Francis said that he wanted shepherds who smell like their sheep. Bishop Martin has given everyone the impression that he caught a whiff of his sheep, gagged, and has been determined to hose us down.
You inherited a good diocese, Excellency. Stop treating us as a problem in desperate need of fixing.
An excellent diocese. I’ve only visited Charlotte (haven’t lived there) but it made a lasting impression on me. I visited about 5 churches and each parish community was just as vibrant as the last.
I sent the bishop an email expressing my concern regarding the restrictions on the New Mass when the news broke. I got back what was clearly a form email that nevertheless insisted the good bishop had carefully considered my words, but then offered a response on a different topic.
So, just goes to show what sort of “listening” and “discernment” can be expected in such a “synodal” diocese.
I guess bishops have never been through mandatory corporate diversity training because it looks to me more like "there is an elevator which, suddenly, no one is allowed to use although there was previously a policy allowing anyone to use it, and this is a great hardship to a few people in a protected category" which is morally shaky ground.
Later in the letter, he writes wonderfully about the importance of well trained and devout Special Ministers of Holy Communion. These can be a great aid to the disabled who can bring Communion to them in their pew.
You know, it is not the norm in the United States but there is a traditional practice of receiving the Precious Blood by a silver straw. Certainly those not following the norm are not owed a silver straw by the parish.
If +Martin places so much emphasis on the whole community doing the same thing (in reception of communion) what about those who do not receive the Precious Blood? There are many who do not, and with valid reason. When we receive the Body of Christ we receive the Body,Blood,Soul and Divinity of Jesus.
Hello from Charlotte! Nearly everyone I know kneels to receive to receive our Lord. We're going to organize volunteers to assist our friends who wish to keep kneeling but have difficulty physically. We are going to help them down/up with our arms and hands!
Some more context from a CLT Catholic: His presbyteral council told him not to do this. His own committee which he formed told him not to do this. Earlier this fall, St. Mark's in Huntersville—which the bishop has already floated the idea of turning into his cathedral—announced that they would remove their altar rail. The pastor announced that it was at the bishops request, and there was a pretty massive blowback, such that the pastor walked it back as recently as this month. Meanwhile, the *community* had been the vector of change, asking for more reverence, for more chant, for more Eucharistic reverence and fewer EM's in the middle of the aisles, etc. ... This is not, and has never really been, something imposed by traditionalist clergy.
Martin also denied that he had ever made that request, leading to a weird thing where the diocesan office and the pastor had to shrug and talk about "miscommunication," even though someone somewhere was probably lying.
Also, there was a three-day fast/protest outside the diocesan office during the First Week of Advent. The good bishop didn't even bother to reply to the letters sent to him about it.
Meanwhile, he's personally invited Fr. Casey Cole to do street evangelization in Charlotte (not bad, that), but that's brought home for many of us Fr. Cole's many suspect statements on things like the historicity of the Gospels and Church teachings on sexuality. Fr. Cole has also, of late, been making more and more liturgically-focused videos that deliberately misquote the GIRM and speak against kneeling *after* communion, of all things. So if *that's* what our bishop wants, I don't know many people here who would trust him.
All this from a bishop less than two years in his office, and who has *never* had permanent residence in this diocese prior to his elevation, and who was a only parish pastor for about two years before he became a bishop.
At every turn, Bishop Martin has done things which have alienated huge swathes of his flock, not at all limited to those who lean liturgically traditional.
Side note: my students are not into Fr. Casey at all. They’ll watch Fr. Mark Mary or any of the CFRs, Fr. Mike Schmitz of course, etc., but they don’t like Fr. Casey’s style/videos. We used to watch a video of his about the Great Schism, but then I read the comments. So many Orthodox loved it, while many Catholic commenters mentioned that it was missing a lot of context and very biased against in favor of the Orthodox. He seems well-meaning and kind, but I guess he does seem like a glimmer of hope for those priests who hope to preserve the “spirit” of Vatican II.
