This has happened twice in the last couple of months at my parish.  I was MC'ing one of the incidents.  The other, I was not and learned of it after Mass.

Simply put, the Rite of Purification must be performed.  It's the same as at the altar pretty much, but depending on where, or what, the Blessed Sacrament lands on will determine what must be done.

Case 1:  Sung Mass, young teenage lady receiving, she pulled away too fast.  In the Latin Rite, with one priest, the server always stands on his right side.  The paten also on the right side of the ciborium containing the Blessed Sacrament.  The server places the paten under the chin of the communicant.  Here, the host fell to the left side, totally missed the paten (which should have caught it), and fell down in between two wooden prie dieus (kneelers).  The communicant's instinct was to pick up the host, but I instructed her not to.  We continued distribution of communion, and I had another server place a purificator on top of where the host had fallen (since we couldn't get to it).  After Mass, the priest purified the spot with wine and water and consumed the fallen host, performing the rite in the same way as he would during the Ablutions during Mass.

Case 2:  Solemn Mass, new priest as celebrant, young child receiving.  I was not serving this Mass, I was shooting photos.  Child did not receive with patience and pulled away, causing the host to fall onto the floor.  This time, we immediately placed a purificator onto the host, but because it was in the way of traffic, we had a server stand over it as a "guard" (not ON, but OVER).  This was too prevent folks from trampling on Our Lord (i.e. you know how kids are) who were still in line to receive.  Same rite of purification performed after Mass in the same way.  

I have pictures of the second incident but I can't post them at the moment.  There are the ablutions prayers that are said with it, but if it lands on the floor they add (in Latin, of course):  "Now this can go back to being a floor."  The idea being, even if Our Lord falls onto the floor, the floor becomes a "receptacle."  A "sacred vessel" much like a ciborium or chalice.

Nice little writeup on one man's experience here:
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page79/day_the_host_dropped.html

Relatively new, talks with Bishop Fellay have been ongoing.

It was rumored (joked) when Francis was elected that the SSPX is going to be pretty upset when he is the one who lets them back into full communion under the guise of false ecumenism.

It remains to be seen if SSPX leadership would be willing to accept such an offer.  It is very interesting indeed.

Another "blame it on V2" post, because it's true:
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-on-islam.cfm

My wife and I honeymooned in Italy.  At St. Peters, there were many hosts on the steps outside the Basilica.  In the vestibule, there were Novus ordo priests and nuns greeting tourists.  I approached them and told them there were consecrated hosts on the steps.  I made a little scene.  No one seemed to care.  After a few minutes, an old priest came up to me.  We went outside and I showed him the hosts.  He picked them up and put them in his pocket.

Since I believe the Novus Ordo mass is not valid, I do not believe the hosts are consecrated.  I wanted to see what they would do.  As expected, the St. Peter's clergy acted as if they do not believe in transubstantiation.  I believe they acted according to their beliefs.

How did you know that they were consecrated?

How do you know they weren't.  A priest has to assume they are, unless he knows for a fact they are not.  It makes no sense, that someone would take a bag of unconsecrated hosts and pass them around.

St. Peter's is a tourist attraction.  Non-Catholics go to communion.  They take the host in their hands, then they drop them.  Either out of contempt for the Blessed Sacrament or ignorance.

Shudder... I'm not sure which thing I am more concerned about here. You, go to St. Peter Basilica as "sight seer" because you don't believe the Novus Ordo mass is legit. You see hosts strewn on the steps and decide to "test".


the priests and nuns present. Since you didn't believe to begin with ..... Its all so pharisaical of you.





How are you different than the priest and nuns you condemned? Better than you assumed far worse. Saul comes to mind.


My brother, you were put to the test, and had the opportunity to live your faith. YOU were called to that spot. You should covered the host with great tenderness and love, you or you wife should have knelt at the site protecting them and the other should have gone to seek help from someone inside. In setting that example you would have presented to those who are careless with our Lord the example of love and respect our dear Lord richly deserves. You seem pretty human to me.  Just because you feel your ways is above all other doesn't make the consecrated host invalid. So who failed? As a result you missed the chance to validate your way was better.


Heart breaking.

Hmmm Catholic Slumming? Catholicism as a novelty?





 

Diabolical Disorientation. We were warned.

I've visited St. Peters Probably half a dozen times and never seen a single host on the ground. When I read "many hosts" that doesn't strike me as a onsey/twosey non-Catholic receiving a consecrated host and dropping it.  To me that sounds like some purchase a pack on their own (http://www.almy.com/Product2/zc0005470/category/CommunionBread/parent/WebNav-ProductCategory?gclid=COKh35-Sx80CFQdbfgodRfkCtQ) and dropped some.  I don't know how many "many" is though, and I suppose you're right about the priests needing to treat it as such.


Girl who inspired Bishop Sheen

Pharisaical?  How so?  You have absolutely no idea of how I practice the Faith.  Sounds like rash judgment.

Since I knew they were not consecrated, there was no reason for me to treat them as such.

However, since the Novus Ordo does say it believes they are the Blessed Sacrament, they should have acted as if they were.

