Posted on 05/28/2025 2:19:05 PM PDT by ebb tide
UPDATE: Sources inside the diocese have attested to The Pillar that the proposed document has in fact been already laid aside by the bishop, due to widespread opposition amongst clergy in the diocese. LifeSite has not been able to corroborate this claim.
CHARLOTTE, North Carolina (LifeSiteNews) — The bishop of Charlotte is set to issue even more restrictions on the liturgy in the coming days, harshly critiquing the use of Latin, traditional vestments, altar rails, and many aspects of normal liturgical ceremonies.
A lengthy document published on the blog Rorate Caeli today, described as being the text of a forthcoming letter from Bishop Michael Martin of Charlotte, contains even more restrictions on the Church’s liturgy less than a week after he announced sweeping bans on the traditional Mass.
READ: Charlotte bishop suppresses Latin Mass, citing Traditionis Custodes
Rorate Caeli, describing the text as coming from sources inside the diocese, said the letter is due to be published by the bishop “in the next few days.” Catholic news website The Pillar had also anticipated the emergence of such a document in a report published by the outlet on Thursday.
Named to the diocese by Pope Francis a little over a year ago, Martin’s successive rounds of liturgy rules seem certain to destroy the success story of liturgical harmony which the Diocese of Charlotte has become in recent years.
Martin’s restrictions do not just take aim at liturgical aspects of the Latin Mass, but now he seems to have found fault with many elements of the Novus Ordo liturgy. Among other things, Martin condemns:
Regarding the use of Latin in the Mass: “the faithful’s full, conscious, and active participation is hindered wherever Latin is employed,” Martin writes. “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.”
After expressing his personal opinion on the “vocal minority,” Martin condemned individuals who appeal to Church documents in favor of the Latin language as doing so “to justify their selections and personal preferences.”
In fact, Latin in the liturgy “fosters two unacceptable tendencies,” he opined. These he identified as “a rejection of the Novus Ordo Missae,” and dividing the community into “the haves and have nots: those who understand and those who do not understand.”
“Latin diminishes the role of the laity in the Mass,” Martin attested. “They are deprived of the full, conscious, and active participation of which they have a lawful right.”
As such, he stipulated that “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.”
While shying away from formally banning Catholics from receiving Holy Communion on the tongue – a practice which Martin knows is explicitly defended by the Vatican – the bishop sought to denigrate it in every other way possible.
“To instruct the faithful that kneeling is more reverent than standing is simply absurd,” he wrote.
Martin also defended the use of lay ministers of the Eucharist, saying, “no minister may ever instruct that it is better to receive Holy Communion from a priest than an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.”
Indeed, he condemned those of his priests who have removed lay ministers and altar girls, and instituted communion rails in their churches, arguing that such actions “frustrate the ability of the faithful to receive Holy Communion under both species, a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet.”
Consequently, Martin banned altar rails and kneelers (prie–dieux) in his diocese, in a move strongly reminiscent of the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council.
He also forbade the practice of making the Sign of the Cross with the sacred host – as is done in the 1962 liturgy – before giving out Communion.
In addition, the bishop targeted “women who have chosen to wear a veil as an expression of personal piety,” instructing that they “are not to do so when they are assisting in any official capacity (lector, cantor, altar server, usher, etc.) at Mass.”
Meanwhile, any restriction of lay roles during the Mass to men is strictly forbidden, with Martin writing: “No one may be denied a liturgical role proper to the faithful based on their gender.”
“Mass must be celebrated facing the people,” directed Martin, misquoting the Novus Ordo rubrics (GIRM) in doing so. The GIRM itself allows for Mass to be celebrated ad orientem, and the Vatican’s liturgy office has issued a number of statements defending this.
In a letter in 2000, the Congregation for Divine Worship explained the rubrics of the Roman Missal, confirming that ad orientem worship is not forbidden, and also reminding bishops that “it would be a grave error to imagine that the principal orientation of the sacrificial action is toward the community.”
Just a year into his new office as bishop of the diocese and Martin appears to have a particular grievance against his clergy praying before and after offering Mass. This is something his new dictate addresses:
There is no option given in the current liturgical books that prescribe certain vesting or de-vesting 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.
Furthermore, apparently keen to swiftly kill any tendency for liturgical tradition, Martin forbade the use of birettas, crossed stoles, maniples, ornate albs, or Roman chasubles. “These vestments,” he said, “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 1960s. Priestly vestiture is not intended to be the place for making such statements, intended or otherwise.”
Martin’s very detailed directives revealed personal opinions regarding the liturgy and also his understanding of the theology behind the sacrifice of the Mass. Most notable to this end were his instructions to his clergy about how the altar was primarily something to be visible to the congregation, rather than a place for the sacrifice to be offered.