Father Casey's recent video telling people they shouldn't offer prayers of Thanksgiving after Communion, but instead should swallow and get right back to singing that Communion hymn, alienated a lot of people young and old.
Jimmy Akin's video on it was the kindest tearing-to-shreds I've ever seen. He aptly placed this in a category he called "petty little legalisms" which i thought was excellent
Micromanagement gives me the allergies. While his intentions are not or should not be a matter of debate. The impact….different story. The vibes this style of leadership creates are not conducive to a peaceful spirituality for many.
In a lengthy, thoughtful and liturgically solid letter, his only directive was to discard with removable items in the building that are not needed according to the established liturgical norms. Yes, I would stand by my comment.
It seems to me that providing a kneeler for those who choose to kneel would be "compassion" or "charity" rather than a "contradiction" of liturgical norms.
Kurt you seem to have a misunderstanding on the norms, the norms are only on what is to be considered normal, not the only thing possible to be done. If the norms were the only thing you could do then the organ, gregorian chant, and latin would be at their pride of place and used as frequently as possible.
And the bishop acknowledges that there can be people receiving in way other than the norms. He just indicated that church furniture should be arranged according to the norms (without disrupting fixed furniture).
Yeah, that one's particularly baffling to me. Like, I can see an argument that the regular use of an altar rail makes it harder for people who want to receive standing to know that it's okay to do so (at a parish near me with prie-dieux, I regularly encounter visitors who are surprised/unsure what to with them/trying to whisper-explain how to use them to their kids in line); although this seems like something that could easily be solved with, say, a sign that says "Please feel free to either kneel or stand next to the kneeler to receive Communion. You can receive on the tongue or in the hands", or having 2 separate lines, one with & one without a kneeler, or any manner of less scorched-earth solutions than a total ban on altar rails.
I can't come up with any legitimate problem that "No, you really shouldn't pray now!!" is trying to solve.
My apologies, I assumed I was talking to a Christian and so could simply gently point out a clear error for your own benefit. I’ll pray for your conversion.
If I may, to try and clear up this little spat. I didn’t read Ryan Ellis’ comment as indicating he thinks the bishop is actually a diagnosed psychopath, or that the bishop even necessarily has a diagnosed psychiatric illness (we should be careful not to stigmatize mental health issues as many good, faithful, smart etc people have been burdened with mental health issues of one sort or another…). I think he was using the term ‘psycho’ in an informal slang sense to indicate that the bishop is acting ‘in a bizarre or dangerous manner’. That the bishop is acting in a bizarre manner, and is dangerously unsettling the spiritual life of his diocese is obvious to almost everyone (except the bishop, it seems). His conduct goes against millennia of basic pastoral theology teaching, as well as tried and true principles of Christian and generally human leadership. Though, maybe Ryan Ellis knows that the bishop is, in fact, a psychopath. I don’t know. The Church has had such bishops before. Dante wasn’t afraid to call out bishops in either the formal and informal sense of the term. He did so on the basis of their manifest actions. We’re allowed to pass judgement on this bishops’ actions and unfolding consequences.
Sure. Every other commenter I noticed here, including myself, and including you in your gloss on Ryan, was critical of Bishop Martin without tossing out an insult which was either harsh and inaccurate or vague and thoughtless. Ryan followed my pointing this out with another vague and casual insult, one whose import wasn’t really even clear. It seems obvious that Ryan’s being prideful and wrathful here, not sincerely offering a charitable critique. Dante accused bishops who had robbed, raped, and murdered of having done so, in language that didn’t avoid making clear what his accusation was. My point really was very simple and it doesn’t take this many words to resolve it.
I have a question... Do these guys banning altar rails hate parents with little kids??
Mass at a church with altar rails (unlike our own 1970s parish church) is WAAY less stressful as I don't have to repeatedly drag toddlers off the altar. There's a fence they can press their little faces into and a step with a handhold they can practice on. And I can have five minutes of peace.
If I read his directive clearly, he didn't state permanent altar rails that are already in place need to be removed, only temporary ones, including kneelers, and prie-dieus, would have to be removed.
