The problem is not communion in the hand itself, considered absolutely, but in terms relative to the historical context initiated by the "Protestant Reformation" which reintroduced communion in the hand and under both species in opposition to the dogma of the real physical presence of Our Lord in both Eucharistic species and to the transubstantiation operated in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar by the priest performing "in persona Christi". Since the conciliar "liturgical reform" was carried out with an "ecumenical" purpose - that is, seeking the acceptance of the new rite by Protestants - it is also necessary to reject this modification, not because it is bad "simpliciter", but only "secundum quid" - as it is distinguished in scholasticism - that is, in attention to the context in which it occurs and the intention with which it was implemented...

@Super Omnia Veritas, philosopher
Your arguments are not new to me. I have heard and rebutted these arguments in times past.

Super Omnia Veritas… you argument is based on “context” and “intention” both of which are weak as to why the Catholic Church should base important Liturgical matters on “context” and “intention” rather than sound practice.

philosopher…misplaced anti- antiquarianism would do away with the Crucifix, holy water and the sign of the cross. Some “oldies” deserve to survive. You seeded your argument with unfair negatives “modernist theologians”, “cherry picking” and “heterodoxy”.

@chrisgriffin No, my argument is backed by Pius XII's condemnation of theologians and liturgists antiquarian methods applied to liturgy, not sacramentals- an equivocation fallacy. Super Omnia Veritas's argument is logically sound based on Scholastic principles -that its weak is merely a subjective response on your part -that's like saying the ice-cream is too sweet, while another finds it just right. Moreover, an ad hominem, in which you never show how exactly it is weak or in error.

This is the same methodology -antiquarianism now be used for an argument for allowing Deaconesses. They argue that the early Church there were women who had the status of Deaconess, therefore, it should be implemented in the present. The tactic for communion in the hands is the same. Communion in the hand in the early Church from ancient Church sources describes the recipient kneeling with their arms extended forward and hand in a cup like position, and upon the Holy Eucharist being placed in the hands, the recipient placed their mouth over their cupped hands and consumed the Body of Our Lord. In addition, the Deaconess in the early Church was merely to assist women-only Catechism and Baptism. However, communion in the hand and the new proposed Deaconess are phenomenologically distinct from the ancient version. Both are altered to support the novelle theologie, and both cases violates Pius XII's prohibition against antiquarianism b/c it denies organic development and has the mistaken assumption that some how the early Church was the purer form in which we must strive to return to -a principle of the Protestant Rebellion (Reformation).

@chris griffin It's the Novus Ordo that was constructed by a committee utilizing the antiquarian methodology but it being a synthesis of early elements with Protestant ones is not organic but synthetic. Pope Francis has only highly restricted the TLM, not banned it. Even Pope Benedict recognized that it (TLM) is a living liturgy not a resurrected one from the past. The TLM along with other ancient rites such as the Byzantine and Marianite are organic developments. Think about that the next time you attend a N.O. Mass, this mass only began in 1970 and has not organically developed from the first Mass in the Upper Room in the way that the other rites in the Church have.