[quote="formeratl, post:18, topic:84952"]
I was afraid things were deteriorating quickly when I saw the notice in the bulletin a couple of weeks ago that emphasized that standing for communion was the "norm" in the USA, completely ignoring the fact that Rome has always upheld the right of a communicant to kneel. In fact, it was the example of the Holy Father that Fr. Hennessy was following when he instituted kneeling for communion at the altar rail.
Speaking of the standing for communion norm, I think that some years ago I read the transcript mentioned in this comment from Fr. Zuhlsdorf's blog:
The Adoremus Bulletin made available the transcript of the discussion of the USCCB meeting at which the staff/committee-written U.S. GIRM adaptations were approved. (Some readers may be unaware that the USCCB is set up so that little is done as a result of floor discussion by the bishops themselves; they merely receive initiatives prepared by staff and committees, almost always rubber-stamp them, frequently without having a final version to read before voting. I once heard a well-known U.S. bishop say that USCCB procedures gave him no more influence over alleged bishops’ policies than an ordinary layman has, that what comes out of the USCCB is controlled by their staff, not by the assembled bishops themselves.)
At this particular meeting, some bishops actually arose to express concern over the standing-communion norm. They approved it only after being assured that the standing norm was “descriptive” rather than “prescriptive”. That is, it simply described the most usual way of receiving communion in the U.S.
However, some were concerned that if adopted it would later be interpretive as prescribing how communion should be received in the U.S. Imagine that!
(I'm really sorry to hear about the recent decline at St. Patrick's).