With this in mind, he demanded what could only be described as a liturgical modernists’ day-dream:
Urging against using missal stands in favor of placing the missal on the altar table.
Arranging candles “around the altar since placing them on the altar will always obstruct the vision of the faithful.”
Laying the cross flat on the altar “so that the faithful’s view is not obstructed.”
Recommending the using of digital projectors in church for
- musical lyrics (and possible musical notation);
- translation of Readings during the Liturgy of the Word in congregations that are bilingual;
- common Mass responses in congregations that are bilingual or in other liturgical celebrations where a printed program would ordinarily be used;
- 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
Prohibiting the use of bells to announce the entrance of the clergy for Mass.
Mandating the sign of peace during the liturgy.
Martin’s actions go further than merely seeking to restrict the traditional Mass, which he accomplished last week, and now implement stringent restrictions on the Mass which developed after the Second Vatican Council. Piety and reverence are condemned by the bishop as displaying scrupulosity and hindering the “participation” of the faithful.
In their place come a priority on the Protestant understanding of the Mass principally as a meal: “symbolism of ritual meal be made most clear and manifest.”
Indeed, Martin’s new restrictions – as reported by Rorate – appear to suggest a peak acceptance of the anti-liturgical thought present in the Church for the last number of decades, in which the liturgy is posited as centered on man rather than God.
Ping
Saint Peter is watching.
Or maybe some of these elite credentialed clergy think they have a fast line into heaven and won’t have to answer for their evil ?
Actually SOME of this is valid. But I assume it’s written to be condescending to anyone who doesn’t share his view of how mass could be conducted.
What is he, JEWISH??? What a PATHETIC LEFTY POSING AS A CATHOLIC!
Baptist Country. Let Satan deal with rogue Catholic Marxists in robes looking for relevance in the south. Their time will come.
Maybe the Unitarians are hiring.
Pope Leo needs to fire this guy pronto.
I’m curious... which of Martin’s assertions do you consider valid?
I think the up and down and all around is ridiculous. Stay seated...period.
I leave it in God’s hands and would also leave any church he affiliates with. Wilton Gregory is my example.
I at least understand his thoughts that most folks don’t understand Latin. It’s not a reason to just dismiss it, but at least it’s honest.
I do not however agree with the whole video screens in the church idea. I’ve been to “churches” like that. I never go back.
But the lack of understanding of Latin is easily tempered by a translated missal. My parent went to a Maronite Church for 50 years (they are Italian and Slovak, don’t ask me how!). The mass is 50/50 English and Arabic. But the missal has both translations on opposing pages.
“I think the up and down and all around is ridiculous. Stay seated...period.”
Nah. Different postures for different things. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/catholic-calisthenics
Only modern people complain about these things. You can always blame the Jews if you don’t like it: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/physical-movement-in-jewish-prayer/
Well we’ll.
Miss Bossy-Pants rants on...
I go to Latin Mass, and I studied Latin for 3 years in high school. My comprehension of written ecclesiastical Latin is approximately 90%. I imagine that my Latin education is better than many of my confreres in the congregation, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they understand less than I do. As you say in your other post, a hand missal with line-by-line translations is available to anyone who wants to following along closely. But, seriously, who amongst us is so stupid that they wouldn’t catch on to pretty much everything after only a handful of times using the missal? It ain’t rocket science to learn that “Dominus vobiscum” means “The Lord be with you” and “Pater Noster” means “Our Father” etc etc
Don’t understimate people. I’ll often marvel as some elderly Filipino lady belts out obscure hymns in perfect ecclesiastical Latin. The bishop here assumes not only ignorance but also stupidity on the part of flock.
Agreed. After 61 years, and unfortunately, like a lot of Catholics, mass becomes automatic. So even if you don’t know Latin, at least not a lot, you know where you are.
Back on a HS trip to Montreal we went to a Sunday mass we didn’t know was in Italian. Didn’t get all of it but none of us were lost.
I recall recently talking with a wonderful Baptist woman I know who was bemoaning the fact that lapsed catholics who finally found God in the Baptist church always spoke about how they were forced to go to a mass that they didn’t understand and listen to gobbledygook.
I informed her that catholic prayer book had English word fir word translations on the facing pages. That anyone who did not follow the service was not paying attention and all well taught catholics of the time were taught the meanings of phrases and prayers.
I likened it to having a Baptist come to service and not understand the fact that there are two testaments and how the Bible is formatted and laid out. Baptist children learn how to get around the Bible early. Catholic children learn how to understand the mass early. Out trying started in first grade.
If he was my Archbishop he would get an earful from me. Mine did during covid when the black pope shuttered all the churches.
People, your ABP has to listen to you. And if he doesn’t listen, cut the money off. Then, he will listen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.