As far as the test, I was baptized Catholic and then my mom made the decision not to go to the Novus Ordo Mass.  For the first 27 years of my life, I did not go to Church.  Around 27, my mom found the Traditional Catholic Church.    I started attending Church.  For three years, I heard stories about the Novus Ordo, including that they do not really believe in transubstantiation.   I believe the stories, but had no real proof.  So when I was presented with the situation at St. Peter's, I wondered what they would do.  It is interesting that you believe my action was worse than the sacrilege of abusing the Blessed Sacrament.  In fact, i would argue that I was being charitable.  Even though I disagree with the state of the host, I brought to the religious attention a situation that according to their words should concern them.

After that experience, I have had two other experiences with the Novus Ordo service.  My brother was married in a NO church.  In the middle of the so called Mass, the priest stopped and asked if anyone knew the score of the Notre Dame game.

Even worse, was the funeral of a good friend of mine.  He was raised Catholic.  However, he fell away.  The last time he went to Mass was 30 years before he died.  At his funeral, everything was white.  The priest told a story about the Long Island Medium, a TV show featuring a person that talks to the dead.  This in itself is a serious mortal sin.  He said the woman talked about a long tunnel that a person goes through, to reach the judgment seat.  The priest said my friend, who was an athlete, ran through the tunnel and was quickly in heaven.  While this confirmed the stories I heard about the Novus Ordo, it was very sad.

St. Francis De Sales expressed anger toward people that said he was a saint.  He was afraid that no one would pray for him, after he died, because they assume he was a saint.  The NO is wickedly uncharitable, in not pleading for the living to pray for the dead.  The Poor Souls need our prayers.  

How ever sad humanity is, young man,... you should always put Christ first. How did you know they weren't consecrated? You didn't.

Who says the N O doesn't believe in transubstantiation? Where does that even come from?

Fun fact ALL of the Pius V priests I know.... which are quite a few, were ordained in the Novus Ordo church by the Novus Ordo Bishop. They feel called to the Tridentine mass. Is their ordination false as well?

Also I'm truly sorry you experiences these sad examples. The church is FULL of humanity. Even priests have to go to confession.
 

SSPV as in Bishop Kelly?  His priests were not ordained by the NO.  

I know they were not consecrated, because the NO Mass is invalid.   Communion in hand, communion for non-Catholics, communion for those living in mortal sin, dressing like you are going to the beach, hosts on the ground and no serious response, all are evidence that they do not believe in transubstantiation.  

I do put Christ first.  Thus, I do not participate in a religion that puts man first to the contempt of God.

So my preference from a mass perspective is SSVP as this is how I was raised. But at NO time did anyone ever teach that the NO was not valid.


And the majority of priests were NOT ordained by Bishop Kelly. Just the opposite is true.


I guess we'll leave it up to God.




 
 

That is interesting, if true, but consistent with his take to Father Zapp's parishioners.

Father Jenkins, Mrocka(sp?), Baumberger, Greenwell, Bishop Santay, were not ordained by the NO.  The SSPV has a seminary.  The priests are also sede.  What priests were?

Skifast, there is still great concern over the Thuc Bishops. My family started attending the traditional rite in in the early 1970's. The priests who dared to perform the  mass were indeed the humble beginnings of SSPV and  did so under threat of excommunication. This predated the united movement within the Catholic Church to separate from the USCCB and Rome. I stayed true to the Tridentine mass until the early 1990's.





A turning point for me was how the priest treated the mother of a very devote family. She was the mother of 12 beautiful girls and one boy. I was working in the ER at the University hospital when the eldest three daughters brought their mother into the ER. She had been beaten brutally. She was unrecognizable. The girls refused to tell who had done it but the dad showed up very intoxicated and attempted to finish what he had started. Apparently this was a habit of his. That time she barely made it out with her life. She very quietly filed for divorce. The husband threw her and her daughters out and kept his son who was the youngest child. I was present at the mass when this devout woman went to confession but the priest boldly and loudly refused her communion because she was divorcing. Her estranged spouse who beat her... was permitted to take communion. She and her daughters were left with nothing including a place to attend church. I became concerned about the rigidity the church was taking.


Between that and the huge chasm developing from not having access to Bishop  Lefebvre in the 1980's,  I made the choice to return to the NO church; for the exact reason that you have suggested here. The discussion was the other way around though and many became concerned over the legitimacy of the SSPV church.  I couldn't bare the continued unrest and just wanted to attend mass. My parents remained with the SSPV church and it was always a great joy to attend the Tridentine mass.  



 

The current SSPV was started when Father Kelly, Jenkins et. al. split from the nine that left the SSPX in the 80s.  Father Kelly started the SSPV in the early 90's.  

There is only concern over  the Thuc Bishops by those with I believe are trying to justify an agenda.  I was privy to what happened when Bishop Kelly split.  It was not originally due to Thuc.  Further, his consecration by Bishop Mendez was worse than the Thuc consecrations, when applying Bishop Kelly's own argument.  Read Mario Dirkson's open letter to Bishop Kelly, it is an excellent analysis of Bishop Kelly's argument with respect to Thuc.

Regarding the divorce issue, it was an isolated incident in my opinion, and a bad one.  All of the Traditional Catholic priests I know say divorce is allowed in situations like the one you set forth.  However, the couple may be legally divorced, but they are not spiritually divorced.  Therefore, they are not free to date or remarry.  As long as they are not living a life of public sin, they would be allowed to receive the Sacraments.

Finally, ArchBishop Lefebvre was a holy and courageous man.  However, there were issues that he wavered on.  His wavering on the pope was what lead to the nine splitting away.