By now, many readers will have heard about the draft liturgical policy,“‘Go In Peace, Glorifying the Lord By Your Life’: A Pastoral Letter on the Celebration of the Liturgy”, produced by Bishop Michael Martin of the Diocese of Charlotte, and the firestorm it has ignited.
At the outset, I want to clarify a few points. First, the document on which I shall reflect is a draft text; second, Bishop Martin presented it to a subcommittee of the Presbyteral Council for their comments; third, this text was subsequently leaked to the public.
Sources present for the discussion between the Bishop and the priests have indicated that he seemed open to their input (which was almost universally negative). So, how much of the clerical reaction will be reflected in a final document is an unknown, or if there will even be a final document. That said, I think it is still important to comment on the text as offered to the clergy because it reveals the Bishop’s mindset on matters liturgical—a troubling mindset, maintained by not a few of a certain generation.
A problematic and troubling document
Let me state unequivocally that this is one of the worst liturgical texts I have ever encountered, which is saying a lot, given my involvement in the “liturgy wars” for over four decades. Further, the Bishop was fortunate to inherit a thriving diocese, with a burgeoning Catholic school system and a glut of seminarians, causing me to have recourse to the adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
What Bishop Martin seeks to set as particular law for the Diocese of Charlotte for the “Ordinary Form” of the Mass ought also to be interpreted in light of his near-total shutdown of the “Extraordinary Form” of the Mass.
So, here goes my commentary (generally presented in parentheses and in italics, if following a direct citation of the Pastoral Letter).
• The Bishop’s mantra throughout is his reliance on three adjectives, “full, conscious, and active” participation, coming from the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 14, from which he then draws the following conclusion: “These three words taken together are the heart and foundation of my following reflections and instructions on the sacred liturgy in our diocese.” One must ask, however, what those words mean. At a 2003 liturgical conference in Paris, I delivered a major paper on that theme; to wit, in Reader’s Digest form, “active” would be better translated as “actual” to reflect the original Latin and the entire trajectory of that word from the time it was first used by Pope Pius X in his liturgy motu proprio of 1903. So, if the guiding principle is flawed, what follows will inevitably be flawed.
• He critiques those who make liturgical practices based on personal “preferences,” yet that is exactly what he does repeatedly as he attempts to make his “preferences” matters of law for his diocese. In Pope Leo’s homily to the cardinals, the pontiff warned that a shepherd should never be an “autocrat.” Bishop Martin goes on to say that what he is proposing is “in communion” with Pope Francis and “my brother bishops.” However, I am unaware of any bishop (even the most “liberal”) who has legislated such drastic measures. He justifies his behavior by reminding all that he is “the moderator of the liturgy” in his diocese, as well as the “chief liturgist,” which is true. Once again, however, if he is claiming those titles, what he mandates must be in accord with established norms and not his “preferences” or the “whims” against which he rails later on.
• “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.” Indeed. And if that were the guiding principle of his pastoral letter, most of his proposals would not stand, inasmuch as the conciliar Constitution either does not mention his concerns or directly contradicts them.
• Very oddly, he consistently refers to the “ordinary” form of the Mass as the Novus Ordo, seemingly unmindful that this designation is often used by would-be traditionalists as a cudgel to condemn that rite!
• Material on Latin in the Sacred Liturgy is particularly problematic; indeed, it exhibits a most unhealthy neuralgia. The Bishop makes assertions about Vatican II’s directives relative to the vernacular that have no basis in the conciliar texts. He also posits dubious motives for those desirous of using Latin (not unlike the recently deceased Pontiff)—that is, he operates from a hermeneutic of suspicion (Francis suggested mental illness!).
A sampling of what I mean:
• “. . . the faithful’s full, conscious, and active participation is hindered wherever Latin is employed..” (What is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied.)
• “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.” (Firstly, it is deeply offensive to suggest that “those on the periphery” [presumably Hispanics] are dumber than Anglos! Secondly, even as a second-grader, already praying the Mass in Latin, I knew very well what was being said.)
• “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.” (One doesn’t need a doctorate in Latin to understand what is being celebrated. In point of fact, one can make the case that the comprehensibility of the Latin prayers is easier today after six decades of the vernacular than it would have been in the pre-conciliar period. If the Bishop wants to demand total fluency in a language, then he might have to curtail celebration of Mass in Spanish by priests who lack the requisite fluency, which is probably the majority, or of many Hispanic youth who attend a Mass in Spanish but who have only a marginal understanding of the language!)
