So only priests should receive the Eucharist?
We are all priests: "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." 1 Peter 2:9
Try again.
Are you a Catholic?
Do you consecrate the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ all by yourself?
You're being obtuse. You just changed the verb from "take" to "receive". What argument are you trying to make?
Only ordained priests and bishops "take" the Eucharist. The rest of us "receive" it, properly from the hands of an ordained cleric. (No, I don't approve of EMHC's. Sorry.)
Even if you practice "communion in the hand," it is NOT licit for you to walk up to the minister and grab a Host out of the ciborium. The minister gives it you, and you *receive* it.
As Claud points out, the distinction you're trying to make between "take" and "receive" may not even exist in the Greek.
The only evidence in favor of communion in the hand that I know of is a couple of patristic quotations. It may be that communion in the hand was common practice in the West 1500 years ago. Maybe we've learned some things since then about what's reverent and what protects the Eucharist from sacrilege.
Communion-in-the-hand has *never* been the practice in the East, where you receive the Body and Blood on a spoon which is placed in your mouth *by the priest*.
Trying to argue that Scripture requires it is just completely wrong.