are easy to confirm. What is the point of your post?

It is all well documebted, biship knew exactly who did the analysis, point of saying he was a pagain (ie a non-christian japanese) is that he was an objective 3rd party

It was simply a question...I think it's too easy to use this word pagan, but if there is a well documented source, that's what I was looking for...hence "how do you know"

Your hands are not sacred. Only sanctified hands should be touching the Lord.

Thank you for your comment and invitation for correction. This practice, mistakenly called "Communion in the hand," is a terrible sacrilege of which you should have no part. First, as to the misleading name: Holy Communion is the consuming of the Sacred Host as food. One does not receive Communion by handling the Host. Speaking more precisely, then, this practice involves receiving the Consecrated Host in one's hands and then administering Holy Communion to oneself, in the same way that the priest at Mass communicates himself as opposed to receiving Holy Communion from another. The person engaged in this modern practice thus not only dares to handle the Sacred Species, but also arrogates to himself the role of being the minister of the Sacrament. Both of these abuses are of the highest gravity. To the question of whether it is proper for a layman to handle the Blessed Sacrament, St. Thomas gives this reply: “[O]ut of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.” [Summa Theologica, III, Q. 82, A. 3; www.newadvent.org/summa/4082.htm#article3] To the question of whether a layman should presume to administer this Sacrament to himself, St. Thomas notes that the above consideration applies to this question as well. He lists it as a third reason against such presumption, adding two other reason why it is fitting only for a priest to administer Holy Communion: “The dispensing of Christ's Body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His Body at the Supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's Body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people.” It should be clear, then, that these are sacred and forbidden realms for which we as laymen have no calling, training, or corresponding graces. The priest, as St. Alphonsus explains, [Dignity and Duties of the Priest, Redemptorist Fathers, p. 413] is bound by grave obligations far different than our own, for which he requires correspondingly greater graces for salvation in order that he will be able to render a satisfactory account of his ministry - above all in his responsibilities in the administration of the Sacraments, “an office to be dreaded even by angels.”[Council of Trent, Session 6, de Ref., canon 1] As to the law of the Church, the permission which is generally understood to exist for “Communion in the Hand” depends on strict conditions requiring that the practice includes no danger of profanation, that it serves to increase the recipient's faith in the Real Presence, and that it incorporates adequate care that no particles of the Blessed Sacrament are lost. But such conditions are manifestly impossible to fulfill since these dangers (of profanation, loss of faith, and desecration of particles) are inseparable from the practice of Communion in the hand. Clearly, then, as the law of the Church requires Holy Communion to be administered on the tongue unless these impossible conditions are satisfied, there exists in fact no permission for this travesty. God bless you.

​@@bobtosi9346but our mouths are? Lmao. You clowns will say or believe anything to divide and claim superiority.

​I received holy communion by hand with all my heart and love and RESPECT to Jesus.....and why do u say the hand aren't sacred?..are you sure that your tongue 100% sacred? ​@@bobtosi9346

When Our Lord Jesus gave His apostles Holy Communion in the Hand it was because their hands were already consecrated, they were priests. Lay people even Eucharistic Ministers do NOT have consecrated hands.

Thank you for your comment. As to the law of the Church, the permission which is generally understood to exist for "Communion in the Hand" depends on strict conditions requiring that the practice includes no danger of profanation, that it serves to increase the recipient's faith in the Real Presence, and that it incorporates adequate care that no particles of the Blessed Sacrament are lost. But such conditions are manifestly impossible to fulfill since these dangers (of profanation, loss of faith, and desecration of particles) are inseparable from the practice of Communion in the hand. Clearly, then, as the law of the Church requires Holy Communion to be administered on the tongue unless these impossible conditions are satisfied, there exists in fact no permission for this travesty. God bless you.

Thank you for your comment. Men of every century will render an account of their actions to the same Judge (Who is horribly outraged by this sacrilegious practice). God bless you.

And there's the rub.

​@@TheFatimaCenter could you imagine Jesus caring that somebody received on the hand? You are a fake Catholic.

He has to be a proper pope.

I can not and will not be obedient to heresy.

Only if that obedience is faithful to the magisterium of the Church.

Please describe what that looks like.

Jorge Bergoglio is a false invader to the holy seat of Peter. I will never support a heretical, weak and evil man who sits illicitly on the first great Pope, St Peter!

@sylviaastorga4196 This may help you decide what to do, as it helped me stop being an Eucharistic Minister years ago. Whom would you rather not offend, Jesus Christ or man? Only things consecrated should touch the most precious Body of Christ.

Thank you for your comment. One would have great reason to worry about the state of his soul if any particle of the Blessed Sacrament were profaned due to his culpable negligence. God bless you.

Talking about something completely unimportant distracts them from taking the actual teaching of Jesus seriously. Seems nobody ever talks about that. It's all about tongues and hands and we hate the pope and we hate protestants, and Mary is God, and the end is near, blah blah blah.

⁠because the practice is corrosive to the belief in the true presence.

Who made you the judge of souls or the arbiter of good and evil?

Hes not a saint. A good book is Are Canonizations Infallible.

@@sebathadah1559 absolutely no one. I'm just giving you my opinion take it or leave it it sounds like you might want to leave it.

@@philc6068 that sounds like a great book to read can you give me a summary.

@@KMF3 the infallibility of canonization is believe by most theologians. But if you read past theologians, if they say WHY they're infallible, they usually list the intense scrutiny of the deceased (jp2 ended that) and the strict criteria for miracles (jp2 ended that). Look at Paul 6's "miracles." It's kind of a joke they are called miracles.

Remember also at the last supper, the apostles were priests ordained by Jesus Christ himself

There have been too many heavenly messages to receive Jesus on the tongue and the catechism of The Roman Catholic Church stipulates that this is the’ normative’ way to receive Holy Communion.

They were priests by then. That was their ordination Mass.

Communion in the hand came about from disobedience to the Holy See. Vii never changed the practice of receiving communion on the tongue - It is still the ordinary way of receiving communion. St Pope Paul VI, who over saw vii, wrote a letter to the bishops, to put a stop to the practice of communion in the hand, Memoriale Domini, in which is stated.... Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over" the Churches,[11] in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful. The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

@@user-hs6kt9zp4wI was going to say this too. At least it was said. God bless you.

Communion in the hand is sacrilege. We cannot feed or sanctify ourselves, we must be fed by the the hand of Christ in His Priests( in Persona Christi)

What if she did?

Only the consecrated hands of the priests are permitted to touch the Holy Eucharist. Those who touch the Holy Eucharist with unconsecrated hands are committing a sacrilege.

Someday you will see the truth and wish you would have not been so proud to open your eyes and mind to receive the wisdom that you don't have. I will pray for you because you are gonna need it. 🙏🏻📿

That you are flippant enough to preface your comment with an emoji, regarding a subject far too important to treat so off-handedly, is very revealing.