• “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.” (In reality, pastors all over the country can document the very opposite, namely, that use of Latin in the liturgy attracts folk; it doesn’t repel them—and that is especially true of those under the age of 30.)
• “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.” (As I shall demonstrate shortly, the Church does indeed call for a wide use of Latin in the liturgy. Beyond that, I don’t know anyone calling for Latin who claims not to know what is being prayed. And, again, a perhaps unintentional put-down of immigrants. Ironically, Hispanics can comprehend Latin more readily than English, given the Latin roots of their mother tongue.)
• “. . . 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.” (These are the very parts of the Mass specifically and repeatedly called for to be sung in Latin. In 1974, Pope Paul VI issued Jubilate Deo, a document offering these very items as a “minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant” for the use of the faithful. Every pope since Vatican II has had these parts sung in Latin consistently (even Francis); when Pope Leo took possession of the Lateran Basilica and presided over the priestly ordinations for the Diocese of Rome last week, although the Mass was largely in Italian, the very parts identified by Bishop Martin as inappropriate to be in Latin were, in fact, sung in Latin.)
Strangely, the Bishop ignores the guidance offered by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in their 2007 document: “Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship,” where we read the following:
61. . . . care should be taken to foster the role of Latin in the Liturgy, particularly in liturgical song. Pastors should ensure “that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” They should be able to sing these parts of the Mass proper to them, at least according to the simpler melodies.
62. At international and multicultural gatherings of different language groups, it is most appropriate to celebrate the Liturgy in Latin, “with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful.” In addition, “selections of Gregorian chant should be sung” at such gatherings, whenever possible.
63. To facilitate the singing of texts in Latin, the singers should be trained in its correct pronunciation and understand its meaning. To the greatest extent possible and applicable, singers and choir directors are encouraged to deepen their familiarity with the Latin language.
• “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.” (This is a particularly offensive paragraph as it clearly posits ill will of those promoting the Latin language. Elements of the 1962 Missal are “always interwoven.” I find that hard to believe, but if they are, they should be stopped. Pope Benedict XVI was quite clear that there should be no mixing of the two forms of the Roman Rite. The Bishop goes on to repeat his assertion that use of Latin is an example of some kind of “classism” and even “clericalism.”)
On the matter of the “cross-pollination of the liturgical rites”
The “Pastoral Letter” moves into a second phase with a discussion of “cross-pollination of the liturgical rites.”
Firstly, the Bishop takes umbrage at the fact that some priests have told their people that “it is better to receive the Holy Eucharist kneeling, on the tongue, from the priest, and even at an altar rail.” Of course, it is “better” to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, and the evidence for that is that reception on the hand is granted only by way of indult (which is the canonical equivalent of a grudging permission).
And, yes, it is better to receive from a priest because, in the vast majority of instances, there is no objective reason to have an extraordinary minister. The 1997 interdicasterial document, Ecclesia de Mysterio, indicates that, among other practices to be eliminated, is “the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of ‘a great number of the faithful,’” He maintains, however, that eliminating extraordinary ministers “frustrate[s] the ability of the faithful to receive Holy Communion under both species.” Not really, because a viable option exists in the distribution of Communion by intinction, whereby the priest dips the Sacred Host into the chalice and places It directly onto the tongue of the recipient (the procedure used in all the other 22 rites of the Catholic Church—and Orthodox).
Eastern Catholics (and Orthodox), before receiving Holy Communion (which is only given directly into the mouth), make a profound bow (which is their sign of adoration), not a nod of the head! In the Western Church, the sign of adoration is genuflection or kneeling. And, as St. Augustine reminds us, “let no one receive who has not first adored.”
The Bishop likewise bemoans the phasing out of altar girls in many parishes, going so far as to declare later in the document that “no one may be denied a liturgical role proper to the faithful based on their gender”! While it is true that a 1994 document of the Holy See permitted female servers, a subsequent document in 2001 clarified that no priest may ever be forced to celebrate Holy Mass with a female server; in other words, it is not a decision of an episcopal conference, or a bishop, or a pastor, but of each individual celebrant.