What he stated is that one cannot use the altar rail to receive Holy Communion. Hence the permanent altar rails that a church already has can stay (hence still protecting the sanctuary from unwanted incursions by little kids) but it will no long be used to distribute Holy Communion.
I grew up mostly attending a church that was technically part of The Episcopal Church but self-identified as Anglo-Catholic. We had a rood screen and an altar rail and the priest faced ad orientem. Every Communion i was snuggled against my mom's or older brother's side. When I was still learning the practices, my mom could gently adjust my hands (we received kneeling and in the hand, this is standard at Episcopal churches) and remind me what to say without causing a traffic jam as can happen in the "procession".
Occasionally we would visit my paternal grandparents' Catholic parish. My impression, even as a child well under 10 years old, was that the whole "procession" was less respectful and less unified than what happened at "my church."
I have never heard the reasoning behind the "norm" of the "procession" before today. I don't think that standing in one of seven different lines to receive the Body, and then half the people peeling off to receive the Blood and the other half not, and all of this occurring with one person at a time, communicates the message that the norm thinks it's communicating. Kneeling together to receive, with family and friends on either side, in my opinion illustrates the idea of a pilgrim church much more clearly. Pilgrims pause for refreshment on the way. You could eat while walking but I'd say everyone agrees that that isn't what they'd choose to do when on a pilgrimage.
All this to say, the kids probably agree with you in a deeper way than you may realize, even if they can't articulate it.
A few years ago in my diocese, two priests were given assignments that really did not fit. One priest is a “Spirit of Vatican II” priest (very kind and warm, but the liturgy was a bit of a mess), and the other priest is very intense (orthodox, but with a tough disposition, though that is truly his personality & his flock loves him). They were assigned to one another’s parishes as a “swap” and boy, it did NOT go well. It was a huge culture shock for everyone, and the bishop reassigned both priests (again) and then gave the home parishes entirely different pastors.
I know there can be a problem with creating a cult of personality behind someone and allowing a community to grow stale (parishioners shouldn’t be there for the priest). Our bishop listened and made a wise decision. At what point does the appropriate authority (a metropolitan or someone from the Vatican) take a look at how the bishop interacts with his flock and say, “yeah, this is not a good situation for anyone on either ‘side’”?
The most charitable assessment is that Bishop Martin is indeed a very bad fit for his diocese. As for how long it would take for him to be reassigned--well, Bishop Stika did much worse things than anything Bishop Martin has done, and it took years for him to get the boot.
I'm trying to envision the mid-season twist, but everyone already knows Pope Leo from a picture so i don't think a segue into "undercover boss" would work for the curveball.
Get some good movie or Broadway makeup artists in there, and I think it's possible. Maybe he has to look like the unmasked Phantom of the Opera to be effectively disguised, but! It could work!
"Undercover Pope," hahaha! But seriously... a priest I know once told me he would go to Mass in regular clothes and sit in the back when out of town, to see what laypeople experienced in different parishes. I thought, and still think, this was a fabulous idea.
I have to wonder what the bishop expects to happen here… Why is it so paramount that every parish celebrates the liturgy in the same exact style? Why is that worth the loss of goodwill? I have absolutely no horse in this race, but one has to wonder how long he can effectively govern if he’s losing the presbyterate AND the laity.
Seriously. I would have to think my cause was pretty righteous before I went out, guns blazing, Athanasius contra mundum, against a hunger strike(!!!) of my own laity, to impose my will like this. (At least I hope).
But for what amounts to a mere preference? A whim? Yikes.
Another thought: I’ve a boss who doesn’t listen to ANYONE, and it is miserable. He started like a bull in a China shop just changing everything to his whim and fancy, forms committees that lead to nowhere (like they’re for show), and in the case that he asks for feedback, he never takes any of it. We feel pretty much alone and powerless, and like he doesn’t value any of us.
All of this to say: we need to pray for Charlotte priests, too. Maybe there are some who don’t mind his actions, but for those who do, it must be very tough watching the bishop impose things that really hurt their parishioners. And the sad thing is, he’s not just their boss, he’s like a father (or supposed to be).
