This sounds like SNAP 2.0

The Chicken

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

Text from page http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/05/22/pope_at_mass:_culture_of_encounter_is_the_foundation_of_peace/en1-694445
of the Vatican Radio website

It’s worth reading the rest of the homily.

“On the one hand, the right of the faithful to receive whilst kneeling is inviolate. This is affirmed in Redemptionis Sacramentum. On the other hand, the priest may choose whom it pleaseth him to choose as altar boys.”

“It would seem fairly obvious to me that when granted the privilege of assisting in the sanctuary, one does not receive then as a simple member of the laity, but rather in one’s role assigned in the rite.”

Okay, now I am confused.

Does the, “role assigned in the rite,” take precedence over what is a clearly permissible act? Certainly, the priest is doing this under the auspices of uniformity. That is certainly a good thing, as long as the act he asks all to perform is, itself, permissible, but the question is, and what is confusing me, is what are the limits of a priest to restrict contrary actions that are also permissible, in themselves? Does uniformity trump positive permission of a higher authority than the priest? I could see if the bishop or the pope or the GIRM gave the priest the authority to choose one way of receiving communion or the other, alone, but that is not the case, is it, so where does the priest receive the authority to assert a uniform standard of his servers, especially when a higher authority specifically forbids him from doing so?

I assume in the theology of the liturgy (of which I know very little – be kind on my foolishness) that uniformity of action is a goal in some cases. Obviously, you can’t have half the congregation singing in Korean and half in English, but one does not receive communion as a corporate act, but as a singular member of a congregation. The uniformity comes from the act of receiving the One Body, not the manner in which it is received. Reception of the Eucharist is a sign of unity, but, clearly, not the manner in which it is received, otherwise, there would be one, universal method of reception and that, clearly, is not the case.

Now, I can see for practical reasons that the priest might want all servers to receive according to his directions, and, as I say, that can be done as an act of charity, but I don’t see how receiving standing makes a uniformity as far as a liturgical action is concerned, since the Church, itself, does not demand uniformity in this liturgical action. I know that isn’t clear. In other words, any uniformity demanded of a liturgical action demands, also, a uniformity of the physical actions attached to the liturgical action, but one cannot make an argument for a requirement of a uniformity of physical action where there is no requirement of uniformity in the liturgical action. That is the fallacy of the accident.

Further, RS does not make a distinction between the laity and the altar server when it maintains the right of, “the faithful,” to receive kneeling, so I cannot see how the priest has an authority that supersedes RS.

Of course, the priest definitely has the right to choose who will serve at the altar and he doesn’t have to give a reason for his choice, but once chosen and especially during Mass itself, I can’t see where the priest has rights regarding posture. The server may only get away with knelling once, but I don’t see where he is guilty of actual disobedience, since, I can’t see where the priest has the authority to forbid something the Church permits, except for a reason of necessity or custom (which, obviously, is not the case, here).

So, I am confused. Could someone clarify.

The Chicken

My objection is therefore not to the theological content per se (except for the tragic all/many debacle) but the lack of beauty.

No one seems to care that these prayers are not beautiful.

from Wikipedia: The official nationwide Fête de la Raison, supervised by Hébert and Momoro on 20 Brumaire, Year II (10 November 1793) came to epitomize the new republican way of religion. In ceremonies devised and organised by Chaumette, churches across France were transformed into modern Temples of Reason. At Notre Dame in Paris was the largest ceremony of them all. The Christian altar was dismantled and an altar to Liberty was installed; the inscription “To Philosophy” was carved in stone over the cathedral’s doors. The proceedings took several hours and concluded with the appearance of a Goddess of Reason who, to avoid idolatry, was portrayed by a living woman.[7] The overarching theme of the ceremony was aptly summarized by Anacharsis Clootz who claimed that henceforward there would be “one God only, Le Peuple.”[8]

Many contemporary accounts reported the Festival of Reason as a “lurid”, “licentious” affair of scandalous “depravities”,[9] although some scholars have disputed their veracity.[10] These accounts, real or embellished, galvanized anti-revolutionary forces and even caused many dedicated Jacobins like Maximilien Robespierre to publicly separate themselves from the radical faction.[11]