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. ↩
Book of Blessings, nos. 1872-1878. ↩
CCC, no. 1069. ↩
Missale Romanum, editio tertia, “Ordo Missae,” no. 126. ↩
“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 be addressed 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 introduced altar 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 125300:00:00 | 01:13:15
Fr Joe Krupp talks about the Charlotte, North Carolina Dubia
Check out the JIBM Web site at: https://www.joeinblackministries.com/
Please use the following link if you would like to financially support Church of the Holy Family: https://pushpay.com/g/hfgrandblanc?sr…
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.
