I'm not going to get involved in the argument. But looking at the big picture, 10,000 feet view, I only want to say this:

Sean, you DO realize that this is VERY, VERY offensive to Trad ears, and everything the Trad movement stands for. It's offensive to the sensus Catholicus of MOST if not ALL Trads.

So a random Catholic layman could touch the Blessed Sacrament, and not be committing a sacrilege, but he was merely "born too late" or some such? Seems like it would be sinful, to me. An objective offense against God and the Blessed Sacrament. After all, what motive could anyone have for thus violating the Blessed Sacrament? "Oh, I just can't get used to these new Church regulations! Because in MY day, back 1,500 years ago, we used to receive Communion in the hand!" Uh, there are no vampires. No one lives more than 120 years. We're talking about men and women living in the CURRENT age, since time machines are metaphysically impossible.

But even if certain things were technically true, one could nevertheless state that A) it is offensive to pious ears and B) there is no good that will come from shouting it from the housetops. NOTE: I'm passing over the question of "is it actually true" for purposes of my point. As the Thomistic scholars would say, "transeo".

This is a very curious crusade you're on here, Sean. What is your motivation? It sure makes people think, oh I don't know, that you've been frog-boiled by your ongoing attendance at the SSPX this past 11 years, that you've absorbed some neo-SSPX Conciliar poison, and/or that you are an "Indulter" to quote a recent thread. I'm not saying any of these things are true -- but I would certainly understand why anyone would think such things! Let's be objective here.

Assuming those accusations are NOT true, then what IS your motivation in defending CITH to *any* degree? Of all the things to spend your time on, all the possible crusades, all the hundreds of errors and cօռspιʀαcιҽs in the Modern World, this is certainly a MOST CURIOUS hill to die on!

Please, help me out here.

The problem is, Sean’s arguments lead one to believe he doesn’t think it’s bad today.   

I don't often disagree with Matthew.
But this post is not about justifying the practice of communion in the hand. In spite of what some on this thread want to believe, it has nothing to do with modernist, conciliar archeologism/antiquarianism.
This is a simple discussion about historical liturgical practice for reception of the Blessed Sacrament, and how, in light of that, we consider it to be sacrilegious today for unconsecrated hands to touch the sacred host.
The Catholic has nothing to fear from truth. It is indeed what every Catholic should stand for.
Nor is this a crusade. Or, if it is a crusade for anything, it is that members on this forum accept one of the basic principles of logic: contra factum non fit argumentum.
It seems clear to me that there has been a development in the Church's understanding and practice on this matter, such that what was not considered a sacrilege in the early years of the Church could certainly be considered so today in the context of our current understanding and legislation. That should not be offensive to pious ears!

Galatians 4:16 -  Am I then become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

Galatians 4:17 -  They are zealous in your regard not well: but they would exclude you, that you might be zealous for them.

One thing is obvious however, “Pope” Michael had more of a claim to the papal office than Bergoglio since Michael at least seemed to profess the Catholic faith while Bergoglio does not.

So here we have Salza-ism where material membership trumps profession of the True Faith.  This is where Salza claims that Joe Biden is a Catholic in good standing, while Archbishop Lefebvre was a non-Catholic schismatic and outside the Church.

Fallacy:  petitio principii, Begging the Question, assumes that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church

Distinguo: (something Salza doesn't understand)

Someone can belong to the Catholic Church formally even if they're materially in error about where the Church happens to be.  St. Vincent Ferrer was subject to an Antipope, but he was never formally outside the Church, since his formal intent was to be subject to the legitimate Pope and to belong to the Catholic Church.  Material Error.  Some individual can start attending Greek Orthodox liturgies and even register for the parish, being unaware that Greek Orthodox is not a Catholic Eastern Rite.  This too would be Material Error based on ignorance.  Someone who is baptized by schismatics remains formally within the Catholic Church even while remaining materially in the Greek Orthodox Church (until reaching the age of reason).

So, yes, absolutely, profession of the True Faith and the formal intent to be subject to the Holy Father and within the Catholic Church trumps any material error regarding where the Church happens to be, especially during a time of confusion, such as the Great Western Schism or this horrific crisis.

But tax attorney Salza, formerly(?) a Freemason (while still accepting awards from Masonic organizations) with zero training in theology or scholastic philosophy and logic or even Canon Law, doesn't understand this, and understands only letter-of-the-law legalism, kindof like the Pharisees.