I have never received the Eucharist in my hand as I had a nice grumpy old priest as I was that was very strict in offering Mass with reverence. I learned that the Eucharist was something to be respected, though I never really learned anything more in CCD as this was the 80’s, so I fell away.
Come back to the Church a few years ago and things have gone wacky. I never recieved in my hand so I still didn’t know how and I have never tried.
For me it would be pride which would incite me to have any less reverence for Christ’s Body, the less it is handled the better.
Just like it is ok to not genuflect if you cannot it is ok to recieve in the hand, but which is more respectful?
Of course on the tongue because there is less handling and you are truly receiving the Body of Jesus, not giving it to yourself.
It seems the less belief that it is truly Jesus the more emphasis there is on handling Him by everyone as a meal, as a universal priesthood, we are all the same kinda thinking.
Yes we are all part of the universal priesthood yet in humility we should acknowledge and show our reverence for that which is above us, or else it is just pride asserting ourselves.
Pride makes one want to assert a position to themselves, and many times little actions are used to reassure a person of either their position or intent.
Just like a kid being told not to touch something then sneaking a touch when no one is looking. It is a feeling of selfish joy which comes from asserting ones position.
I know many people have been taught and are comfortable with receiving in the hand, there is nothing wrong with it. When it is done and foisted upon others for an agenda it is wrong.
(the agenda is a minimization of the importance of the clergy and an assertion of power which is implied by trying to participate in all actions of the Priest, that is why liberals like words “full participation” so much)
You can make full participation mean anything.
There is nothing wrong with innocent receiving in the hand.