In this spirit of this being Catholic Question Season, i.e,. the time of the year Catholics are mostly likely to get questions as to "why do you do that?", I"m rerunning something I've already rerun:
While Catholic observances tend to at least somewhat baffle those who are not familiar with them, and therefore reinterpret them either though the bigoted Anglicization of popular history they've received, or through their own broken lenses on the world, lots of people are at least somewhat familiar with them. One of the things they're somewhat familiar with is fasting.
We've dealt with this before, but Latin Rite Catholics have a minimal duty of fast and abstinence during Lent. And it is indeed very minimal. The fast days are now down to two. There are more days of abstinence during Lent.
And this post isn't about that.
Rather, this post is about American secular suffering and its pointless nature.
I'm occasionally the accidental unwilling silent third person in a long running conversation between two people on diets, which they're constantly off and on. The oddity of it is that neither of the two people involved have any need whatsoever to be on a diet. They aren't even ballpark close to being overweight. None the less, they'll go on diets and the diets tend to be based on pseudoscience.
I don't want to be harsh on people for this as there's now so much pseudoscience in American culture it's simply mind boggling. We've gone from a society that in the 1960s and 1970s emphasized science to one that now abhors it and goes for non scientific faddism. There are so many examples of this that actually going into all of it would require a blog the size of the Internet at this point. Food faddism is common.
Not a day goes by when I don't get a bunch of spam posts (and how ironic that they'd be called "spam" devoted to dietary bullshit, most of which has to do with eating something that will "melt away fat", probably overnight so that you don't have to be inconvenienced while watching television during the day. It's not going to do that. A wild example of that is one that bills itself as some sort of ice cream, with the photographs in the spam showing chocolate ice cream. Chocolate ice cream is disgusting in the first place, and it's not going to make you think.
Anyhow, these two fit people are constantly on diets of the faddish variety, involving such things as "cleanses" and the like. None of that does anything, at least not in the way a person thinks. Some of it might, accidentally, such as abstaining from alcohol. That'll do something, but not in a cleanse fashion. And some of it probably does something as it approaches a sort of low yield style of intermittent fasting.
I've now watched people on diets for decades, and I'm wholly convinced that none of them doing anything whatsoever. I've watched people on Keto lose weight and then balloon back up to just as heavy as they were before, for example.
Nothing ultimately escapes from the basic fact that weight=calories in-calories out. That's it.
So you can be on keto, but if you eat bacon and eggs for breakfast, a ham for lunch, and then go eat a big dinner, you're going to be really heavy if you are an office worker. Pretty simple.
That is why, I'll note, intermittent fasting actually does cause people to lose weight, but it's not a diet, it's fasting. I'll also note that I'm not a doctor and I'm not telling you to fast to lose weight. If you need to lose weight, see your doctor. A real doctor. Not the homeopathic doctor of Burmese weight loss and orthopody. No, not him. A real bonafide physician. They exist.
Anyhow, I don't think that a lot of people need to go on diets at all, including the folks I just noted.
Now, some people really do. A lot of Americans are really, really, heavy. Some say a majority are overweight. I get that. But none the less I'd guess about 60% of the people I see on diets or discussing diets are not overweight. I don't think they go on diets, deep down, as they're overweight.
They do it as they need to be suffering for something.
Now, this gets back to Lent. Catholics don't fast and abstain in order to suffer. They do it in order to focus and build discipline, and sacrifice for their sins. If it involves an element of suffering, well so do a lot of things.
But devoted Catholics accept suffering as part of life. It's inescapable. Life is full of suffering. Part of that suffering is brought about by license.
The irony of freedom is that freedom to chose isn't freedom. License doesn't actually equal liberty. The freedom to chose is the freedom to chose wisely, and that brings a sort of real freedom. It doesn't mean, kid like, that I can choose to eat ice cream for dinner, and it doesn't mean, modern society like, that I chose all the members of the opposite sex, or whatever, that I might fancy at the moment.
And indeed, that sort of "freedom" leads not to freedom but to slavery. People become enslaved to their wants. A massive amount of American culture is now presently completely devoted to slavery of this type, particularly sexual slavery of both an intellectual and actual kind. The entire pornography industry is a type of "white slavery", involving the prostitution of women and the enslavement of men to lust.
Catholic fasting ties into freedom as it has as an element the concept of building resistance to enslavement. If you can say no to food you can also say no to alcohol, or tobacco, or to vice. It might take practice, hence the discipline of fasting.
Which is also why the slow Latin relaxing of fasting and abstinence rules was, in my view, a real mistake. The concept of the Church in North American, for example, that relaxing abstinence on Friday's throughout the year would result in the substitution of a meaningful personal substitute was, frankly, largely wrong.
And it achieves, of course, more than that.
Fasting, experienced as a form of self-denial, helps those who undertake it in simplicity of heart to rediscover God’s gift and to recognize that, created in his image and likeness, we find our fulfilment in him. In embracing the experience of poverty, those who fast make themselves poor with the poor and accumulate the treasure of a love both received and shared. In this way, fasting helps us to love God and our neighbour, inasmuch as love, as Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches, is a movement outwards that focuses our attention on others and considers them as one with ourselves.
Pope Francis, Lenten message, 2021.
Secular fasting doesn't actually achieve anything. But then, much of modern American life is aimless and directionless. It's been wholly focused on materialism and nothing else. People aren't rooted to place or people as those things interfere with "freedom". They aren't bound by traditional rules of right and wrong, obligation and duty, service to country and community, or the obligations imposed by law outside of the civil law, those being the walls of canon law and natural law, and biological law. They aren't even accepting of the final binds of death, which Americans don't acknowledge as real, and which provides the reason that at 40 years old you aren't going to be the physical specimen you were at 20, and things will certainly be different at 60.
Now, to be sure, most Catholics are no different in the modern world than anyone else. A people who were once outside of the culture as they were different, where they were a minority, and were outside the world in a way as they were distinct from it even where they were a majority, now fall prey to all the modern vices that are portrayed as virtues, and self excuse those that are regarded by the Church as sins. Some of the Church religious itself, mostly older baby boomer aged whose time is past but they don't realize it, still campaign to overthrow Church law in the name of temporal freedom, not realizing that they propose to bring in the chains of slavery. None of that, however, changes the basic point.
Humans sense that abundance can be slavery. They also reject so often the breaking of their chains. But even when they do, they reach out, darkly, to the disciplines that would free them. They sense they have to do something, and often substitute suffering, vaguely, for the practices that would open the manacles.
Today is Ash Wednesday for those churches that follow the Catholic Latin Rite's liturgical calendar, which includes a fair number of Protestant churches.
Ash Wednesday is the beginning of Lent for Western Christians, Lent being the (approximately) forty day long penitential season preceding Easter. Great Lent, the Eastern Christian seasons, precedes Ash Wednesday and commences on Clean Monday for Eastern Christians on the new calendar, but not on the old calendar which has, of course, which departs from the calendar we're otherwise familiar with. The day is named for the Catholic practice, which is observed by at least some Anglicans and Lutherans as well, of placing ashes on the foreheads of those who come to the Ash Wednesday service, with the reminder being made that from ashes you were made, and from ashes you will return.*
For Latin Rite Catholics, Ash Wednesday is a day of fast and abstinence. I.e, they eat only one full meal on this day and it can't include meat, which under Latin Rite Catholic rules does not include fish. For Eastern Christians a much stricter Lenten fast and abstinence set of rules applies. This sacrifice serves the purpose of being penitential in nature.
It also serves to really set Catholics apart, as fasting and abstinence are the rage in the west now, but for purely secular purposes, not all of which square with science or good dietary practices.
For the members of the Apostolic faiths, Lent also serves as a time in which for penitential reasons they usually "give up" something. A lot of people have a really superficial understanding of this, assuming that Catholic "give up" desert or chocolate or something, and in fact quite a few people do something like that. Indeed, as an adult I've been surprised by how many Catholics (usually men) give up drinking alcohol, which means that frequent consumption of alcohol is pretty common society wide in a way that we probably underestimate.
Indeed, just recently, on that, I was asked by an exuberant Catholic Midwestern expat, who seemingly has no boundaries at all, on what I was "giving up" for Lent. This was the week prior to Ash Wednesday at which time I wasn't particularly focused on it myself. The same fellow asked at least one Protestant what she was giving up, with that Protestant being a member of one of the American millennialism religions, to receive a totally baffled reply. Indeed, I'm sure they don't celebrate Lent at all, so the question was odd. Anyhow, he was giving up alcohol and asked if I'd like to join him, to which I absent mindedly said sure. Later he was wondering if I thought it would be tough, which I'm sure it won't be at all and I'll have to find something else to mark Lent really. But that sort of "giving up" line of thinking is very common.
In a lot of Catholic cultures the Lenten penitential observations have traditionally been much stronger, which helps explain Mardi Gras as we just discussed. Even well after the Latin Rite rules were very much relaxed, in many Catholic areas, including Catholic areas of the United States, people engaged in much more extensive penitential observations with the "giving up chocolate" type thing really sort of an introduction to the practice. In Louisiana, without going into it too deeply, there was traditionally a big spike in births nine to ten months after Easter, which reflected a very widespread serious observation among Catholic couples as to their penitential practice, for example.
Some of that is really coming back, which reflects an interesting trend towards a deeper understanding of their faiths by members of the Apostolic faiths and even a return of Lenten traditions in some Protestant ones. During the full "Spirit of Vatican Two" era there was a lot of attention devoted to not giving anything up but rather to work on some spiritual need. I.e, be self reflective and work on what that lead you to. At the same time, the misuse of the word "fasting" became very common, with there being advice, even from the clergy, to fast from things other than food or drink. You can't really fast from sinful behavior, or from narcissism, for example. You can't even "fast" from the Internet, although "giving it up" for Lent might be a darned good idea (one that I really ought to consider, probably).
A lot of that is now passing and there's been a real return to more traditional observations of Lent, including fasting but also forms of dedicated worship and observation.
