I ran across this article through a friend’s link.
The author makes some strong assertions about 5 so-called myths about early liturgical practices.
His statement at the beginning gives the impression that those who do not support the new translation want “banal” language “that even the muppets on Sesame Street can understand.” I am not sure this snarky introduction captures the reality of the situation. The statement does set the tone (and agenda) for the rest of the article, which gives some broad (but not cited) statements about communion under both kinds, lay ministers, and the use of vernacular.
I would like to know more about women receiving Holy Communion with covered hands since that was not discussed in my study of the liturgy.