To Kneel or Not to Kneel

pianistclare It seems probable that communion in the hand was the original practice in most churches in the beginning. But it's also well documented that this practice went away....quickly. And afterwards many saints and patristic fathers have spoken against the practice, some very strongly. Communion in the hand is bad. There's no defense for it. But the Roman Church permits it. In this particular regard, Rome made a mistake. Communion in the hand is not an infallible teaching so it's perfectly reasonable and I'd argue, charitable, to point it out as a mistake. The reasons are many and I'd rather not get into it again as it usually starts a lengthy discourse. At the end of the day, nobody is sinning by receiving communion in the hand. But it doesn't change the fact that it's bad and that they shouldn't be doing it.

This is correct and in the East,  standing was the proper posture for prayer. 

Also, a church constructed in a rectangular shape as most in the West are, was not the same in the East

Most were round with the people in an arch around the altar.

The concept of rectangular shaped churches came after Constantine legalized Christianity and donated Roman government building to
the Church. 

These buildings were constructed in a rectangular shape with the members sitting on each side and the leader at the head. Behind him
would've been a large shelf to hold manuscripts and books were were large and heavy. These became altars for Mass once the Church
began using them.

I know some Catholics have a hard time understanding, but the Novus Ordo as the Church evolved toward, was really closer to how
Mass was celebrated in the Early Church. 

Communion in the hand was done away with very very quickly in the early Church.  It was seen as problematic and thus the switch to using a spoon or perhaps intinction (depending on the church).  

[deleted]

I disagree.  Frequent communion was not practiced in the Early Church.  The desert Fathers would go for years, decades even, without access to the Holy Eucharist.  Yet they are among the greatest saints in Christendom.  Now I'm not suggesting that we should all be receiving Holy Communion less.  That would be absurd.  But to suggest that we all ought to be receiving it daily-weekly-frequently is out of place with early tradition.  Frequent reception can cheapen the relationship we have with the Eucharist.  I remember when I first became Roman Catholic, if I couldn't make it to confession in time before Mass, I wouldn't even want to go.  What was the point, I would think, if I can't receive Holy Communion?  My entire faith existed around reception of Holy Communion.  Yet for all my effort in my battles against habitual sin, frequent reception of Holy Communion and my honest prayers were not helping me (at least not in ways that I recognized or were able to take advantage of).  Yet in the few months that I've been going exclusively to the Orthodox Church, I have made strides in overcoming habitual sins.  And this has been accomplished, despite being in a state of sin, having not been to confession in almost 2 years!  My prayer rule and involvement in the Divine Liturgy have been transforming.  For the Orthodoxy, the Eucharist is indeed the crown of the Divine Liturgy, but it is the Liturgy itself upon which we form our faith.  This is probably why I was so uncomfortable with the nominal response I would get as an RC when I would challenge to the priests or deacons about all the abuses or watered down aspects of the novus ordo liturgy and the apathy of the people, etc.  I was always told, "Things aren't perfect, but at the end of the day, Christ is still in the Eucharist.  And that's what matters".  I disagree.  If my choices are going to a terrible liturgy that sucks the spirit out of people, that just so happens to have a valid Eucharist, or go to a transcending Divine Liturgy where Heaven and Earth meet in a tangible way that you can experience with all your senses, and also happens to have a valid Eucharist, is it "really" a choice?