Is there any obligation for a communicant to approach the most convenient Eucharistic minister, or may one choose freely even if it delays the timing of the rite? It would make quite a point if a thousand worshippers in a Christmas cathedral service were to line up to receive kneeling from Bishop Martin.
Boring. I like to receive kneeling from EMHCs because I like the stricken look on their face ("oh no I am not prepared for this - what if she licks me?"), although since I have done this enough times now, everyone in my immediate vicinity seems to be quite used to delivering the Eucharist to a tongue safely and in a calm and cheerful manner.
My selfish fantasy is that the next time the bishop offers Mass at a parish with a rail that he stands out in front of the sanctuary and everyone walks past him and kneels at the neglected rail behind him.
I must say, though your comment was quite funny, the point of receiving from a priest is to receive Christ Himself from Christ Himself. To be fed by Him of Him who feeds us. The greatest drawback of the EMHC is the disruption of this truly intimate moment.
All kinds of things disrupt one's intimate moment, such as having to tell a kid "NO do not pick Jesus out of your molars with your finger, or if you do, put him BACK in" (alas). Let's be objective for a moment. Are you saying that (all else being equal: reception in a similar state of preparedness, etc) a person receives more and/or greater graces from the sacrament, depending on whose hands it is physically received from? If I thought that was the case, then I would simply pray "Lord, you see that I am in another line: give me as much grace as I would get from receiving it from the priest, or even more because I am mortifying a licit preference". I think that God wants to be more generous than I can imagine and will dish out as much as I am prepared to receive, or slightly more. However, we are not wholly objective and our emotions and imagination are a thing that exists, and one man's drawback is another man's feature, so, on the theme of slightly more, it does make me think that (I am thinking about St Philip Neri reading a joke book before Mass in order to be less recollected and maybe not get hung up partway through) there must somewhere be some little old lady (or old gentleman) in the pews who goes to the EMHC on *purpose* for the disruption so that she is not hit with too much ecstasy to walk normally back to her seat. If we had altar rails to kneel at, then she could just remain there until the end of Mass (one of the ushers could encourage her to leave before the next one) which would be safer, I think... in fact I do sometimes see a particular older fellow who doesn't go back to his seat but makes it as far as the tabernacle's side chapel railing (it's not far) and just kneels there for the rest of daily Mass... it might not be as hypothetical as I was supposing.
I do not believe one gets more grace from the Sacrament based on the mode of reception. However, we are beings who respond to external realities by forming inward beliefs. To frequently receive from an EMHC is to neglect the opportunity to train/reinforce the belief in the sacramental reality of holy orders. Though many things may disrupt the intimacy of the moment it seems odd to me to deliberately disrupt the relationship between priest and communicant by not willfully not engaging in it.
Francis said that he wanted shepherds who smell like their sheep. Bishop Martin has given everyone the impression that he caught a whiff of his sheep, gagged, and has been determined to hose us down.
You inherited a good diocese, Excellency. Stop treating us as a problem in desperate need of fixing.
An excellent diocese. I’ve only visited Charlotte (haven’t lived there) but it made a lasting impression on me. I visited about 5 churches and each parish community was just as vibrant as the last.
+Martin: “I’ll put a stop to that!”
Lol. Certainly norms "do not envision" things that have been essential parts of churches for centuries
Thank you for the great reporting. This is a sad day for this diocese
One can only shake one’s head.
I sent the bishop an email expressing my concern regarding the restrictions on the New Mass when the news broke. I got back what was clearly a form email that nevertheless insisted the good bishop had carefully considered my words, but then offered a response on a different topic.
So, just goes to show what sort of “listening” and “discernment” can be expected in such a “synodal” diocese.
This is lame as hell.
So a question: someone disabled (say with mild CP) wishes to kneel, but cannot do sp without rails or assistance.
Is Bishop Martin not in effect denying them their right? Canonically and civilly?
The answer would probably be "no more than I am denying the right of someone in a wheelchair, who physically cannot kneel, to kneel"
But someone with mild cp (or even someone who needs some assistance) isn't in a wheelchair.
