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.
I don't have any "job" like that at all. If you're going to quote Trent, then quote Trent. Quote their actual words from a reasonable translation of the original Latin text.
If you want to argue that Trent really meant X, Y, or Z, argue all day long, but don't put what you think Trent said, or meant, or should have said, in quotation marks like this: "", as though it's their ipsissima verba.
The relevant passage from Trent does not contain any word in English or Latin meaning "hands" and it certainly doesn't contain the lame undergraduate English mis-construction "the fact that".
I'm on your side. You will be more persuasive if you don't misrepresent what your sources said.