Your argument isn’t based on whether CITH is proper or not. All you are doing is citing red herrings and strawmen. If your argument is based on what the earliest Christians do you want all their early customs and traditions too?
Given that the history of Communion in the hand has a continual place in the Catholic Church, one is a fool to argue that it has no place in the Catholic Church. The argument then gets down to whether or not it has a place in the Roman rite. I cite no red herrings or strawmen; you simply are stuck on an issue (to follow). You argue that it is either irreverant, or less reverant, or somehow illegal, immoral, illicit, or otherwise wrong. I don’t know what your experience has been, nor do I know how skewed your observations are by your innate prejudice against it. It may be that you are in a diocese that is not in general very reverant. I would say that my archdiocese is generally reverant; if I hunt around I can find parishes that honor the GIRM more in their choice of ignoring passages, but the great majority of parishes are not experimental. And I have been seeing people receive Communion since before Vatican 2, and the reverance of those who receive in the hand is in the great majority what one would hope for. there are some who are casual about Communion, and having been an altar boy pre-Vatican 2, it was my observation then that some were casual back then when all knelt to receive, and only received on the tongue. No, we mostly do not have Communion rails out here, and yes, most receive in the hand.
As to your question: no, I do not put the issue to the earliest Church, so no, we do not need to discuss adapting other things from the earliest Church. In this thread there has been information that you either have not read or you choose to ignore. Communion in the hand in the Roman rite can be traced from earliest comments about it, in the range of the 3rd to 4th century, into the 10th century to some minor degree. And it has a continuous history within the Catholic, but not Roman, rite. So whether you think it is propoer or not, history clearly indicates that it has been and continues to be proper. The issue isn’t whether or not it is proper; the issue is you don’t like it.
And that, from reading you comments, has to do with the fact that the Dutch bishops did it without permission (or apparently without permission), and that the indult is somehow tainted by that fact.
The bishops, if they are still alive, can go to the Sacrament of Reconcilliation; if not, I entrust them to God’s mercy. Other than that, being an act of disobedience does not taint Communion in the hand in and of itself. I would lay dollars to donuts that if we look at the entire history of the Church, we could find other instances of priests and/or bishops doing something that was out of sync with how Rome did it, and subsequently causing a change in how Rome did it. Your attachment to the issue of this starting without permission leaves one the conclusion that Rome is incapable of protecting the Eucharist. Again, given that there is continual history of Communion in the hand in the Church, I find such a conclusion doesn’t hold water.
And if you want an example, the Sacrament of Reconcilliation was widely practiced by Rome as a public confession, and infrequent (at one point it got down to once in a life time) and it was the Irish monks who changed that to a private confession and frequent. Seems that violated a general practice if not a specific law, and we seem the better for that.
Whether or not Communion in the hand will continue in the Roman rite is pure speculation. It is most certainly widely practiced. Whether it is more reverant than Communion on the tongue is a matter first of catechesis, and then further a matter of personal feelings as opposed to any ontological difference. As I have noted, in the Roman rite we kneel during the Eucharistic prayer; and in the US we kneel longer than in the rest of the Roman rite, and in at least one Byzantine rite they stand. That is not a “one is better than the other” issue, it is primarily a cultural issue. So your constant comeback to lack of reverance also doesn’t carry water.
Ultimately I don’t have a dog in the fight. If Rome says tomorrow all are to receive on the tongue, then fine, all will do so and I will do so and not complain. I did so as a child; it is not exactly new. But I sincerely doubt this is going to change any time soon. I would hope you are not holding your breath. If you are, be sure to pick come colors to wear that go with blue.