And while you can say "well people will help them up and down" that in itself is also a risky prop
What's next, "I'm not denying the right of shut-ins and prison inmates to receive Holy Communion, they just need to get themselves to church already"?
I guess bishops have never been through mandatory corporate diversity training because it looks to me more like "there is an elevator which, suddenly, no one is allowed to use although there was previously a policy allowing anyone to use it, and this is a great hardship to a few people in a protected category" which is morally shaky ground.
Assistance is usually available; other communicants are invariably happy to help.
Later in the letter, he writes wonderfully about the importance of well trained and devout Special Ministers of Holy Communion. These can be a great aid to the disabled who can bring Communion to them in their pew.
Sadly, that would destroy the symbolism of the "communion procession." I guess they are unable to be a part of the pilgrim people.
(Also, chuckled at the phrase "Special Ministers of Holy Communion."
But thats not what I asked. Sp someone now has to receive at their pew?
You know, it is not the norm in the United States but there is a traditional practice of receiving the Precious Blood by a silver straw. Certainly those not following the norm are not owed a silver straw by the parish.
If +Martin places so much emphasis on the whole community doing the same thing (in reception of communion) what about those who do not receive the Precious Blood? There are many who do not, and with valid reason. When we receive the Body of Christ we receive the Body,Blood,Soul and Divinity of Jesus.
How does bringing communion to people in the pew further the norm of people processing in line that he supposedly wants to uphold? It doesn't.
It is a charitable act for those unable to process. The Sabbath is made for Man..., after all.
Hello from Charlotte! Nearly everyone I know kneels to receive to receive our Lord. We're going to organize volunteers to assist our friends who wish to keep kneeling but have difficulty physically. We are going to help them down/up with our arms and hands!
Some more context from a CLT Catholic: His presbyteral council told him not to do this. His own committee which he formed told him not to do this. Earlier this fall, St. Mark's in Huntersville—which the bishop has already floated the idea of turning into his cathedral—announced that they would remove their altar rail. The pastor announced that it was at the bishops request, and there was a pretty massive blowback, such that the pastor walked it back as recently as this month. Meanwhile, the *community* had been the vector of change, asking for more reverence, for more chant, for more Eucharistic reverence and fewer EM's in the middle of the aisles, etc. ... This is not, and has never really been, something imposed by traditionalist clergy.
Martin also denied that he had ever made that request, leading to a weird thing where the diocesan office and the pastor had to shrug and talk about "miscommunication," even though someone somewhere was probably lying.
Also, there was a three-day fast/protest outside the diocesan office during the First Week of Advent. The good bishop didn't even bother to reply to the letters sent to him about it.
Meanwhile, he's personally invited Fr. Casey Cole to do street evangelization in Charlotte (not bad, that), but that's brought home for many of us Fr. Cole's many suspect statements on things like the historicity of the Gospels and Church teachings on sexuality. Fr. Cole has also, of late, been making more and more liturgically-focused videos that deliberately misquote the GIRM and speak against kneeling *after* communion, of all things. So if *that's* what our bishop wants, I don't know many people here who would trust him.
All this from a bishop less than two years in his office, and who has *never* had permanent residence in this diocese prior to his elevation, and who was a only parish pastor for about two years before he became a bishop.
At every turn, Bishop Martin has done things which have alienated huge swathes of his flock, not at all limited to those who lean liturgically traditional.
Side note: my students are not into Fr. Casey at all. They’ll watch Fr. Mark Mary or any of the CFRs, Fr. Mike Schmitz of course, etc., but they don’t like Fr. Casey’s style/videos. We used to watch a video of his about the Great Schism, but then I read the comments. So many Orthodox loved it, while many Catholic commenters mentioned that it was missing a lot of context and very biased against in favor of the Orthodox. He seems well-meaning and kind, but I guess he does seem like a glimmer of hope for those priests who hope to preserve the “spirit” of Vatican II.
