<all in one breath>
What you say is, as far as I know, correct and interesting, but I don't think it's what was behind the rule. I believe it was more simple and practical -- to ensure that the change from bread to mystical flesh actually took place. Interrupting the words which effected this change might interrupt the transsubstantiation (the technical term for what occurred). It's like the rule which required (now relaxed) that the bread be placed by the priest directly into the mouth of the communicant. They were afraid that if they put it in the hand so the communicant could put it in his own mouth, some might not eat it, but take it away to use as a charm or for some other impious purpose. There is probably something about this in the writings of St. Thomas Acquinas, who practically invented the doctrine of transubstantiation, but nothing could induce me to drag through that again.