Which brings me to the next thing about "giving up". One feature of this season is that many Apostolic Christians, as it is the season of repentance, have used the season to break bad conduct when there's support, spiritual and temporal, for doing it. People with alcohol problems will use it to break them, smokers will quit smoking during Lent so they can quit smoking. And sometimes people with serious attachments to sin take it head on during Lent, with some people I've known even announcing the renouncement of what are very serious sins from a Christian purpose over Lent in the hopes of breaking from the permanently. And many who do that, succeed at doing that.
Which in turn takes us to our final observation. This season, which is lead by the Apostolic faiths but which is observed by at least some of the Protestants as well, tend to turn the self indulgent retained Puritan abstinence on its head. I've noted this before, but North American and the Northern Europe may have strayed enormously from Calvinist influence in terms of faith, but not in terms of the concept that public suffering is really necessary. That retained concept explains in large part the real focus in these lands, as opposed to others, in "giving up" something for no real purpose other than the sense it must be done. People give up all sorts of things that Apostolic Christians around the world give up for forty some days, and often on a declared permanent basis (they fail at it more often than not), with it being notable that the purely secular nature of that makes it shallow from the onset. Indeed, plenty of people who will spend Lent scoffing at Catholics for Lent will spend part of the season or all of it on some no carb, or no meat, or whatever, diet, for no real reason other than a constructed one. Suffering, in many instances, is the ultimate goal of those efforts, but suffering without something to redeem it.
For Apostolic Christians, all fasts are followed by feasts, and that's something to remember.
*I don't think this is a practice in the East and its not a requirement for Catholics, something that in fact even confuses some Catholics. Ash Wednesday is widely observed by Catholics and the placing of the ashes isn't restricted to Catholics. Perhaps for that reason quite a few Catholics assume it is a Holy Day of Obligation.
One thing of note here is that Ash Wednesday also serves to point out to everyone who is a Catholic, as if a person has ashes on their head, they're probably Catholic, although not necessarily. By the same token, if you are known to be a Catholic and don't make it to Ash Wednesday you'll tend to get comments about it.
I'll note I've already had the "why" question, sort of, from a coworker who isn't Catholic, but whose children attend Catholic school. The coworker assumed that I have to go to Mass this morning, as its Ash Wednesday.
No, I don't.
Ash Wednesday is not a Holy Day of Obligation. It's widely observed, and many Catholics observe it. I have observed it myself, of course, particularly when I was younger. the poor excuse I now have for not making it to Mass is that I start work before any Masses are offered, save for the 6:00 a.m. which I very rarely ever make, I don't usually take lunch, and I'm beat to a pulp by the time I leave work.
Sorry excuse on my part.
That tends to mean, however, that I get nearly as many "why" questions as people with ashes on their foreheads. People know that I'm Catholic, whic h a good thing, so they wonder why I don't have ashes on my forehead.
Holy Ghost in Denver. While you cannot see it in this photograph, opposite this wall is a row of confessionals. Confessions are heard during Mass.
Shrove Tuesday.
Shrove derives from "shrive", which means to give absolution. So, while I don't know how many parishes offer confession the day prior to Ash Wednesday, that's what it refers to.
It's also called Shrovetide, the evening before the Shrove, which makes more sense, really, reflecting the penitential nature of Lent.
Pancake Day.
It's also Pancake Day in England and strongly English countries, for the custom of eating pancakes on this day. Pancakes use a fair amount of fat in them and this was part of the Lenten practice of abstaining from fat during Lent. It's also therefore one of the odd little ways where England's history as a once deeply Catholic nation is retained.
In Ireland the day is known as Máirt Inide, from the Latin initium (Jejūniī), "beginning of Lent". It's still associated heavily with pancakes. That's sort of indicative of Ireland's history of being heavily impacted by the English.
Of some interest here, potentially, the Anglican Church retains confession, but not the requirement that its members annual confess, like Catholics have. Catholicism is now outstripping Anglicanism in actual practice in the UK. It's often noted that Catholicism has declined in Ireland, a prediction that the Church made at the time of the Anglo Irish War when it did not want to become involved in the Irish government and was forced to against its will, but the Irish remain very heavily Catholic.
Mardi Gras in New Orleans in 1937.
Mardi Gras.
Of course, it's also Mardi Gras, or "Fat Tuesday", from the custom at one time of trying to use up all the fats in the house on this day, in French speaking countries. Contrary to American belief, Mardi Gras is in fact not unique to New Orleans but occurs everywhere that French speaking people are located.
Knights of Revelry parade down Royal Street in Mobile during the 2010 Mardi Gras season, By Carol M. Highsmith - This image is available from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID highsm.05396.This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11990882
American Mardi Gras, or rather American New Orleans Mardi Gras, has become heavily Americanized which means, like all American holidays, it's associated with booze. It is always a big party wherever it occurs, but the weird boozy topless event is an American thing, not a real French thing or culturally French.
Carnival in Rome, 1650.
Carnival and Fastnachtsdienstag
Carnival, from the Medieval Latin carne vale, "farewell meat", is the same holiday in other Romance Language speaking countries. The same sort of linguistic intent is found in the German name for the day, Fastnachtsdienstag. The latter reflects the fact that European Lutherans observe Lent, but in the same fashion as the Anglicans. It's not associated with the same Canon Law that it is with Catholics, but the observance remains.
We've actually touched on all of this, fwiw, before.
All of these days reflected a period when the Lenten fast was much more severe than it currently is. People were using up fats as they wouldn't keep for the forty days of Lent. Now, in the Latin Rite, there's no restriction on using fats at all, the obligation to fast is just on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, when the obligation to abstain from meat also exist, during Lent. All the Friday's of Lent are meatless for Catholics.
In the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church the fasting rules are much more strict. Starting on Pure Monday, yesterday, As Catholic News Service explains it:
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — In the eyes of Latin-rite Catholics, the extent of Eastern Catholics’ Lenten fasting and abstinence is perceived as particularly strict.
The traditional Byzantine fast for Great Lent includes one meal a day from Monday to Friday, and abstinence from all animal products, including meat, fish with backbones, dairy products and eggs, as well as oil and wine for the entire period of Lent. Shellfish are permitted.
Fasting and abstinence are maintained on Saturdays, Sundays and on the eve of special feast days, although loosened to permit the use of oil and wine. On important feast days, such as the Annunciation and Palm Sunday, fish may be eaten.
“Oil and wine were restricted because, in the past, they were stored in animal skin,” explained Mother Theodora, the “hegumena” or abbess of the Byzantine Catholic Christ the Bridegroom Monastery in Burton, Ohio. “Though this is no longer the case, the tradition continues.”
There are varying degrees of fasting, from stricter to more lenient, depending on one’s work and state of health. Monks and nuns will often submit to the most strict fasting.
Holy Week is not considered part of Great Lent but “an additional, more intense time of fasting and prayer,” said Mother Theodora.
However, Eastern Catholics don’t plunge into fasting and abstinence cold turkey. “Meatfare” and “Cheesefare” weeks help them enter into the Great Fast gradually. By Meatfare Sunday, one week before the start of Lent, Eastern Catholics will have emptied their refrigerators and pantries of meat products. By Cheesefare Sunday, they will have cleared out all of their egg and dairy products, ready to enter into the Great Fast that evening, after Forgiveness Vespers.
In an effort to keep Eastern Christians faithful, yet creative, in the kitchen, cookbooks with fast-friendly recipes have been published.
By Laura Ieraci, Catholic News Service. The rules for the Eastern Orthodox are similar, although I'm never certain of the degree to which the Orthodox are required to observe them. Orthodox churches using the "Old Calendar" start Lent this year on February 23.
With all this, Catholics in the US enter Annual Question Time and the time of slightly difficult observances, the latter taking note of the fact that unlike some past times in the country, we're not likely to get killed or anything, so its nothing like it used to be. Rather, as the US is not only heavily Protestant, but Puritan, Lenten practices baffle non Catholics.
Puritans disapproved of pretty much everything, including observing Christmas as a special day, so Lent was way beyond the Pale for them. English culture, on the other hand, loved sports, so when the English dumped the Calvinist, which they did as soon as they could, their love of sports came roaring back. American culture has been impacted by English culture in every way, so Americans love sports but don't understand the Apostolic Faiths very well, in many instances, and in fact sometimes fail to realize that their own branches of Christianity are fairly recent innovations not reflecting the original Apostolic faith.
So for Lent, including its beginning, and its end in Holy Week, Americans just don't really have any observations, other than using Mardi Gras, like St. Patrick's Day, as an excuse to drink. They way it shows up for Catholics, however, is that things that are fairly easy to observe in Catholic countries, like Holy Week or Ash Wednesday, are a lot tougher to do in the US, and of course, you'll be getting a lot of questions if you are Catholic about "why do you do that" and "why can't you . . .".
Plutarco Elías Calles nationalized all property of the Catholic church in Mexico.
The degree to which the leaders of the Mexican Revolution were anti Catholic in a very Catholic nation is hard to overestimate, although at the same time, particularly in some regions, Catholic viewpoints were very represented amongst the revolutionaries. Emiliano Zapata in particularly was notably Catholic.
Be that as it may, Madero was not a practicing Catholic and had peculiar spiritual views. He was in fact a spiritualist and a Mason. Still, his victory in the revolution, temporary though it was, was seen by Catholics as an opportunity to form a Mexican Catholic political party, which they did. The Church condemned Madero's assassination.
It was that killing that sparked the second stage of the revolution. Álvaro Obregón and Calles both featured prominently in that, and both were anti Catholic. Calles was also a Mason. In that phase of the revolution, moreover, democratic forces, which had brought about Madero's rise, started to wane and with the murder of Zapata and the victory of Carranza Mexico headed off in a much more radically leftist direction. In some ways the Mexican Revolution, in spite of its romantic portrayal in American cinema, was much more of a 20th Century European Revolution, many of which featured radically anti Catholic leaders against Catholic populations in favor of utopian leftism.