Amazingly, he alleges that all these matters (extraordinary ministers, altar girls, etc.) were “brought about at the behest of the Second Vatican Council.” An outrageous claim, for there is not a single word in any conciliar document even hinting at any one of those practices.
Martin expresses concern that some priests eliminate the offertory procession and the sign of peace. However, neither of these is required, and the sign of peace is clearly left to the discretion of the celebrant by the rubrics. “‘Fiddleback’ chasubles, crossed stoles, server gloves, and the maniple” are all verboten, says he. “Fiddlebacks,” more properly called the Roman style, are not forbidden and are in use all over the world (even donned by “liberal” priests). 1 I don’t know how he includes “server gloves” in the laundry list, but they are never mentioned anywhere. The other items, however, he is correct on: there is no provision in the current liturgy for the use of birettas, crossed stoles or maniples—and, therefore, they should not be used. Why? Because rubrics tell us what to do and not what not to do.
Very oddly, he then instructs the priests not to pray the vesting prayers, formerly required. Whether or not those prayers are said has absolutely no impact on the laity. Why intrude on the personal piety of a priest? He then goes on to suggest that, instead of those prayers, the priest pray with any and all liturgical ministers before leaving the sacristy. Where is that called for? It is no more sanctioned than the vesting prayers. Or, why can’t a priest do both?
We are next told that “the music chosen should encourage signing [sic], not simply listening.” From what document is that directive drawn? Its inspiration lies in the faulty psychological and pedagogical assumption that “listening” is a passive action, which it is not. In fact, listening can actually engage a person more fully than singing, all things being equal.
Like the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, he then takes aim at the St. Michael prayer because it is no longer required after Mass—granted—but he proceeds, once more, to second-guess devotees of the prayer by suggesting that they want that prayer because they think “that the Eucharistic liturgy is somehow insufficient to bring about the scattering of evil.” I have never heard anyone make such a connection and, certainly, that was not in the mind of Pope Leo XIII, who wrote the prayer and added it to the conclusion of a Low Mass! Since the period after Communion is open for the recitation of any kind of prayer, the St. Michael prayer could be done even in that spot, let alone at the end of Mass.
Next, we get to the truly neuralgic issue of “The Altar and Its Orientation,” where the Bishop loses his own orientation as he declares, “the Council requires visual engagement. For this reason, the Church has been clear that ad orientem is not appropriate.”2 Who has ever said that? In what document? In reality, the rubrics of the current form of the Mass presume that the priest is not facing the people during the Liturgy of the Eucharist as it instructs him several times to “turn and face the people” for a greeting or blessing!
At any rate, he declares that an ad orientem celebration “has not been permitted and will not be permitted in the future in any public chapel, church, or oratory in the Diocese of Charlotte.” But there is more: “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.”
And then comes this supposed historical factoid: “These elements were all incorporated into the Roman Rite when it was offered ad orientem, but they no longer are needed. . . .” What he describes is precisely what Pope Benedict XVI recommended, thus becoming known as “the Benedictine arrangement.” Actually, the placement of candles on the altar is the first option which the General Instruction of the Roman Missal envisions (allowing for candles to be placed around or near the altar). Banning a missal stand? And what does any of that have to do with the old rite?
Puzzling prescriptions
At last, we arrive at “Conclusion and Prescriptions,” which section is almost as long as what has preceded, beginning with this blast: “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.” Once more, he makes unsupported declarations, which are likewise unsupportable from any factual or objective perspective. Many items in this section repeat policies already enunciated earlier.
Altar rails are not permitted and, where possible, are to be removed. Even more draconian: “The placement of a prei dieu [sic] for the reception of communion is not appropriate.” In other words, the priest should be so inhospitable as to make it as difficult as possible for his people to receive Holy Communion.
The minutiae continue:
• “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.”
• “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.”
• “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” (although the rubric leaves this to the judgment of the celebrant).
• “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” (I have never heard of anyone being bothered by the ringing of a bell!).
• “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” (Really?).
• An even stronger ban on Latin is reiterated, but with an additional rationale: “Even in places where they have become used to it (meaning, singing Latin responses) by more recent practice, this becomes problematic for visitors and/or new parishioners or those coming to the faith for the first time.” (What about visitors accustomed to Latin in their home parishes and not finding such in Charlotte?)
• With another salvo into the issue of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the Bishop writes that reducing their number is “an affront.”
