To Kneel? To Stand? To Kneel? To Stand?

We all know by now that the "norm" for reception of Holy Communion in the USA is to stand. This has been mandated by the USCCB and a number (if not all) individual bishops.

This is yet another instance in which the language causes a duplicitous and subjective answer which clearly attacks and dismantles the traditional practice.

The universal norm from the GIRM says:

160 The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less hand them on to one another. The faithful may communicate either standing or kneeling, as established by the Conference of Bishops. However, when they communicate standing, it is recommended that they make an appropriate gesture of reverence, to be laid down in the same norms, before receiving the Sacrament.

The US GIRM says:

160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

Clearly, this is a case of either/or as well as both/and....so, the conservative can be correct in interpreting that the traditional practice is to be retained and therefore one should kneel, while the progressive or liberal can also be correct in interpreting that that the traditional practice should be suppressed or abolished. As with most things, the traditional practice has been de facto abolished, leading to yet another subjective and revisionist view of the liturgical action.

If we are to adore Christ, and we are to receive Christ, how does standing accomplish adoration? There can be an action of reverence BEFORE reception, such as a profound bow or a genuflection, but how is that properly adoring Christ?

If one of the principle foci of our worship is adoration (along with catechesis and reception), how is this action justified? Or is it yet another break with tradition and just one more instance of the rupture which pervades the very thought of the Catholic, in the Church after the liturgical reforms of the 1960s?