Calles fit that mold and was the sort example in the office of president of Mexico. His anti clerical laws would lead to the Cristero War the following year.
Mexico remains a very Catholic country to this day and the Mexican people are very Catholic. But like other religious communities, the period of anti religious domination hurt the religious nature of the people nonetheless and the culture of the country. Mexico has never really recovered from the anti religious views of the revolution. Ironically, one of the beneficiaries of that has been Protestant Millennialism which has been successful in drawing in religious Mexicans who are unchurched, a byproduct of the revolution.
Actor Leslie Nielsen was born in Regina, Saskatchewan. He served in the Royal Canadian Air Force during World War Two as an aerial gunner, although he was not deployed overseas.
So, a big one that we didn't include yesterday, as it deserves its own post. This may be the most significant post of this thread.
Don't lie and don's support liars.
Everyone has heard the old joke, “How do you know a politician is lying?” The answer. Because their mouth is moving." That stretches the point, but there's some truth behind the joke, as there is with any good joke.
Indeed, we've become so used to politicians lying that we basically expect it. The current era, however has brought lying, as well as truth telling, into a new weird surreal era.
Lying is a sin. It's been debated since early times if it's always a sin, or if there are circumstances in which it may be allowed, limited though those be. If it's every allowable, it's in situations like war, where after all, killing is allowed. Most of us lie, but it's almost always sinful.
In Catholic theological thought, lying can be a mortal sin. It's generally accepted that most lies are not in that category. So, "yes, dear, I love gravy burgers" is not a mortal sin. But lies can definitely be mortally sinful. Lying over a grave matter is mortally sinful, if the other conditions for mortal sin are met.
Donald Trump, whom some deluded Christians refer to as a "Godly Man", lies routinely and brazenly, and this has brought lying into the forefront, even as he's shocked people, rightfully, by following through on some of his promises, but not all, that were assumed to be lies or at least exaggerations. He's advanced lies about who won the 2020 election, and many of his followers have advanced those lies as well. Some people, of course, believe the lies and advance what they assume to be the truth, but some of that is being wilfully ignorant that they are lies.
Of course here, as always, I'm coming at this from a Catholic prospective. I do not accept the thesis that some do that lies can be utilized to advanced something we regard as a greater good. Some hold the opposite view and I'm fairly convinced that some Christian Nationalist politicians hold the opposite view. I frankly wonder, for example, if Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, hold the opposite view. Johnson claims to be a devout Christian and if he doesn't hold the opposite view, based on the lies he spouts, he must despair of his own salvation quite frequently, unless he hold the completely erroneous "once saved always saved" view some Evangelical Christians hold, or if he's a Calvinist that figures that double predestination has the fate of everyone all determined anyhow, which is also a theologically anemic position.
A very tiny minority of Christians hold such views, however. For the rest of us, it's incumbent not to reward lying, and not to advance lies. It's dangerous and destructive to everyone. It should not be tolerated by anyone. And in this era, and for the proceeding several, it's destroying everything.
Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Services has stated that “cannot see any circumstances” in which a U.S. action to seize Greenland or any other ally of the US could be regarded as a just war and that the rhetoric on the same “tarnishes the image of the United States.” He went on to say that a Catholic could justificable refuse to comply with orders in aid of such an invasion.
Plenty of servicemen refused to accept the COVID vaccine on really flimsy moral grounds. Now here's a solid moral opinion on the absolute immorality of action to seize Greenland.
Trump is insane. The cabinet, or Congress, need to remove him.
Page of the Missal prior to the current Novos Ordo. This would be from the Traditional Latin Mass. The Missal was the property of my mother, and interestingly enough, I have an identical one that was property of my father. The Novus Ordo has a lot more variety in readings
It's not often that something like alter rails creates such a furor that it hits the mainstream news, and generates on editorial. But that's happened in North Carolina, where an order by the recently installed Bishop Martin generated an editorial in the Charlotte Observer.
As Charlotte diocese eliminates communion tradition, something bigger is lost | Opinion
As the parishioners of St. Ann's Catholic Church in Charlotte count down the days to Christmas, they're also awaiting another,...
What's going on?
Well, this is what got it rolling:
Bishop Martin issues pastoral letter on norms for Holy Communion
Guidelines for the reception of Holy Communion in the Diocese of Charlotte to strengthen unity in worship, uphold the Church’s liturgical norms, and encourage active participation by the faithful.
December 17, 2025
Prot. No. B 339/25
Pastoral Letter on Holy Communion
Our Holy Father, Pope Leo XIV, said during a Wednesday Audience about the disciples preparing the Upper Room that “[t]oday … there is a supper to prepare. It is not only a matter of the liturgy, but of our readiness to enter into a gesture that transcends us. The Eucharist is not celebrated only at the altar, but also in daily life, where it is possible to experience everything as offering and giving of thanks.” 1 In this great Jubilee Year of Hope, 2 we are experiencing new dimensions of the Holy Spirit at work in the entire Church and in our local church of Charlotte. As missionaries of hope, our Eucharistic life is oriented toward living the sacrifice and banquet with others. For this reason Jesus says, “you are the light of the world.” 3 In the same way, the course of our National Eucharistic Revival reminded us that a Eucharistic missionary 4 is sent forth by the sacramental presence of Christ, transformed by Communion and prayer, to go forth and be that presence of Christ for others that they too might know our Eucharistic Lord.
The presence of God extends to every space and time. In a special way, though, the Son of God is present truly and substantially in the Most Blessed Sacrament. As Our Holy Father’s motto — In illo unum uno — reminds us, “In Him who is One (Christ), we are One,” as the one mystical body of Christ approaches the sacramental Body of Christ in the one sacrifice offered by the Church on one altar and, in turn, given to us as food for the journey in the one spiritual banquet of Holy Communion. Throughout the ages and within the context of our rich liturgical traditions from the East to the West, our unity as believers in Holy Communion is expressed through our postures and gestures that reflect our mystical communion and unity as fellow believers. 5
In accord with universal and episcopal conference norms, I offer the following norms and guidelines for all public celebrations of the Most Holy Eucharist in the Diocese of Charlotte.
Manner of Receiving Holy Communion
According to liturgical norms, regional episcopal conferences are entrusted with establishing more precise norms for the reception of Holy Communion. 6 The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), with the approval of Rome, has established “[t]he norm … that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling” and that a bow is the act of reverence made by those receiving. 7 The normative posture for all the faithful in the United States is standing, it is nonetheless the free choice of an individual member of the faithful to kneel, and Communion cannot be denied this individual solely based on their posture (Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 91).
A normative posture is not only given so that we may be united in how we receive Holy Communion, but also as an aide to direct our catechesis and sacramental preparation. While it is the right of an individual member of the faithful to kneel, pastors should not direct their faithful to do so as something that is “better.” It is the responsibility of those in a pastoral or teaching role to instruct those in his/her care the episcopal conference norms for reception without prejudice. Doing otherwise disrupts the harmony and unity that the Bishops have legitimately set forth for the manner of distribution of Holy Communion in the United States. The faithful who feel compelled to kneel to receive the Eucharist as is their individual right should also prayerfully consider the blessing of communal witness that is realized when we share a common posture.
The episcopal conference norms logically do not envision the use of altar rails, kneelers, or prie-dieus for the reception of communion. Doing so is a visible contradiction to the normative posture of Holy Communion established by our episcopal conference. Instead, the instruction emphasizes that receiving Holy Communion is to be done as the members of the faithful go in procession, witnessing that the Church journeys forward and receives Holy Communion as a pilgrim people on their way. 8 The USCCB in its explanation for the norms governing reception of Holy Communion reminds us of the beauty of this procession: “In fact, each time we move forward together to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord, we join the countless ranks of all the baptized who have gone before us, our loved ones, the canonized and uncanonized saints down through the ages, who at their time in history formed a part of this mighty stream of believers.” 9 Therefore:
Clergy, catechists, ministers of Holy Communion, and teachers are to instruct communicants according to the normative posture in the United States. They are not to teach that some other manner is better, preferred, more efficacious, etc.
The use of altar rails, kneelers, and prie-dieus are not to be utilized for the reception of Communion in public celebrations by January 16, 2026.
Temporary or movable fixtures used for kneeling for the reception of communion are to be removed by January 16, 2026.
Holy Communion Under Both Kinds
With the precautions taken in 2020 and 2021 due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, the ability to receive Holy Communion under both kinds was suspended. In my experience here in the Diocese of Charlotte, a significant number of parishes have not returned to distributing the Chalice to the faithful. A few pastors and many of the lay faithful have inquired about the return of the Chalice. The practice of receiving under both kinds is a “fuller sign” of the Eucharist and adds greater solemnity to the Mass. 10 Though I understand the genuine desire on the part of the faithful to receive under both kinds, I also recognize that such decisions are made locally. 11
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, however, instructs local bishops to create norms in his own diocese for distribution under both kinds. I encourage Holy Communion under both kinds in the Diocese of Charlotte, whenever the Pastor deems it appropriate and fruitful, provided that the faithful have been well-formed, there is no danger of profanation of the Eucharist, or it would be difficult to efficiently distribute Holy Communion in a reasonable time because of the number of faithful. 12
History of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds
The practice of receiving Holy Communion under both kinds—under the forms of bread and wine—has its origins in the earliest days of the Church, 13 reflecting the Last Supper itself when Jesus offered his disciples both the Eucharistic Bread and the Wine-Turned-Blood. In the first centuries of Christianity, it was the common custom for all the faithful to partake of both species. Over time, especially by the Middle Ages, the practice shifted in the Latin Church, and reception under the form of bread alone became the norm for the laity, with distribution of the Chalice being reserved only for clerics and, on rare occasions, for special feasts or circumstances. This change arose from pastoral concerns, including reverence for the Sacrament, practical difficulties, the spread of communicable diseases, and the desire to avoid profanation.