• Altar servers are forbidden to “kneel in front of the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer.” (even though, as recently as last week, they did so at all the papal Masses in Rome)
• “The use of communion pattens [sic] by altar servers is to be implemented judiciously. . . .” (Patens are required by the General Instruction, not optional)
Finally, we are introduced to the Bishop’s self-acknowledged “Liturgical Preferences,” not binding norms. (As though what has preceded has not been merely “preferences” since most of the “norms” have no grounding in universal liturgical law):
• No separate “patten” [sic] for the celebrant’s host.
• No ciboria that resemble chalices.
• No use of a pall (unless insects are present!).
• Communicants should not make the sign of the cross after receiving Holy Communion.
• Worship aids should not contain the Scripture readings since they should be listened to and not read. (Even though any educational psychologist will tell you that the more senses one engages, the deeper the impact of the message.)
A final assessment
This is a most puzzling document for many reasons.
Firstly, the Bishop most assuredly did not take into account the theological and liturgical orientation of his clergy. And, if he did, his agenda can only be categorized as lacking in pastoral prudence, at best, or tyrannical, at worst. As I noted earlier, the Charlotte Diocese is one of the healthiest in the country, precisely because of the orthodoxy of her clergy and their sensitivity and appreciation for beauty and tradition.
Secondly, while the Bishop castigates those who introduce practices he does not like for imposing their “preferences” on the people, he does the very same thing throughout. Most importantly a bishop cannot contravene universal liturgical law.
Thirdly, his own liturgical language is rather traditional (and even poetic at times), as he speaks of “the altar of sacrifice,” “a new Calvary,” “a new Bethlehem.” That said, his liturgical praxis can be called into question (e.g., he regularly walks around during the homily, in spite of the rubric indicating that a bishop’s homily is to be delivered, either from his chair or from the ambo).
Fourthly, he fails to realize that banning many of the practices he finds offensive will drive many parishioners into the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (if they can get to the one site he now permits) or directly into the arms of the Lefevrists.
Finally, he is counting on the unquestioning obedience of his clergy. However, obedience is to be reasoned to and thus be seen as reasonable. Demanding unreasoned obedience is nothing less than episcopal bullying. Those exercising authority in the Church need to take seriously the adage: “I have no obligation to obey what you have no right to command.”
As I mentioned at the outset, some of the priests perceived a listening attitude on the part of the Bishop as he was confronted with the near-universal objection to this document. Going forward, he should keep in mind that maxim attributed to St. Augustine:
In necessariis, unitas. (In necessary things, unity)
In dubiis, libertas. (In doubtful things, freedom)
In omnibus, caritas. (In all things, charity)
And thus, episcopal preferences should never and can never become law.
Endnotes:
1For the record, I don’t generally wear them because I prefer the fuller Gothic style and often joke when asked why I don’t like them I say that it is because I am not a “modernist,” inasmuch as the Roman style was an invention of the sixteenth century, while the Gothic (or even the “conical” style) goes back to the earliest days of formal liturgical vesture.
2For those not conversant with the “liturgy wars,” offering Holy Mass ad orientem (facing eastward) refers to the priest and people facing the same direction, or, put in other terms, that the priest does not face the people during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
We read: “[Bishop Martin] justifies his behavior by reminding all that he is ‘the moderator of the liturgy’ in his diocese, as well as the ‘chief liturgist,’ which is true.”
Two whimsical thoughts:
First, while true, why would a bishop ennobled by the sacrament of Holy Orders reduce himself to the rank of a “liturgist”? Knowing the witticism that “the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist is that you can negotiate with a terrorist.”
Second, that the draft was “leaked” is yet another reminder that, given the termites that sometimes infest chancery offices or even “a subcommittee of the Presbyteral Council,” it might be good for seminaries to include some kind of preparatory seminar on counterinsurgency. But, hey, Bishop Martin deserves at least some credit for asking for comments. And, it seems that many have obliged! Added comments might include the interoffice memo that Francis I isn’t the current pope.
Another indecorous Martin. The only praiseworthy Martin I ever knew was Remy.
Do not forget St. Thérèse of Lisieux OCD (born Marie-Francoise-Therese Martin) and her parents Sts. Marie-Azélie Guérin Martin amd Louis Martin. May they pray for us and these cleric Martins to be faithful Catholics.
Whoops, sorry, I didn’t scroll down before I posted.
