What they actually said:
As regards the reception of the sacrament, it has always been the custom in the Church of God that laics receive communion from priests, but that priests when celebrating communicate themselves,[38] which custom ought with justice and reason to be retained as coming down from Apostolic tradition.
What they are describing as "coming down from Apostolic tradition" is that only the priest communicates himself. Everyone else receives the Sacrament from a minister. The passage isn't discussing whether or not receiving on the tongue as opposed to in the hand is of Apostolic origin.
(Just to be clear, I am no defender of communion in the hand, I just don't like sources to be quoted incorrectly.)
But as I’ve pointed out before you are misleading and omitting.
Given the church has always taught that only those consecrated are allowed to touch sacred objects, it has also always taught that the transmission was from the consecrated holding the sacred object and dispensing the the host to the mouth of the recipient.
Now your job is to find evidence from the time of St. Sixtus where non consecrated (those not bishops, priests, etc) were allowed to touch sacred objects.
Secondly, your job is to prove the church allowed the opposite of this from then until Trent:
Pope St. Eutychian (275-283)
Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution.”
Again, truth doesn’t change. If their reasoning wasn’t based in truth then the truth changes and the truth isn’t found in the church.
And while I see you are no defender of it, not saying you are, but please don’t omit the key points that Bergoglio and the revisionist modernists are pushing: that it is acceptable to receive in the hand as it seems you were helping him this.
Anyway, God bless and have a good day!