The reforms of the Second Vatican Council encouraged the Church to restore the fuller sign of Communion under both kinds, 14 and today, where it is pastorally appropriate and the faithful are well-prepared, the practice is again permitted, inviting the faithful to a deeper participation in the Eucharistic mystery. The liturgical documents following the Second Vatican Council extended the faculty to Diocesan Bishops to create norms and guidelines for Communion under both kinds in his diocese. 15
The Catholic Doctrine of Concomitance
The doctrine of concomitance teaches that Jesus Christ is fully present—body, blood, soul, and divinity—in both the consecrated bread and the consecrated wine at Mass. This means that even if someone receives Holy Communion under only one kind—either just the Host or just the Chalice—they still receive the entire Christ, not just a part of him. 16
The Principle of Progressive Solemnity
The principle of progressive solemnity in the Catholic Church refers to the intentional variation in how Mass is celebrated, depending on the importance of the occasion. Not every Mass is observed with the same level of festivity; rather, the Church increases or decreases the ritual elements—such as music, vestments, use of incense, and participation of ministers— according to the liturgical calendar, distinguishing major Solemnities like Christmas and Easter from ordinary weekdays / ferial days. 17 This approach ensures that special celebrations are marked with greater reverence and visible symbols, while daily worship remains appropriately simple. A “fuller sign” of Holy Communion by distributing under both kinds could be a manner of increasing the solemnity of particular celebrations.
Pastoral Considerations
To foster unity, it is helpful that we all practice a similar way of distributing Holy Communion. Parishioners who travel from parish to parish because of their own needs may otherwise rightly question why the Precious Blood is always available in one church and never available in another. Instead, it is best for each of us to refrain from these two extremes. In addition, the practice of intinction has arisen to distribute under both kinds in a handful of our parishes. While allowed in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, it should not be considered an option in the Diocese of Charlotte for distribution to the faithful in public celebrations. Lastly, some priests have commented that they are unable to finish the Precious Blood that is left over after Holy Communion. This is a negligible issue since the ministers of the Chalice are given permission by the rubrics to consume any remaining Precious Blood from the chalice that they are distributing. 18
Diocesan Provisions for the Distribution of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds
In continuity with the documents and ritual books of our Holy Church and keeping in mind the previously mentioned pastoral considerations, I encourage and recommend that every parish distribute the Precious Blood when possible in the following celebrations: 19
At least one Mass with the faithful on Sundays, especially at the principal Mass and on the following weekends:
Divine Mercy Sunday
The Solemnity of Pentecost
The Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity
The Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Jesus Christ
The Solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe
At the Easter Vigil to all the faithful, especially the newly baptized.
Christmas Masses.
On Holy Thursday, at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper.
I would also ask and encourage each pastor to distribute Holy Communion under both kinds during the celebration of:
First Holy Communion
Wedding Mass, even if only for the Bridal Party
The patronal feast day Mass of the parish or mission
The anniversary of the dedication of the Church
Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion
While the distribution of Holy Communion is part of the very nature of ordained ministry, the role of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion is to be welcomed and used in our parishes, churches, missions, and schools. They are particularly helpful when there is a great number of people at any celebration and in assisting the ordinary ministers in those celebrations in which the Precious Blood is distributed. To facilitate the timely distribution of Holy Communion and the inherent limitations of how much a communion chalice may hold, those overseeing the ministers who assist with the celebration of Holy Mass are to ensure that there is one minister for roughly 75 communicants.
In the Diocese of Charlotte, I set down the following norms:
To serve as an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, persons must:
be practicing Catholics, distinguished in their Christian life, faith and morals;
be at least 16 years old;
have received the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist;
demonstrate a deep reverence for and devotion to the holy Eucharist;
possess the requisite abilities and temperament to carry out their assigned duties;
have followed current protocols for diocesan safe-environment training.
Every priest celebrant has the faculty given by the universal liturgical norms to appoint Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion in a particular celebration when there is a need. 20
I grant all pastors and those equivalent to pastors in law the faculty of appointing individuals to serve in a stable way as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion in their celebrations of Mass. Those individuals may: 21
Assist—not replace—the ordinary ministers in the distribution of Holy Communion;
Bring the Holy Eucharist from the tabernacle to the altar during the Agnus Dei, and return the Holy Eucharist to the tabernacle after the distribution of Holy Communion;
Assist in the distribution of the Precious Blood to the faithful.
Take Holy Communion to the sick, dying, and homebound when an ordinary minister is not able, including the purification of the vessel (pyx) in which the Sacred Host is carried.
Before Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion begin this ministry, it is appropriate for them to be publicly commissioned according to the texts and prayers provided in the Book of Blessings. 22
The term for this ministry is three years from the date of their commissioning. This term is renewable.
Parish priests are to ensure that there is an invitation to this ministry and training at least yearly for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
Pastors, chaplains, and religious superiors are to ensure that the ministry and performance of their Extraordinary Ministers are reviewed on a regular basis.
Extraordinary Ministers are to dress and comport themselves according to the dignity of their role.
Conclusion
The liturgy of the Church is the work of God and the work on behalf of God in the life of the Church. 23 It falls to every member of the Body of Christ to facilitate unity in our celebrations. As bishop and the moderator of the liturgy in the Diocese of Charlotte, it is my intention to continue to facilitate “peace and unity” 24 in our liturgies. These norms for our diocese move us together toward the Church’s vision for the fuller and more active participation of the faithful, especially emphasized by our Holy Father, Pope Leo XIV, at the beginning of his Petrine ministry. 25
Footnotes
Pope Leo XIV, Wednesday Audience, https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/audiences/2025/documents/20250806-udienza-generale.html ↩
Pope Francis, Papal Bull Spes non confundit. ↩
Cf. Matt 5:14. ↩
“Become A Eucharistic Missionary,” www.eucharisticrevival.org. ↩
“It is difficult for some of us to embrace this emphasis on Mass as the action of a community rather than an individual act of my own faith and piety, but it is important that we make every effort to do so. Christ himself at the Last Supper pleaded with his Father: ‘Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are… as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us…’ (John 17:11, 21.) Baptism has joined us to Christ and to one another as the vine and its branches. The life of Christ, the Holy Spirit, animates each of us individually, and all of us corporately and guides us together in our efforts to become one in Christ” (USCCB, “The Reception of Holy Communion at Mass,” https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/the-reception-of-holy-communion-at-mass). ↩
GIRM, no. 390. ↩
GIRM, no. 160. ↩
“The Church understands the Communion Procession, in fact every procession in liturgy, as a sign of the pilgrim Church, the body of those who believe in Christ, on their way to the Heavenly Jerusalem. All our lives we who believe in Christ are moving in time toward that moment when we will be taken by death from this world and enter into the joy of the Lord in the eternal Kingdom has been prepared for us. The liturgical assembly of the baptized that comes together for the celebration of the Eucharist is a manifestation of the pilgrim Church. When we move in procession, particularly in the procession to receive the Body and Blood of Christ in Communion, we are a sign, a symbol of that pilgrim Church ‘on the way’” (USCCB, “The Reception of Holy Communion at Mass”). Cf. Lumen Gentium, no. 48. ↩
USCCB, “The Reception of Holy Communion at Mass.” ↩
Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 100. USCCB, Norms for the Distribution of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds, no. 16. ↩
Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 55. GIRM, no. 283. ↩
USCCB, Norms for the Distribution of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds, nos. 23-24. ↩
Ibid., no. 16. ↩
Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 55. ↩
GIRM, no. 283. ↩
GIRM, no. 282. ↩
Musicam Sacram, no. 7. While this principle enters into liturgical use regarding sacred music, the “varying degrees of solemnity” is also applied to other elements of sacred liturgy, employing certain elements in celebrations of greater reverence and excluding their use in celebrations with lesser solemnity. ↩
USCCB, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion at Mass. ↩
GIRM, no. 283. ↩
GIRM, no. 162. Cf. Roman Missal, Appendix III, Rite of Deputing a Minister to Distribute Holy Communion on a Single Occasion. ↩
USCCB, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion at Mass. ↩
“Brothers and sisters, I would like that our first great desire be for a united Church, a sign of unity and communion, which becomes a leaven for a reconciled world” (Homily for the Beginning of the Pontificate of His Holiness Pope Leo XIV, May 18, 2025). ↩
Emphasis added.
But there was more. A draft letter that the Bishop had not issued was leaked, showing pretty clearly that there's opposition to what he's doing right inside of the Diocesan headquarters.
“Go In Peace, Glorifying the Lord By Your Life”
A Pastoral Letter on the Celebration of the Liturgy
in the Diocese of Charlotte
My brother priests,
Since my appointment as the bishop of the Church of Charlotte, I have had the privilege of visiting many of our parish churches, schools, and communities. I am edified by the liturgical fervor of the majority of people that I have encountered throughout the diocese. The heart of the ritual and sacramental life of the Church is to draw us into the saving work of Jesus. The liturgy and our sacramental life always send us out to fulfill the saving work of Jesus, building his kingdom that is manifest in the Pentecost moment and the birth of the Church. For this reason, we hear at the end of the Mass as two of the options for the dismissal, “Go in peace, glorifying the Lord by your life,” and, “Go and announce the Gospel of the Lord” (Roman Missal, “The Order of Mass,” n. 144) The dynamism of the liturgy compels us to live the saving work of Christ out in the world. As we all seek to live as sons and daughters of God, we must take every opportunity to reflect upon the life of the Church within the walls of our church buildings and outside the walls.
The living liturgical life of the Church is a rich gift from Christ that he, in turn, entrusted to his Church. Its celebration is a responsibility that has been handed on to each of us according to our calling. The Second Vatican Council, seeking to lead the faithful into the revival of our understanding of the liturgical life and our participation in it, was profoundly wise in using three unambiguous words to describe our engagement: full, conscious, and active (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 14). These words must resonate in every action of the disciple who desires to engage in the building up of the Kingdom and the mission of the Church, which is to promote human dignity, proper worship, compassionate assistance to the marginalized, and proclamation of the Good News. As the ancient expression reminds us, “as we pray, so we believe.” I would like to add that “as we believe,” so we act in all dimensions of the human experience. In whatever areas of life we are engaged, we must be full, conscious, and active as evidenced by Our Lord and the holy men and women who have gone before us (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 10). These three words taken together are the heart and foundation of my following reflections and instructions on the sacred liturgy in our diocese.