No worries. If we were more thorough, we could have included some heavy hitters who were clerics like Pope St. Martin and St. Martin de Tours, not to mention the lay brother St. Martin de Porres, OP. For more saintly Martins, see:: https://www.catholic.org/saints/stindex.php?lst=M
Amen, God’s Fool. I have grandchildren named for St Therese and her family.
Awesome Mrs. C. I will always be thankful and never forget the blessed day we went on pilgrimage to their tombs in Lisieux, France.
Speaking of the Mass, did you know that after his wife died and his girls grew up, St. Louis Martin gave the 10,000 francs he had saved for dowries to pay for a new altar in the Parish Church of St. Pierre? Saint Thérèse reflected on this gift, writing that he had “just made a donation to God of an altar, and it was he who was chosen as a victim to be offered with the Lamb without spot”. She added that the “better thing” her father offered was himself. This was a reference to her sainted father being institutionalized for mental illness.
Errrrrrmmmm – Therese, Zelie, and Louis, maybe?
Fr. Stravinskas’s critique of Bishop Martin’s draft pastoral letter betrays a veiled resistance to the legitimate authority of a diocesan bishop and a selective reading of the Church’s liturgical norms. He characterizes the bishop’s attempts to implement the vision of Sacrosanctum Concilium as arbitrary, authoritarian, or ideologically driven, yet fails to acknowledge that the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (nn. 14, 36, 54) explicitly calls for greater intelligibility, vernacular usage, and the full, conscious, and active participation of the faithful. Moreover, Canon 838 §4 entrusts the regulation of the liturgy to the diocesan bishop, not to theologians or liturgical commentators, however esteemed. Fr. Stravinskas’ critique often imputes motives, such as ideological hostility to Latin or tradition, that the text of the bishop’s draft simply does not substantiate. The suggestion that the faithful are being “subjected” to reformed practices as though they were abuses reverses the pastoral logic of Vatican II and ignores the development of liturgical discipline in the decades since. The bishop’s call for unity, clarity, and lawful practice deserves serious engagement, not polemics dressed in traditionalist backwardist anxieties.
Deacon Dom: You talk as if Bergoglio were still alive. News Flash: He’s dead.
“traditionalist backwardist anxieties” With this little formula, you have fully exposed yourself and invalidated any opinion you may have about liturgy.
“Fr. Stravinskas’ critique often imputes motives, such as ideological hostility to Latin or tradition, that the text of the bishop’s draft simply does not substantiate.”
What would be the purpose of preventing a woman reader from wearing a veil, if not ideological hostility to tradition? Not only is the bishop mandating a dress code, he is telling people what to think and how to pray their private prayers. The days of “pray, pay, and obey” went out years ago. That no longer works, and the bishops have no one to blame but themselves.
I think church dress codes are a good idea, just as they are at the Vatican & other sacred spaces. But it seems very strange to impose a dress code of informality rather than one of modesty & decorum.
Deacon Dom, I agree with this. I am sick and tired of Latin Mass customs creeping into the OF Mass where I live. It comes from the younger set of Catholics who have been to Latin Masses. They have…an “air” about themselves and their actions are downright silly. While some may be sincere it usually comes off as arrogant virtue-signaling. Whenever I go to a Latin mass I respect the rubrics. If I don’t know them, I learn them. The bishops have a right to determine postures in their diocese, provided they don’t go against he documents.
Are you this contentious and condescending in person?
I’m no younger person, but when I see the “peace sign” offered during the sign of peace by some aging grey hair I see Woodstock customs creeping into the Mass, and I wish it was merely “silly”.
Fr. Stravinskas’ critique often imputes motives, such as ideological hostility to Latin or tradition, that the text of the bishop’s draft simply does not substantiate.
If only all Articles of War were as plain spoken about their ideological attachments as those from England (1749).
“All commanders, captains, and officers, in or belonging to any of His Majesty’s ships or vessels of war, shall cause the public worship of Almighty God, according to the liturgy of the Church of England established by law, to be solemnly, orderly and reverently performed in their respective ships; and shall take care that prayers and preaching, by the chaplains in holy orders of the respective ships, be performed diligently; and that the Lord’s day be observed according to law.”
“Like the Cardinal-archbishop of Chicago . . .”
There’s your clue.
