These are unusual times, a pandemic is ongoing, and legitimate authorities have the right to safeguard the health of their parishioners. Trent again? That was a long time ago and much has changed and happened since including a church council and several popes.

I hope the pandemic ends soon since I certainly don't want anyone getting sick.

Besides, I am tired of looking at all the teeth marks on the back of pews from anguished Trads being asked to receive in the hand.

We could, I suppose, go back to common practice 100 years ago when hardly anyone received.

I remember when I was rather young, many did not receive. Being an easterner, I never quite developed the mania for constant communion some westerners have. But the point is, I believe, that we can weather this and be fine after it all blows over.

@Caleferink

I've honestly been stumped as to why Communion during Mass would be verboten but afterward would be just fine

The bishop is responsible for the regulation of the Liturgy, so can try to ban (against Canon Law) Communion on the tongue. How people receive outside Mass is not on his radar, and it is a bit more difficult for him to punish the priest.

As for historical examples, they had a number of reasons for not having general Communion at Mass. I am sure others can give the many examples...

Why after Mass?

-The whole operation takes much longer now that people have to stand 6’ apart in the aisle, instead of swarming together. With Communions after Mass, people who do not wish to commune may head out after the dismissal, having assisted at an entire Mass, rather than either 1) ditching early and very obviously during the priest’s communion, or 2) kneeling for eons while the rest of the people slowly walk single-file and socially-distanced to the altar and back.

-It makes the situation easier for the ushers to control: certainly the usual early-leavers would have no intention of returning to their pew in an orderly fashion for once, but would tangle up the line and shove out whichever way is fastest, compromising 6’ distance.

-It allows a smooth flow of traffic through the church: one pew at a time is led up one aisle to the altar, then down another and out the door.

-If the priest has to clean his hands because someone drooled on him, he’s out of the usual Saturday night get-er-done mindset, and more likely to remember to clean up, and without feeling that he is holding people up.

-It is preferable and rather more respectful to the musicians and any other people who have a liturgical part to play at Mass, but not in distribution of Communion: they have done their job and can receive the Eucharist or go along home, without being stranded in the sanctuary and/or singing all of Psalm 34 5 times, with the antiphon after each verse.

It was not unusual for Catholics to receive Communion but NOT have attended the Mass on weekdays before VatII; they were known as "daily communicants" for that reason (although some also attended Mass daily.) So simply moving Communion to 'after Mass' is not a large leap.

As a matter of interest: although the Milwaukee Archdiocese banned communion on the tongue initially, the command was ignored by priests in at least one parish, and after only 2 weeks, the ban was lifted.