Every member of the Church has experienced a different road along the same path of salvation. Along the way, each of us can give into preferences regarding certain elements and tastes in the life of prayer and worship. In itself, personal appreciation for one or another thing that has personally drawn us closer to Christ is not wrong. It is also good to acknowledge the beauty in legitimate diversity as it expresses itself in different times and cultures throughout the world. Different people and eras have rightfully developed certain ways of praying and worshipping. However, personal preferences among the clergy tend more and more to make the worship of the Church “ours,” rather than the work of the Holy Spirit. When we allow worship to be the work of the Holy Spirit, it unifies the Church, but when we celebrate the liturgy according to our own likes and partialities it causes division. To be united in the mission of the Church, which is to evangelize all peoples, we must place our own preferences aside. Those who enter our churches to worship God are at different places in their spiritual journey. In fact, some enter having never experienced God’s sacramental economy lived through the celebration of the liturgy. If we desire to impart the life of the Church to all, we must shed the personal elements that only resonate with the few in order to give witness to the broader needs of the Body of Christ.
As the bishop of the Diocese of Charlotte, it falls to me, too, to set my own preferences aside to be in communion with our Holy Father, Pope Francis, and my brother bishops. Together, we must discern the signs of the times as well as the particular and unique dynamics throughout the Diocese of Charlotte and the Southeast. In this process, there are no particularities that would allow any of us to contravene the magisterium of the Church or the rich tradition that has been handed down to us. No theologian, pastor, blogger/podcaster, religious congregation, or well-intentioned pious layperson can claim this role for himself or herself. Ultimately, as the moderator of the liturgy in this diocese (Sacrosanctum Concilium, para. 41) and chief liturgist (Ceremonial of Bishops), I must exhort each of us to live this life of prayer and worship to which we are called. May this letter be one that I pray you will receive in the spirit of our shared vocation to serve the common good.
The teaching Church has richly blessed us through the centuries with countless exhortations, instructions, and decrees in order to instruct the faithful in an understanding of her role as a sanctifying Church. Indeed, the Holy Spirit was at work in the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, which has a primacy in our day for understanding the foundation for all the teachings that have come since. I ask all of us to reacquaint ourselves with Sacrosanctum Concilium, the “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” which is of utmost importance and from which so much of the Church’s liturgical life flows. I would never attempt to place my words in this document among the tremendous treasure of the teachings of the Council Fathers, nor is it my intention to highlight and comment on every part of our liturgical life. Though some may see the following areas of liturgical life as polemical, I simply hope to focus on larger, overarching principles that should help frame our life of faith, encourage unity in worship, put preferences behind us, and celebrate the Church’s liturgy in a more integrated manner throughout the diocese.
Liturgical Rubrics and Texts
In the celebration of the sacred liturgy, it is widely accepted that ordained ministers or, in their absence, lay ecclesial ministers who preside over the rites are to do so according to the rights and responsibilities that belong to them. It is also necessary, at times, that the pastoral nature of the liturgy requires modifications to these rites within the norms of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. These particular pastoral modifications on one occasion, though, should never become the ongoing practice in a place or community without the express permission of the bishop. Ministers must never forget that the words, actions, and selections they choose are always within the context of a celebration that is greater than themselves. As such, these same choices should never be subject to the whims of their own preferences that can sometimes be present in the Church. It is unjust that the worshipping congregation should be subject to such a wide range of differences depending on who celebrates the Mass or which parish they attend. Ministers must keep in mind the necessity to remain in communion with the larger presbyterate and the local bishop for the sake of those who come to us from all over and those who will come after we are gone.
At some places in our diocese, there tends to be a recurring tendency to attempt a reclamation of the rubrics, actions, and sensibilities of the Missal of 1962 or pre-Vatican liturgical customs and to implement them in the celebration of the Novus Ordo Missae. This can also extend to art, architecture, and other liturgical and “para liturgical” celebrations. Of lesser prevalence here locally but causing an equal amount of disappointment are those ministers who continue to use the Novus Ordo Missae as a type of living dynamic that can expand or contract at their own discretion. This troubling dynamic fails to envision the liturgy as the noble work of the entire Church (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 7/4) but degrades it as a personal tool amid a cultural tug-of-war that is reminiscent of what is present in our country today. As we all cry out for our civil leaders to get beyond personal gain and partisanship for the sake of working for the common good, we can all too often fall prey to the same binary modalities.
It is my thought that when we find ourselves in challenging or uncertain times, it can be an easy refuge to grab hold of the past or push forward to an undetermined future as a safe haven. We tend to preface our decision making with phrases such as, “If only our Church went back to…,” or “If only the Church would adapt to….” Far from delivering us from the anxiety we wish to escape, it only reinforces its own necessity to cling to this or that, further drawing us away from a real encounter with the true life of Jesus that is exemplified in his Incarnation and communicated to us through the faithful celebration of the liturgy. Whether my observation of the rationale for these tendencies among the Church’s ministers is accurate or not, it is the way it is perceived among the faithful. When someone embraces liturgical tendencies that harken to the liturgical life of the Church prior to the Second Vatican Council or of a Church yet to come – even when done with the best and holiest of intentions –, it communicates to the faithful that the Novus Ordo in itself does not have the power or capacity of transmitting the full gift of God’s sacramental work and graces. Even if that unspoken message is not the minister’s intention, it is communicated clearly when members of Christ’s faithful are exhorted to either reclaim components that some believe were unfortunately discarded for the sake of novelty, or when they are exhorted to embrace pastoral creativity as the right of the celebrant to make the liturgy somehow more relevant. What is more, many of these extremes to one side or another bring about a contradiction to the Second Vatican Council that desired a greater engagement of the faithful. Full, conscious, and active participation is best experienced when one experiences the same liturgy celebrated from celebrant to celebrant and parish to parish.
Throughout the Church, there still remain celebrants who deviate from the text of the liturgy, lamentably inserting or changing the words of the liturgical prayers where no such latitude is intended or given. The faithful who have grown accustomed to the rhythm and rhyme of prayers and dialogues that have been handed down for generations are then jarred by the celebrant’s own words, rather than the words of the Church. While the intention is often to make the moment clearer or more related to the particular celebration, it can easily cloud that moment and leave the congregation moved from participating actively in the liturgy to listening passively to the minister's invention or worse, doubting the validity of the celebration. To preside over a liturgy is to provide a model and example of prayer. Intentionally inserting or changing one word where the rubrics give no indication that the celebrant can do so is no more or less unfaithful to the spirit of the liturgy than changing or inserting entire texts or phrases.
Adding texts and responses to the Mass is not always on the part of the minister. It can also lamentably come from the congregation. The introduction by the faithful of certain exclamations after the showing of the Host and the Chalice after their consecration is absent in the rubrics of the Mass and completely inappropriate. The only responses indicated by the Missal are the responses to “The mystery of faith.” It does not call for the faithful to call out, “My Lord and my God.” If the faithful desire to utter some pious acclamation, they are welcome to do so from their heart and silently. Pious practices of some people do not need to spread as communal responses of all the faithful. I have confidence that priests can properly instruct the faithful that they are to adore the Eucharistic species in silence at the moment they are shown to the people. This needs to beaddressed more in Hispanic communities where this has unfortunately become prevalent.
There are various ways in which the liturgy can be legitimately adapted according to the liturgical prescriptions of the Mass, especially in pastoral situations that include children, those with special needs, the disabled, the elderly, et cetera. Let us all reacquaint ourselves with the Directory for Masses with Children and the resources “Catechesis with People with Disabilities” provided by the USCCB Subcommittee for Evangelization and Catechesis. These are all within the scope of tailoring the liturgy and our teachings so that differently abled individuals can understand the richness of our liturgical patrimony and engage fully, consciously, and actively in the sacramental life of the Church. These changes and adaptations are not to be used in our regularly scheduled Masses and on a customary basis in our Sunday liturgies.
The Latin Language
One of the desires expressed by the Second Vatican Council was to embrace the vernacular language in our liturgies as an intelligible vessel through which the faithful may better comprehend the mysteries of the faith. In my experience here in the Diocese of Charlotte, I have encountered a frequent and prevalent use of the Latin language in our parish liturgies. Latin is used from place to place for various and different motivations. Some have employed its use as a safeguard against what I have addressed above: textual innovation and abuse. However, the faithful's full, conscious, and active participation is hindered wherever Latin is employed. Most of our faithful do not understand and will never comprehend the Latin language, especially those on the periphery. It is fallacious to think that if we employ Latin more frequently, the faithful will get used to it and finally understand it. Our ancestors “heard” the Mass in Latin every Sunday but never understood it. Their experience was the reason that the Council asked the entire Church to welcome the use of the vernacular languages (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 32.2). I find it disturbing that so many pastors and celebrants are inclined to force an unknown language on their congregation when the Lord’s mission is to engage the lost. The Church’s teaching on evangelization and missionary efforts cry to us for sensitivity on the part of pastoral leaders to engage people where they are to bring them to Christ. Full, conscious, and active participation in a liturgy that uses Latin would require each person to learn the Latin language, which is an impossible request. So many of our faithful simply walk away when they don’t understand the language and then miss out on the other beautiful aspects of the liturgical celebration.
The Latin language, no doubt, holds a special and official role within the Latin Church (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 32.1). In fact, all official texts, documents, and ritual books are published in Latin as the editio typica from which the vernacular translations are derived. The Church even exhorts that the Latin language be studied in seminaries and theological studies (cf. John XIII, Veterum sapientiae). The Church does not, however, call for the Latin language to be used widely in the liturgy. On the contrary, we are called to use languages that our people understand. I cannot comprehend why a vocal minority of the faithful who themselves admit to not understanding Latin would advocate a revival of the Latin language within our diocese, rendering the liturgy unintelligible for all but a few of our people. Moreover, as a diocese that is comprised of so many immigrants, we would be imposing on them an even greater burden. Not only are they trying to learn English and assimilate into our culture, but then they have another language imposed upon them that is foreign.