Father Casey's recent video telling people they shouldn't offer prayers of Thanksgiving after Communion, but instead should swallow and get right back to singing that Communion hymn, alienated a lot of people young and old.
Jimmy Akin's video on it was the kindest tearing-to-shreds I've ever seen. He aptly placed this in a category he called "petty little legalisms" which i thought was excellent
Link?
https://youtu.be/Z89sNf_aKXI
This man's synodality is so inspiring...
Jimmy Akin just did a video on Fr Cole and praying after communion. He definitely disagreed with him on that point.
Micromanagement gives me the allergies. While his intentions are not or should not be a matter of debate. The impact….different story. The vibes this style of leadership creates are not conducive to a peaceful spirituality for many.
The letter is quite well written, mostly laying out principles while giving pastors great discretion as to the implementation. Hardly micromanaging.
Nothing says discretion to pastors like saying, Priest's you must do this thing, by this day.
"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."
In a lengthy, thoughtful and liturgically solid letter, his only directive was to discard with removable items in the building that are not needed according to the established liturgical norms. Yes, I would stand by my comment.
It seems to me that providing a kneeler for those who choose to kneel would be "compassion" or "charity" rather than a "contradiction" of liturgical norms.
The Byzantine rite doesn't do so.
Kurt you seem to have a misunderstanding on the norms, the norms are only on what is to be considered normal, not the only thing possible to be done. If the norms were the only thing you could do then the organ, gregorian chant, and latin would be at their pride of place and used as frequently as possible.
And the bishop acknowledges that there can be people receiving in way other than the norms. He just indicated that church furniture should be arranged according to the norms (without disrupting fixed furniture).
"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."
Now I know you miunderstand the letter.
Telling a priest he can’t pray before vesting is the height of micromanagement.
Yeah, that one's particularly baffling to me. Like, I can see an argument that the regular use of an altar rail makes it harder for people who want to receive standing to know that it's okay to do so (at a parish near me with prie-dieux, I regularly encounter visitors who are surprised/unsure what to with them/trying to whisper-explain how to use them to their kids in line); although this seems like something that could easily be solved with, say, a sign that says "Please feel free to either kneel or stand next to the kneeler to receive Communion. You can receive on the tongue or in the hands", or having 2 separate lines, one with & one without a kneeler, or any manner of less scorched-earth solutions than a total ban on altar rails.
I can't come up with any legitimate problem that "No, you really shouldn't pray now!!" is trying to solve.
What a psycho.
Excuse me, that’s a bit much to throw at a bishop of the Church (or anyone, for that matter.) Justice depends on charity.
Take it up with the hireling.
My apologies, I assumed I was talking to a Christian and so could simply gently point out a clear error for your own benefit. I’ll pray for your conversion.
If I may, to try and clear up this little spat. I didn’t read Ryan Ellis’ comment as indicating he thinks the bishop is actually a diagnosed psychopath, or that the bishop even necessarily has a diagnosed psychiatric illness (we should be careful not to stigmatize mental health issues as many good, faithful, smart etc people have been burdened with mental health issues of one sort or another…). I think he was using the term ‘psycho’ in an informal slang sense to indicate that the bishop is acting ‘in a bizarre or dangerous manner’. That the bishop is acting in a bizarre manner, and is dangerously unsettling the spiritual life of his diocese is obvious to almost everyone (except the bishop, it seems). His conduct goes against millennia of basic pastoral theology teaching, as well as tried and true principles of Christian and generally human leadership. Though, maybe Ryan Ellis knows that the bishop is, in fact, a psychopath. I don’t know. The Church has had such bishops before. Dante wasn’t afraid to call out bishops in either the formal and informal sense of the term. He did so on the basis of their manifest actions. We’re allowed to pass judgement on this bishops’ actions and unfolding consequences.
Sure. Every other commenter I noticed here, including myself, and including you in your gloss on Ryan, was critical of Bishop Martin without tossing out an insult which was either harsh and inaccurate or vague and thoughtless. Ryan followed my pointing this out with another vague and casual insult, one whose import wasn’t really even clear. It seems obvious that Ryan’s being prideful and wrathful here, not sincerely offering a charitable critique. Dante accused bishops who had robbed, raped, and murdered of having done so, in language that didn’t avoid making clear what his accusation was. My point really was very simple and it doesn’t take this many words to resolve it.
