CathInfo.com

The hands of Deacons are not consecrated, they do not commit sacrilege by distributing communion, the faithful who in times past received communion in the hand historically did not commit sacrilege either. You must stop using the wrong type of argumentation in this type of discussion. The boarders of the two nearest Latin diocese in which I live for example say the most conservative type of NO, have Eucharistic Congresses and are relatively catechised. This type of flawed argumentation, confusing piety with fact does damage to the ability to reach people. Many traditional Catholics give these types of answers which leads people to say, They don't understand their own churches history, They don't know what they are talking about. Trust me when I say people read what is said on traditional forums, I can attest to being asked questions about what has been said. Let's not forget that

Ok, those are good points you made, but let me add some details to my original point, which was too general.  I did some research also, for clarity on the matter.  What I said is still generally correct.
.
1.  You are correct, a deacon is allowed to distribute Holy Communion, without consecrated fingers.  However, in pre-V2 times, the deacon was considered an Extraordinary minister of communion, only in times of need.  Currently, canon law says he is an ordinary minister, meaning he can fulfill this function anytime.  That's a big difference.
.
2.  A deacon is a cleric of the church, who takes vows and receives part of the ministry of the priesthood.  I think he has to take vows of celibacy (in the pre-V2 rite).  So he's as close to being a priest as one can get.  He's not simply a seminarian.  And his church office is FAR greater than any layman.
.
3.  In an emergency situation, a priest can be ordained very quickly, without the multiple-hours ceremony, and without the prayers/consecrations of his fingers.  As one poster on fisheaters said:  The blessings at ordination and the unction of the hands, (or of the head, at episcopal consecration) are mere sacramentals, not part of the Sacrament itself, nor necessary for validity or in se  for the lawful exercise of the priestly or deaconal ministry. They help and - if devoutly received and accepted - give subjective grace.
.
This seems logical to me.  The point is, the priest's function to handle the Holy Eucharist is contained in the sacrament itself; this blessing/power does not come from the "unction of the hands" ceremony, which is a beautiful part of the rite, but not necessary.  In the same way, the deacon, when he receives part of the priest's major orders, would also receive part of this priestly blessing/power, so he can touch the Holy Sacrament, but only when necessary or needed.
.
Laymen have NO special blessing/powers from this sacrament, or the Church.  Hence, to handle the Body of Our Lord, without an extreme necessity, is a grave sin.
.
4.  It is a historical lie that Christian laymen handled Our Lord with their hands on a normal basis.  The early Church was fractured, unorganized and under many, many persecutions for 300 years.  While it may have occurred during this time, once the Church was able to have peace and to properly function, the practice was stopped.  Such an allowance was made for many reasons, mostly due to the persecutions.  After the persecutions, it was not allowed at all.  It was never the norm.
.
Dr. Taylor Marshall has researched this subject and reports that Saint Basil (died 379 AD) had this to say on this subject.  “Communion in the hand is allowed only in two instances, 1) under times of persecution where no priest is present, 2) for hermits and ascetics in the wilderness who do not have priests.”  This point needs to be stressed; it was a rare exception, and not the norm. Otherwise, according to Saint Basil, to receive Communion in the hand was considered a “grave immoderation” under normal circuмstances. This practice goes way back in Church history. 
.
One of the earliest references we have about it is from Pope St. Sixtus I, who reigned from 115-125 AD, “it is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand”. Saint Paul himself mentions the importance of the Eucharist repeatedly in the scriptures and how one should not approach it unworthily in 1 Corinthians chapters ten and eleven.
.
https://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/communion-in-the-hand-grave-error/

Dr Marshall is wrong there are liturgical texts predating Basil that still exist in oriental churches catholic and Orthodox which cite how to receive in the hand. Copts recieve this way using cloths, although this was recently done by the last Coptic patriarch.

If St Basil came after such texts, then maybe St Basil was overruling past practices, because such were no longer necessary?  If such texts were AFTER St Basil, then you'd have an argument.
.
Secondly, the Latin rite has always been different than the Eastern rites.  This is why the Church does not let people change rites, willy-nilly, because different rites can cause scandal and confusion of Faith, even though essentially they are the same.

The quote from Sixtus is not from a historically reliable source.

You'll have to prove your assertion here.

It was true in some areas that post Constantine prohibitions were put in place to curtail reception of communion in the hand.

It's a historical fact that the Latin Church has always considered Communion in the hand to be a unique occurrence.  Therefore, the "reintroduction" of the practice after V2 is problematic, because in both the liturgy and in morality, we must be striving for perfection.  We cannot go backwards in our spiritual life, or in our practices of worshipping God.  At the VERY minimum, St Thomas teaches that only priests can touch Our Lord.  So, AT LEAST, this has been common for the Latin Rite since the 1200s. 

In any way if Basil is saying there exist reasons when it can be done it can not be a sacrilege

You're not understanding the definition of a sacrilege, which is simply the profanation or unholy use of a sanctified person, place or thing.  Everyone can use holy water to bless themselves, but if you put holy water in your mouth and spit it out, that's a sacrilege.  You have profaned a holy thing. 
.
The act of the laity holding Our Lord is not a sacrilege inherently, but it is so when Holy Mother Church teaches that there are restrictions.  No one can argue that the laity have a reason to touch Our Lord, therefore unless it's necessary, such an act is unholy, therefore it's a sacrilege.  Our Lord is holy everywhere and always and independently of what the Church officials tell us.  They cannot suspend His holiness, or the sacredness of the Sacrament, anymore than they can suspend gravity.  While the Church does have the power for certain indults and allowances (as She did during the persecutions) She does not have the power to grant a carte-blanche holding of Our Lord, as has become common in the novus ordo (this assumes that Our Lord is even present in many of these fake masses, which is doubtful and I hope He is not, which would minimize the sacrileges committed and the offense against His Most Sacred Body).  There is no reason for communion-in-the-hand, and the Church does not have the power to grant such a permission.  It is supremely unholy and God is not pleased.  The loss of Faith which those experience who practice thus, is a proof that God withdraws graces from those who dare such an act.

Again Pax you don't get it. If a person approaches to receive communion to do so does not automatically equal sacrilege.

Ladislas the texts exist in Oriental Churches, that doesn't mean it was common or widespread. The point was Pax stated communion in the hand invalidates the mass.