Some who desire the use of Latin can point to a few documents of the Church to justify their selections and personal preferences. While the Church makes clear that we still embrace the Latin ritual patrimony, these choices to introduce Latin are not pastorally sensitive. I understand the majority of Masses in our diocese are being celebrated in the vernacular. However, there are several places that are introducing Latin Mass responses, Latin Ordinary chants, Latin antiphons, and even the Memorial Acclamation and Our Father. Latin polyphony and motets are being sung at the Offertory and during the distribution of Holy Communion. All these parts are rendered less engaging by the use of Latin (USCCB, Music in Catholic Worship, 51b). A place for using Latin in the liturgy would be, to name a few examples, a specific gathering of scholars, clergy, or those trained in classical music. This is not the reality in our parishes and communities.
The use of Latin in our parishes fosters two unacceptable tendencies. The first is a rejection of the Novus Ordo Missae. When Latin is used in our parishes, other elements of the Missal of 1962 are always interwoven into it. Latin is not being used in our liturgies for its own sake but seems to be a way to incorporate older customs and actions which are not prescribed in our current liturgical books. Second, pastoral leaders who use Latin in the liturgy are creating within their own communities a divide between the haves and have nots: those who understand and those who do not understand. This fosters a clericalism that is unacceptable because, sadly, the priests are those who are more likely to understand while the faithful remain left out. Latin diminishes the role of the laity in the Mass. They are deprived of the full, conscious, and active participation of which they have a lawful right.
Cross-Pollination of the Liturgical Rites
Like the unfortunate importing of Latin into the Mass, the faithful are being exposed to different ritual elements that are not part of the Novus Ordo Missae. Not only are our faithful coming to our churches to find the language of certain parts unintelligible, but also find some parts of the Mass celebrated differently. In certain places, the faithful have been told that it is better to receive the Holy Eucharist kneeling, on the tongue, from the priest, and even at an altar rail. While the Church clearly gives the option to the communicant to receive in the hand or on the tongue, teaching that one way or the other is “better” completely undermines a proper theology of sacramental grace. Some may advocate for the right of the communicant or the personal piety of the individual, but our role as pastoral leaders is to unite our flocks in a common prayer and ritual action. For this reason, the USCCB has established, with Rome’s approval, a normative posture for Holy Communion, which is standing after having bowed one’s head (GIRM n. 160). To instruct the faithful that kneeling is more reverent than standing is simply absurd. It would be equally absurd for another to instruct that prostrating oneself for Holy Communion is more reverent than kneeling. This reminds me of what my Novice Master taught us years ago: “Don’t try to be holier than Holy Mother Church.” Our instructions and catechesis will always reflect from this point forward that all options to receive Holy Communion are equally reverent. Moreover, no minister may ever instruct that it is better to receive Holy Communion from a priest than an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. All our catechesis about the Holy Eucharist needs to be anchored in the Church’s teaching on sacramental efficacy: ex opere operato. The grace received from the sacrament does not depend upon the posture of the communicant or from whom it is received.
There are many characteristics of “blending” aspects of the pre-Conciliar Mass with the Novus Ordo Missae which communicates the erroneous message that the Mass is not sufficient in itself to be a channel of the graces of Calvary in their fullness. Several parishes have removed the use of lay Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and introducedaltar rails. These decisions frustrate the ability of the faithful to receive Holy Communion under both species, a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet. In addition to these two decisions is the tendency in some of these same parishes to exclude female altar servers. Using the altar rails to keep people out of the sanctuary, removing lay people’s assistance with Holy Communion, and welcoming only boys to serve at the Eucharistic mysteries create an air of clerical superiority, communicate a spirit of unwelcoming as if the congregation should just be spectators, and can suggest that the parish rejects the liturgical reforms brought about at the behest of the Second Vatican Council.
Two ritual elements of the Mass that are admittedly optional (but have become so widespread as to become almost normative) are the sign of peace and the procession of the gifts during the preparation of the gifts and the altar. These are two more very important parts of the liturgical reform that allow the people to participate fully, consciously, and actively. Some ministers would seem to suggest that the procession of gifts and the sign of peace distracts from the Eucharistic centrality on the altar. However, the procession of gifts represents the faithful’s movement toward the altar as they unite their own offering to the Eucharistic offering, and the sign of peace represents the horizontal communion of charity between believers before the reception of Holy Communion, which is none other than their vertical communion with the God that brings the community together. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal assumes that all other things being equal, both moments usually take place. There may be very few particular celebrations in which they are omitted for pastoral reasons, but they should ordinarily take place in Masses celebrated with the people.
Several other liturgical preferences reintroduce ritual elements of the Missal of 1962 that have no place in our Eucharistic celebrations. These include the minister making the sign of the cross with the Sacred Host during the reception of Holy Communion, overly ornate vestments that put more focus on the ministers than the Eucharist, and vestments that are no longer prescribed for the Mass (fiddleback chasubles, birettas, crossed stoles, server gloves, and the maniple). While every priest is required by Canon Law to make prayerful and suitable preparation and thanksgiving before and after Mass, the vesting prayers are no longer part of the Roman Missal. Before and after Mass, there should be an environment of welcoming and openness. In terms of gathering and exiting the church, the music should be inviting and not distract from the faithful gathering and leaving in a spirit of community and engagement. The music chosen should encourage signing, not simply listening. After the dismissal, there are some churches that have reintroduced the communal recitation of the Prayer of St. Michael the Archangel. This prayer is no longer prescribed in the Novus Ordo Missae. While the intention to defeat the power of Satan and other evil spirits is commendable, its recitation at the end of Mass can lead to the unfortunate doubt that the Eucharistic liturgy is somehow insufficient to bring about the scattering of evil and motivation to do good. If parishes have the custom of praying this prayer communally at the end of Mass, it ought to be done separate from the liturgy and, therefore, no sooner than after the Recessional hymn.
The Altar and Its Orientation
The central element of our church buildings and the Eucharistic celebration is the altar of sacrifice. The altar is a new Calvary upon which the re-presentation of the passion, death, and resurrection are carried out. It is a new Bethlehem where Christ is made flesh in the Eucharistic species, the Creator comes anew to his creation, and the Lord of Lords offers himself for adoration. In order for the faithful to participate as the Council requires, visual engagement is necessary. For this reason, the Church has been clear that ad orientem is not appropriate. It has not been permitted and will not be permitted in the future in any public chapel, church, or oratory in the Diocese of Charlotte. Moreover, it is important that the altar of sacrifice be free of any visual impairment. Candles, standing crucifixes, and Missal stands all impede the ability of the faithful to see the Eucharistic elements. These elements were all incorporated into the Roman Rite when it was offered ad orientem, but they no longer are needed on the altar in the Novus Ordo Missae. The two altar candles can easily be placed on the side of the altar, rather than creating a visual obstacle on the front edge of the altar.
Conclusion and Prescriptions
The considerations I offer for your reflection do not exhaust the items that need to be addressed in our diocese. However, I believe they are an effective start for our joint venture toward a more uniform celebration of the Mass in our diocese. The faithful who come to celebrate the Lord’s mysteries in our churches deserve a liturgy that is according to the mind of the universal Church. From one church to another, we must provide a celebration in which they can participate entirely. It is unjust for the people of God to be subjected to older liturgical practices, musical selections, and ancient languages that were intentionally reformed or eliminated from the Novus Ordo Missae. The Mass and all the sacraments are for us to ultimately be sent and to serve, which is the ultimate meaning of a life that is full, conscious, and active. While this mission to the poor, marginalized, suffering, and sick deserves a fuller reflection by us all, I will leave that exploration for the future. Our redemption is not rooted solely within the walls of the church and within the Mass; it is rooted in the mystery of the Holy Cross and Christ’s sacrificial love, which extends to even those who do not worship with us. May Christ’s Mother, the ever-virgin Mary who stood by the foot of the Cross as a witness to his sacrifice, intercede on our behalf so that we may carry out in our lives his saving work as faithful sons and daughters of the Church.
With this motivation of purifying and unifying the celebration of the Mass in the Diocese of Charlotte, I decree the following prescriptions for the celebration of the liturgy:
Liturgical Norms:
1. In terms of the altar and its appointments, the following characterize the public sanctuaries in our sacred spaces:
a. In new constructions and renovations of sacred spaces, altar rails are not permitted and, therefore, the sanctuary is to be separated from the nave by a change in elevation (GIRM, 295). Moveable altar rails should be removed, and permanently fixed altar rails should no longer be used. The placement of a prei dieu for the reception of communion is not appropriate.
b. The altar is to be freestanding, and Mass must be celebrated facing the people (GIRM, 299).
c. During the celebration of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the altar is only to contain the corporal, purificator, vessels containing the Eucharistic elements, and Roman Missal. There is no mention of a missal stand (GIRM, 306). If a priest with visual impairment needs to elevate the book, there can be used a simple, low-profile book stand that should not obstruct the faithful’s view of the Eucharistic species.
d. In terms of candlesticks, they are always to be arranged around the altar since placing them on the altar will always obstruct the vision of the faithful (GIRM, 307).
e. When a cross cannot be placed near the altar, it is to be laid flat on the mensa so that the faithful’s view is not obstructed (GIRM, 307).
f. Flowers and other decorations may never be placed on the mensa of the altar (GIRM, 305).
g. Regarding the use of technology in the liturgy, care should be taken to make certain that its use enhances the celebration without distracting from it.
i. Sound equipment of a caliber of quality is essential for full, conscious and active participation of the faithful. Assistive technologies for the hearing impaired should be available in all Churches with clear instructions for their use. The ODW can provide assistance with vendors who have provided high quality service in this area.
ii. The use of projectors in churches has a place that can be, if utilized properly, a valid worship aid. There are numerous creative and discreet ways to accomplish this in new church construction and renovation. The installation of projectors must be done in coordination with the ODW to ensure that their placement does not detract from the overall sacred action of the liturgy. It is desirable, where possible, that screens not be used, rather that projection be made against a blank wall. During any liturgical celebration, the projection should only be for:
1.musical lyrics (and possible musical notation);
2. translation of Readings during the Liturgy of the Word in congregations that are bilingual;
3. common Mass responses in congregations that are bilingual or in other liturgical celebrations where a printed program would ordinarily be used;
4. transmitting a pre-recorded homily by the bishop or short videos that have been created for the congregation that can be presented after the concluding prayer and before the final blessing.
h.Projection should not regularly be used in Churches for advertising, announcements, simulcast video of the current liturgical moment, or liturgical art (larger celebrations [eg. Eucharistic Congress] in event halls transformed into liturgical spaces are an exception). The goal of this technology is that it be invisible as possible when not functioning in one of the 4 purposes noted above.