Far too often, when you draw back the curtain, behind it you will find a cleric who is a homosexualist in hiding. Just saying.
I hope you will reconsider this accusation, which is uncharitable in the extreme.
msc: You’re just too ignorant of recent Church history for your remark to be taken seriously.
There are ALWAYS moral issues underneath the hatred of the Catholic Mass as exhibited by this Bishop Martin.
Hiding in plain sight, sad to say, and protected by the hierarchy.
Unfortunately found in both sides, Diogenes! 🤪
Both sides of WHAT, Frere Jacques? The curtain? And what’s the orientation or point of origin? Is it front and back, top and bottom, up and down, inside and out, or where?
Br.Jaques: Wrong again
The argument of equivalence is not an argument.
I don’t believe that’s a reliable assumption anymore than the observation that anyone loudly rejecting the LBGTQ etc. agenda must be suffering the same leanings in secret.
It’s going to vary. Human nature & human beings are complicated.
We do have clergy with that sort of tendency & we may have some who protest too loudly. I pray for healing & charity for our priests & bishops.
What is it with clergy with the surname “Martin?”
The first name Martin offered a problem as well.
Presumably in perpetual intoxication with Remy
I seem to recall Father Chad Ripperger stating that the devil hates the Latin language.
Bishop Martin is doing everything within his power to restrict the use of Latin in the mass.
I also recall Father Ripperger stating that the devil and the demons hate the sound of bells. It in fact drives them away.
Bishop Martin declares that ““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.”
Coincidence? I think not. Begs the question, whose side is Bishop Martin on?
I am compelled to agree with you, Joseph.
Why this tremendous spiritual battle over so many decades to rid the Church of Latin and bells unless they cause great discomfort and even fear?
There are few things more beautiful than church bells on a Sunday morning, beckoning one to Holy Mass, only to be followed by the smell of incense as the choir chants glorious praise to God in Latin.
To exert this level of effort in order to suppress such timeless beauty speaks volumes as to the mindset and ulterior motive of the individual. These people have more than a mere aversion to the eternal.
Someone remarked on the Catholic Unscripted podcast on this topic : If someone sprinkles him with holy water, will he shriek?
Thanks for this very thorough and reasoned response.
I have one quibble, perhaps. I live in an area with virtually no native Spanish speakers. Wouldn’t one be, in fact, much more likely to get the gist of any Latin given Spanish’s direct descent from Latin?
I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but I would point out that the largest predominantly Hispanic parish in the Diocese of Tulsa, Oklahoma, also has the largest attendance at a Traditional Latin Mass in the entire state, even more than at the FSSP parish in Tulsa.
Isn’t that what I wrote?
Many Spanish words are very similar to Latin but the language of the TLM is only a part of the issue. It’s about the form of the liturgy, too.
We have Spanish speakers attending our local TLM. And we have the NO Mass offered in Spanish in some parishes as well.
Stravinskas writes: “Fourthly, he fails to realize that banning many of the practices he finds offensive will drive many parishioners into the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (if they can get to the one site he now permits) or directly into the arms of the Lefevrists.”
Well then don’t object. Let it happen. If it happens, he’ll have learned by experience. If it does not happen, you’ll have learned something.
Liturgical norms evolve and develop according to changing circumstances. If you were the bishop—God forbid—, you’d be imposing your preferences (anachronistic), but he’s the bishop and he’s making decisions that only he has a right to make, and by the sounds of it, they are the right decisions.
With a bit more humility and a better sense of the golden rule, you’d support the bishop instead of publicly coming out against him.
Speaking of anachronistic…The 1970’s liturgical time warp we can’t seem to escape from seems a bit out of sync to me. Just saying.
I’m not in the Charlotte diocese & only know what I’ve read in the news but it does all seem very odd & disconnected from what young Catholics are seeking today. Some people can’t read music. Some can’t read the sign of the times.
The Bishop downright contradicts Vatican 2 and other documents. Stravinskas brilliantly took apart the idiotic document. How does one become a Bishop when it is clear he doesn’t even know what he’s talking about.
Ah yes, by edict of the Pope who hates the TLM.
Thank you for publishing this. Who knew the bishop of Charlotte, NC was a crypto Protestant, and an especially anti-Catholic one at that? Crazy times.
Many Latinists are “crypto Protestants” as well !