Nothing like someone who goes by a canonized screen name to start condescending about how to properly address someone...
I have a question... Do these guys banning altar rails hate parents with little kids??
Mass at a church with altar rails (unlike our own 1970s parish church) is WAAY less stressful as I don't have to repeatedly drag toddlers off the altar. There's a fence they can press their little faces into and a step with a handhold they can practice on. And I can have five minutes of peace.
For reaallllllll.
If I read his directive clearly, he didn't state permanent altar rails that are already in place need to be removed, only temporary ones, including kneelers, and prie-dieus, would have to be removed.
What he stated is that one cannot use the altar rail to receive Holy Communion. Hence the permanent altar rails that a church already has can stay (hence still protecting the sanctuary from unwanted incursions by little kids) but it will no long be used to distribute Holy Communion.
I grew up mostly attending a church that was technically part of The Episcopal Church but self-identified as Anglo-Catholic. We had a rood screen and an altar rail and the priest faced ad orientem. Every Communion i was snuggled against my mom's or older brother's side. When I was still learning the practices, my mom could gently adjust my hands (we received kneeling and in the hand, this is standard at Episcopal churches) and remind me what to say without causing a traffic jam as can happen in the "procession".
Occasionally we would visit my paternal grandparents' Catholic parish. My impression, even as a child well under 10 years old, was that the whole "procession" was less respectful and less unified than what happened at "my church."
I have never heard the reasoning behind the "norm" of the "procession" before today. I don't think that standing in one of seven different lines to receive the Body, and then half the people peeling off to receive the Blood and the other half not, and all of this occurring with one person at a time, communicates the message that the norm thinks it's communicating. Kneeling together to receive, with family and friends on either side, in my opinion illustrates the idea of a pilgrim church much more clearly. Pilgrims pause for refreshment on the way. You could eat while walking but I'd say everyone agrees that that isn't what they'd choose to do when on a pilgrimage.
All this to say, the kids probably agree with you in a deeper way than you may realize, even if they can't articulate it.
The letter does not call for taking down stationary altar rails, just moveable furniture.
So “synodolity” = “punching down” ?
Always has.
A few years ago in my diocese, two priests were given assignments that really did not fit. One priest is a “Spirit of Vatican II” priest (very kind and warm, but the liturgy was a bit of a mess), and the other priest is very intense (orthodox, but with a tough disposition, though that is truly his personality & his flock loves him). They were assigned to one another’s parishes as a “swap” and boy, it did NOT go well. It was a huge culture shock for everyone, and the bishop reassigned both priests (again) and then gave the home parishes entirely different pastors.
I know there can be a problem with creating a cult of personality behind someone and allowing a community to grow stale (parishioners shouldn’t be there for the priest). Our bishop listened and made a wise decision. At what point does the appropriate authority (a metropolitan or someone from the Vatican) take a look at how the bishop interacts with his flock and say, “yeah, this is not a good situation for anyone on either ‘side’”?
The most charitable assessment is that Bishop Martin is indeed a very bad fit for his diocese. As for how long it would take for him to be reassigned--well, Bishop Stika did much worse things than anything Bishop Martin has done, and it took years for him to get the boot.
"Pastor Swap" or "Bishop Swap" would make a fun reality show. Send Cardinal Cupich to Diocese of Lincoln for the season opener.
Why you gotta throw me under the bus like that, Sqplr?
I'm trying to envision the mid-season twist, but everyone already knows Pope Leo from a picture so i don't think a segue into "undercover boss" would work for the curveball.
Get some good movie or Broadway makeup artists in there, and I think it's possible. Maybe he has to look like the unmasked Phantom of the Opera to be effectively disguised, but! It could work!
"Undercover Pope," hahaha! But seriously... a priest I know once told me he would go to Mass in regular clothes and sit in the back when out of town, to see what laypeople experienced in different parishes. I thought, and still think, this was a fabulous idea.