2. In terms of the rubrics and texts of the Roman Missal:
a. No one person may change, add, or remove any part of the rubrics, prayers, or texts of the liturgy (SC, 22/3). This means that elements of the pre-Conciliar Mass which were eliminated by the Apostolic See may not be reintroduced.
b. In Masses with the faithful, the vernacular is to be retained for all parts of the Mass. Latin Mass parts are to be chosen judiciously only for those particular celebrations in which the majority of the participants understand the language.
c. Since “it is a praiseworthy practice for the bread and wine to be presented by the faithful” (GIRM 73/3), the procession of the gifts is to be retained in all public Sunday and holy day Masses, and encouraged in all other Masses with the faithful.
d. Since it is rarely not appropriate (Roman Missal, “Ordinary of the Mass,” 128) for the Sign of Peace to be exchanged in Masses with the faithful, I direct that the faithful always be invited by the deacon or, in his absence, the priest, to exchange the sign of peace during Sunday and holy day Masses.
e. The ringing of a bell(s) to signal the congregation to stand before the Opening Hymn is no longer to be used at any Mass. A verbal welcome by the Lector (or other suitable minister) followed by an indication of the hymn to be sung and an invitation to stand is most appropriate and should be normative at all Masses.
3. In the area of liturgical vesture:
a. Ministers are to wear the prescribed liturgical vesture, as found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (para. 355ff) and the Ceremonial of Bishops (para. 65ff). In these instructions, there is no option given for priest celebrants to wear birettas, cross their stoles, or wear a maniple. Similarly, chasubles cut in the manner commonly referred to as “fiddle back”, are strongly discouraged. These vestments are seen and understood by the faithful as a clear sign of a priest celebrant who prefers the liturgical (and possibly theological) life of the Church prior to Vatican II given that these vestments have not been seen in most churches around the world since the 1960’s. Priestly vestiture is not intended to be the place for making such statements, intended or otherwise.
b. Vestments are to be constructed of noble materials and not be made overly ornate with overlaid decorations and embroidery (GIRM 344). Albs that have decoration or lace should have more fabric than decoration.
c. There is no option given in the current liturgical books that prescribe certain vesting or devesting prayers. Prayerful preparation before Mass and thanksgiving after Mass is to take place in some other way and, if possible, in common with the other assisting ministers.
d. Women who have chosen to wear a veil as an expression of personal piety are not to do so when they are assisting in any official capacity (lector, cantor, altar server, usher, etc.)at Mass.
4. In the area of music:
a Music is to be chosen in which all the faithful can participate and pastors must diligently plan their selections in such a way that all involved in the liturgy can raise their voices in song to God (Musicam Sacram, 5).
b. In our present situation, Latin responses and Mass parts are not to be utilized in parish churches during regular celebrations since they hinder people's participation (Musicam Sacram, 9). Retaining the use of Masses celebrated in Latin is not opportune in our present reality (Musicam Sacram, 48) since the faithful are not accustomed to it. Even in places where they have become used to it by more recent practice, this becomes problematic for visitors and/or new parishioners or those coming to the faith for the first time.
c. So that the faithful may participate more actively in the procession, preparation of the altar and the gifts, and the distribution of Holy Communion, hymns are to be chosen that are known by the congregation, easily singable, and available through a printed resource, such as a pew hymnal or worship aid. “Congregational singing is to be fostered by every means possible, even by use of new types of music suited to the culture of the people and to the contemporary spirit” (CDWDS, Liturgicae Insaurationes, 5 September 1970).
d. The celebration of Mass on Sundays and Solemnities, regardless of the time of day, should be carried out with regard for its inherent and proper festivity. The celebration of so called “quiet Masses” that are celebrated without music or musical accompaniment is strongly discouraged even if desired by some of the faithful. The public designation of a Mass as a “High” or “Low” is not seen as appropriate even if the designation of such is still found in liturgical documents. The former patterns that are associated with these designations have shifted, leaving those seeing this in a parish bulletin or signage with a false association with the pre-Conciliar Mass.
5. Concerning those who assist at Mass:
a. In order to show the equal dignity and role of the baptized faithful, both men and women may serve as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, readers, and altar servers. No one may be denied a liturgical role proper to the faithful based on their gender (cf. “Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences,” Prot. n. 2482/93 March 15, 1994, see Notitiae 30 [1994] 333-335).
b. Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are to be trained and employed in those parishes where it will facilitate a more orderly reception of Holy Communion. The number of communion stations at Mass in any Church or location should be determined by the number of persons present for the celebration. A good rule of thumb is 1 communion station per 125 persons in attendance. The reduction of communion stations to eliminate the need for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion is considered an affront to the Church’s provision in such circumstances.
c. It is preferable and more fitting that Holy Communion be distributed under both species, even when it is necessary to employ the assistance of Extraordinary Ministers. Any mandates given during the pandemic are hereby lifted, entrusting the decision to receive under both species to the faithful.
d. Altar servers are not to kneel in front of the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer with candles. They are to remain at their seat and kneel there. In moments of great solemnity, a thurifer and one other assisting alter server may kneel before the altar to incense during the consecration and should return to their places during the Memorial Acclamation.
e. Altar servers are not to wear gloves.
6. In the distribution of Holy Communion:
a. Pastors are to catechize the faithful regularly on the normative posture for the reception of Holy Communion in the United States, which is standing after having made a bow of the head (GIRM 160).
b. Ministers and catechists are never allowed to teach that it is “better” to receive Holy Communion one legitimate way or another or from an ordained minister rather than a lay Extraordinary Minister.
c. Since there is no mention in the Conciliar documents, the reform of the liturgy, or current liturgical documents concerning the use of altar rails or kneelers for the distribution of Holy Communion, they are not to be employed in the Diocese of Charlotte.
d. Communion may not be denied to those who, after bowing their heads and individually approaching the minister, kneel to receive the Sacred Host (CDWDS Responsa ad dubium, 1 July 2002).
e. When distributing Holy Communion, ministers are to hold the Host elevated above the vessel and say, “The Body of Christ.” The communicant responds, “Amen.” The minister then places the Host on the communicant’s tongue or in the palm of the communicant’s hand. It is forbidden to make the sign of the cross with the host before the communicant since there is no option to do so in the rubrics.
f. The faithful who desire to receive communion on the tongue should be instructed/reminded to open their mouths widely and extend their tongue so as to afford the minister the greatest ease of placing the host on the tongue.
g. The use of communion pattens by altar servers is to be implemented judiciously given the diverse ways in which the faithful can receive. Where communion pattens are used, servers should be instructed well to first place the patten low, below where the communicants hands are, and then move the patten upward should the minister move to place the host on the tongue.
Liturgical Preferences:
While the above stated prescriptions are now normative within the Diocese of Charlotte, may I suggest several preferences that I offer as your Bishop to further allow our liturgical life to live into its fullest celebration:
1. Sacred Vessels
The understanding and appreciation of the Eucharistic Liturgy as a meal suggests that, where possible, symbolism of ritual meal be made most clear and manifest. As such, it is preferable that the patten be more of a dish style that holds many hosts. There is no need for the larger host elevated at consecration to be afforded its own patten, but rather to be one with the rest of the hosts being brought forward at the offertory and consecrated.
Every effort should be taken to consecrate the number of hosts needed for the faithful to receive at each Mass, leaving the ciboria in the tabernacle for a small number of remaining consecrated hosts. Again, ciboria containing the sacred hosts that are more like a chalice (cup) in structure than a dish mitigates the symbolism of meal. There are multiple styles of dish ciboria that have lids and are stackable for the tabernacle (even though it is preferable to not have so many consecrated hosts remaining that multiple stackable ciboria would be needed).
The use of vestiture for the chalice and patten or for the ciboria similarly lessens the power of symbolic meal and has more connection to a veiled theology more common in the liturgy prior to the Novus Ordo.
The use of a pall to cover the precious blood (or even before consecration) has become common, again as it was prescribed in the Missal of 1962. The use of a pall is helpful if flying insects are present and drawn to the sugar present in the wine. It is preferable that the pall only be placed over a chalice if such insects are present, leaving the chalice uncovered otherwise. That said, the pall should normally be simply laid upon the altar not in use. When use of the pall is necessitated for the presence of insects, it is removed during the consecration and elevation.
2.Purification of the sacred vessels
The purification of the sacred vessels after communion has an appropriate place for practical and theological reasons. However, making this act so elaborate can suggest that a certain scrupulosity has set in. There is no need to use water and wine as was done prior to the Novus Ordo. Similarly, searching for the faintest dust particles on a patten misses an authentic understanding of the accidents and substance of the Eucharist.
The purification of sacred vessels can also take place at a side table rather than at the altar while the congregation engages in a hymn of thanksgiving or period of silent reflection.