With the added layer of Cupich being from Omaha and the weird dynamics with the rest of Nebraska.
I have to wonder what the bishop expects to happen here… Why is it so paramount that every parish celebrates the liturgy in the same exact style? Why is that worth the loss of goodwill? I have absolutely no horse in this race, but one has to wonder how long he can effectively govern if he’s losing the presbyterate AND the laity.
Seriously. I would have to think my cause was pretty righteous before I went out, guns blazing, Athanasius contra mundum, against a hunger strike(!!!) of my own laity, to impose my will like this. (At least I hope).
But for what amounts to a mere preference? A whim? Yikes.
😞
Another thought: I’ve a boss who doesn’t listen to ANYONE, and it is miserable. He started like a bull in a China shop just changing everything to his whim and fancy, forms committees that lead to nowhere (like they’re for show), and in the case that he asks for feedback, he never takes any of it. We feel pretty much alone and powerless, and like he doesn’t value any of us.
All of this to say: we need to pray for Charlotte priests, too. Maybe there are some who don’t mind his actions, but for those who do, it must be very tough watching the bishop impose things that really hurt their parishioners. And the sad thing is, he’s not just their boss, he’s like a father (or supposed to be).
Is there any obligation for a communicant to approach the most convenient Eucharistic minister, or may one choose freely even if it delays the timing of the rite? It would make quite a point if a thousand worshippers in a Christmas cathedral service were to line up to receive kneeling from Bishop Martin.
Boring. I like to receive kneeling from EMHCs because I like the stricken look on their face ("oh no I am not prepared for this - what if she licks me?"), although since I have done this enough times now, everyone in my immediate vicinity seems to be quite used to delivering the Eucharist to a tongue safely and in a calm and cheerful manner.
My selfish fantasy is that the next time the bishop offers Mass at a parish with a rail that he stands out in front of the sanctuary and everyone walks past him and kneels at the neglected rail behind him.
I must say, though your comment was quite funny, the point of receiving from a priest is to receive Christ Himself from Christ Himself. To be fed by Him of Him who feeds us. The greatest drawback of the EMHC is the disruption of this truly intimate moment.
All kinds of things disrupt one's intimate moment, such as having to tell a kid "NO do not pick Jesus out of your molars with your finger, or if you do, put him BACK in" (alas). Let's be objective for a moment. Are you saying that (all else being equal: reception in a similar state of preparedness, etc) a person receives more and/or greater graces from the sacrament, depending on whose hands it is physically received from? If I thought that was the case, then I would simply pray "Lord, you see that I am in another line: give me as much grace as I would get from receiving it from the priest, or even more because I am mortifying a licit preference". I think that God wants to be more generous than I can imagine and will dish out as much as I am prepared to receive, or slightly more. However, we are not wholly objective and our emotions and imagination are a thing that exists, and one man's drawback is another man's feature, so, on the theme of slightly more, it does make me think that (I am thinking about St Philip Neri reading a joke book before Mass in order to be less recollected and maybe not get hung up partway through) there must somewhere be some little old lady (or old gentleman) in the pews who goes to the EMHC on *purpose* for the disruption so that she is not hit with too much ecstasy to walk normally back to her seat. If we had altar rails to kneel at, then she could just remain there until the end of Mass (one of the ushers could encourage her to leave before the next one) which would be safer, I think... in fact I do sometimes see a particular older fellow who doesn't go back to his seat but makes it as far as the tabernacle's side chapel railing (it's not far) and just kneels there for the rest of daily Mass... it might not be as hypothetical as I was supposing.
I do not believe one gets more grace from the Sacrament based on the mode of reception. However, we are beings who respond to external realities by forming inward beliefs. To frequently receive from an EMHC is to neglect the opportunity to train/reinforce the belief in the sacramental reality of holy orders. Though many things may disrupt the intimacy of the moment it seems odd to me to deliberately disrupt the relationship between priest and communicant by not willfully not engaging in it.