3. Posture post communion
Immediately upon receiving the Eucharist, either the sacred host and/or the precious blood, there is no need to bow or genuflect to the altar or tabernacle, nor to make the sign of the cross. Similarly, after returning to your seat, the posture of kneeling or sitting for reflection, prayer and song are both equally advantageous. It is normative in our Church that when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed, and/or the Tabernacle opened, that we remain kneeling if possible. However, the moments immediately following the reception of the Eucharist by the faithful are unique. In that moment, we all become the Body of Christ in the greatest manner possible on this earth. It is the very reason for which Jesus offered us his Body and Blood. To place greater attention on the Eucharist in ciboria being distributed and later returned to the Tabernacle than on the Eucharist we have all become, is to misunderstand the power of the Body of Christ and the purpose for which Jesus has shared his body and blood with us. There is no rubric that requires that we all remain kneeling until the remaining sacred hosts are returned to the Tabernacle. By doing so in that specific instance, we miss the opportunity to focus upon the communion that we all share in Christ and the call that we all have been given to go forth and be the Body of Christ in the world.
4. Location of the presider’s chair
In some churches in our diocese, it has become customary of late to have the Presider’s chair located on one side or the other of the altar and facing the altar directly. As such it makes it difficult for the presider to address the people of God during the Mass parts that take place at the chair, given that the presider is not physically facing the people but rather is facing the altar. In most of these instances, the chair can easily be placed in such a way as to direct appropriate attention to the altar while still affording the presider the opportunity to face the people (without having to speak into/through the ear of the Deacon or altar server at his side). This can be carried out with a placement of the chair behind the altar (to one side or another) facing the people and the altar, or off to the side and angled between the altar and the people.
5. Cantor leading music from the ambo and podium
The People of God benefit from seeing a member of the music ministry encouraging and leading the congregation in song. This should normally take place from the ambo during the Responsorial Psalm, and from a podium in the sanctuary (off to the other side) for cuing the faithful.
This role is one of real skill which, like lectoring, requires training. It is not sufficient that the cantor be a gifted singer but also be adept at facial expression and hand gestures that encourage participation while not becoming a show or distraction. It is most appropriate that the cantor sings the melody from the podium/ambo and that the cantor be mic’d. The fact that the rest of the music ministry is situated in the choir loft (in most churches) should not keep the cantor from leading the congregation from these locations in the sanctuary.
6. The use of worship aids
There are many ways in which a worship aid can be a blessing during the celebration of the Mass. The most common use is for song, and there are multiple fine options on the market for parishes to consider. There are also several subscription services that individuals can utilize that are print and electronic which can be of assistance. That said, the use of these aids during the celebration of the Mass should be limited. In particular, their use during the proclamation of the Word should be considered exceptional, not normative. Why?
What we believe about the Word being proclaimed at Mass is often overlooked and underappreciated. If I were to sit down to speak to my beloved in an intimate moment of self-expression, would it be appropriate for my beloved to be reading the text (if they had it in advance) as I was speaking to her/him? Of course not! Rather, they would sit attentively, with eyes upon me, leaning on every word (hopefully!). That should be our approach at Mass. Certainly this assumes great proclaimers of the Word during the Liturgy of the Word, calling us to train them well. The answer is not worship aids, but rather our preparation prior to the Mass and even reading the readings in advance.
The same is true, but to a lesser extent, with the rest of the prayers said at Mass. Listening without reading along in a missal has greater potential to more fully engage us in the Liturgy where sight and sound and smell lift us to a greater place.
All of the above recognizes that there are those with special needs that may necessitate the more frequent use of these aids. That said, other steps should be taken first to improve the quality of proclamation, sound, and the availability of audio enhancing devices for those in need in all places of worship.
Emphasis added.
People, initially the laity, were really unhappy, but it turns out, it's not just the laity, it's the clergy as well. A good primer on this can be found here:
e In Black Ministries Podcast
1253. Fr Joe's Faith Restart part a | January 7, 2026
•Fr. Joe Krupp, Catholic Priest•Season 1•Episode 1253
Something like thirty Priests submitted a Dubia to the Vatican on the legality of the Bishop's instructions. That's really extraordinary.
Bishop Michael Martin was born on December 2, 1961, in Baltimore, Maryland making him two years older than me, but placing him in the Baby Boom generation by conventional categorization or in Generation Jones by others. I'm a 1963 edition and I clearly identify with Gen. Jones, and not with the Boomers. He was ordained in 1989 and became a Bishop, of Charlotte, in 2024.
Most of us here would never have heard of him, but for this controversy, which just started. There are something on the order of nearly 300 Catholic Bishops in the U.S. and you haven't heard of most of them. Our own Bishop here, Bishop Stephen Bigler, and a few of the former Bishops are all the ones I could name. Bishop Bigler was born in 1959, making him slightly older than Bishop Martin, although he looks considerably younger. That also makes him a late Boomer, or a Gen Jonser.
Okay, why does this matter?
Fr. Krupp, who is younger than any of us and is a Gen Xer has some really interesting observations on this. I'll try to set some of this out.
I can't recall the pre Vatican II Church personally. I was an infant when Vatican II concluded and the changes that came in, in its wake, occurred. I can recall a lot of those changes, however. We now know that a lot of them had nothing whatsoever to do with Vatican II.
The documents of Vatican II turn out to be incredibly orthodox. There were things the Church wished to do, but a lot of the changes that were imposed on American Catholics had nothing to really do with Vatican II. There were no instructions to do with away with ad orientem. There were no instructions to change how communion was received or to take kneelers out of Churches. There was no instruction to do away with the use of Latin in Mass, and in fact Latin was to be preserved.
So what happened.
Well, all the things I noted. Ad orientem went away in the Latin Rite, the vernacular became the language of Mass to such an extent that when Latin was occasionally heard, it was a shock, and alter rails were taken away, and taken out. That latter item I can remember, as I remember the alter rail at St. Anthony's in Casper. It was a beautiful marble alter rail.
These changes were simply accepted by Catholics in the pews, with rare exceptions. They might have grumbled to themselves, and I remember the alter rail being a topic of discussion, and rumor, but by and large, the three adult generations of the time accepted the changes, one enthusiastically, the Boomers, and the other two dutifully. The World War Two Generation and the Silent Generation had been taught to respect the Church and clergymen, and not to question such matters when they were imposed. They didn't. The Boomer Generation, enthusiastic about changing everything, was keen on these changes too, particularly as young Boomer Priests were being ordained and coming in.
It's a real matter of debate, but it has been argued that the changes served to damage the Church. People taking that position have a variety of reasons that they claim that, but there are reasons that it can be asserted. Nobody really maintains that the list of changes were fully mandated by Vatican II. There are those who defend the changes, including apparently Bishop Martin, and there are those who defend individual changes but not all of them. Personally, in my view the The Mass of Paul VI, also known as the Ordinary Form or Novus Ordo, was a very good change, and I also think that putting the Mass largely in the vernacular, which of course Latin was when it was originally adopted some 2,000 years ago, was as well. I think changing the architecture of existing churches, however, was a mistake, as that almost always does esthetic damage to an existing structure, but there's obviously a lot more to this than that.
As noted, the World War Two and Silent Generations accepted the changes dutifully and the Boomers were enthusiastic about them. But whatever was overall thought about what they'd achieve fell short and there remained a memory of the prior forms and appearances which to some extent, slight at first and large later, never really went away. The most notable thing was Communion on the tongue, which did not go away immediately and when it did, did not universally take. There were people who resisted that change right from the delayed onset to it, and in some slight way, that seems to have been the origin of parishioner resistance. Indeed, some Catholics who are otherwise very comfortable with the changes that came about, never really accepted that. This was apparently first authorized in the US church in 1977, and it was a an indult, rather than a requirement.
It wasn't until the 2000s or so, however in my view that real elements of traditional practices started to come back in. And what seems to have occurred is that Gen X Priests had really looked at Vatican II and what all was required and what was not, and began to question some of the changes that had been made. Indeed, they were, not very surprisingly, considerably more conservative than Boomer Priests were, with Gen. Jones Priests falling on both sides of the spectrum. Gen Y, however, having grown up with the Internet and having very ready access to the history of the Church and its documents really took off in this direction in both the pews and the clergy, with their movement reaching back and picking up a fair number of Gen X parishioners and Priests, and some Boomers, in the process. "Trad" Catholics, who were not radical but traditional, and Rad Trad, hardcore traditionalist became a feature in every Parish, and younger Priests were extremely well educated and very orthodox, or rather I should say they are very well educated and very orthodox.
You can see this mix in any diocese you go into, and its really remarkable. Parishes with young orthodox Priests have huge confession lines and are absolutely packed during Mass. The Parish I attend at, which isn't actually the one where I'm registered, has gone from pretty well attended at 8:30 Sunday Mass to nearly standing room only. Confession lines stretch the whole length of the Church wall on ordinary Saturdays. People arrive for Confession thirty minutes early.
And at Mass, young women are wearing mantillas. Indeed, in families with more than young woman still living at home, it's not uncommon to see a mix of dress, reflecting the current mix. More than one family at the 8:30 Mass I attend have teenage daughters where some wear a mantilla, and some do not. The same with their mothers, some wear mantillas, and some do not.
In contrast, the 8:00 Mass, the same practical time, across town has lots of pew space left t on Sundays.
This should tell us something.
So why is Bishop Martin taking this on?
Well, he gives his reasons in the material cited above. I've never been to the Diocese of Charlotte, but its clearly not sitting well with some of his clergy and laity.
And its been criticized by some clergy from outside of his Diocese.
A person must always be respectful of a Bishop and his office. Having said that, and looking around, I don't think it can be denied in that in this age of constant uncertainty people reaching back towards reverent traditions they never sought to have removed is proving to encourage their Faith and is building what people like to call a Faith Community. I grasp the things that the Bishop is, or may be, worried about, but he may be approaching this in the wrong way.
The big thing that this of this type cause consternation about is a sense of alienation. I don't' think that's happening, but people worry about it. The evidence suggest the concern is misplaced.
Indeed, I can't see a good reason to take these matters on. I don't think they're creating any sort of divisiveness in most places, and regular Catholics like them.