How so? What is a crypto Protestant anyway, and who is a Latinist? Merriam Webster defines a Latinist as a specialist in the Latin language or Roman culture. I daresay very few devotees of the TLM are Latinists. What did you mean by using the word?
“I have no obligation to obey what you have no right to command.”
How can it be said that the Bishop does not have the right to command this? And if the Bishop does push forward with this document, how can a priest of Charlotte disobey to follow his own liturgical preferences?
Christ was obedient unto death (Philippians 2:8). And yet, what is wrong with seeking excardination? Every diocese that allows a revert Mass needs priests: https://reverentcatholicmass. com/map
So… all the Catholics who have lived their lives in this diocese, raised their children, buried their parents there, they should all just obey when a new bishop arrives and imposes his Protestantized version of the Mass? I say, literally, to hell with that.
By definition Protestants are disobedient. Our home is Heaven. Why the histrionics? I know large families who pile in the van and drive an hour to come to our reverent Parish. We have such a peaceful, blessed community of Faith. We have about 100 Confirmations this week.
Charlotte has many reverent Masses. Right near the airport is Belmont Abbey and College. Would you consider them Protestant? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–R7vnBGYDQ
How is any of this relevant to the bishop’s dictatorial decrees and obvious disdain for the Mass?
How is the obedience of Christ crucified relevant to the liturgy? Umm…
Of course the priest will obey.
The Lord said you will be hated by the world and the Bishop is behaving like the world.
Suffer the persecution for Christ.
For a revert Mass or a diocese where a Bishop is loving enough to allow for one:
https://reverentcatholicmass.com/map
Thanks for sharing this link. Very interesting. I live more than 100 miles away from any of the locations on the map, but I have visited a couple that made the cut and would agree they should be on the map. Sad that so many of the churches are eastern Catholic vs Latin Rite. BTW – interesting that according to Bishop Martin the “Latin” Rite has no Latin 🙂
Self-identified “liberal Catholics” or self-identified “progressive Catholics” have no serious basis for an appeal to “the law” or “authority,” because they have regard neither for law, nor authority.
They only have respect for persons in power, and only if and when such persons are deemed “liberal” or “progressive.”
After 12 years of an outlaw as Pontiff, and 60+ years of outlaw Bishops, “essays” and “comments” and “dialogue” based on “respect for law and authority” have been rendered meaningless and utterly unserious.
The Latin mass lovers are all dishonest and disingenuously misleading. The Latin rite is hijacked for those who want to proclaim a new church by rejecting and defying the one and only Church of Christ who is the Church in His mystical body. Rejecting now for over 60 years the truth of the Church, the Vatican Counsel II and all the holy Popes of the last century. Everybody likes beauty and reverence of God. Obedience and labor in the Church to rise up the bride of Christ is replaced by repudiation and denial proclaiming the Latin practice as the only holy remnants. The Latin rite is legal but slander and condemnation of the true Church has brought us only confusion and is wounding the Heart of the Church. The bishops are not spared in this battle. Where is the Holy Spirit? I did not find Him there; there is no charity and love. COME HOLY SPIRIT RENEW YOUR CHURCH IN UNITY OF THE DIVINE LOVE!
Paint with broad brush much, Edith?
But then again you did give us a fine example of the sin of rash judgement.
Actually, Pitchfork, similar rants have been posted at least since Traditionis Custodes. I would not therefore qualify such repetitively regurged ramblings as rash but rather malice aforethought. Any movement toward charitable, rational, truthful or factual reasoning has not ever been discerned, so that is an additional cause for concern, and more weight to bear.
I can just about imagine all the nasty things you would have said about St. Athanasius, had you been alive back then.
On the one hand, this bishop’s document is outrageous: bullying, tyrannical, Protestant, and just plain stupid. On the other hand, he is clearly attempting to reestablish the entire thrust of the Novus Ordo implementation just as it happened from 1970. What his document makes clear is that Catholics have been deeply unhappy with this liturgical disaster and gradually strayed from “Novus Orthodoxy,” trying to recover the sacred by resisting this Protestantization of the Mass. But this bishop wants to carpet bomb any meager attempts at reconstruction that have taken place.
Well, yeah, that was the whole point of Vatican II. Catholic tradition was to carry on into the new modern world. The Latin Mass was becoming more and more irrelevant to people. In fact, the vast majority of Catholics accepted the new Mass and were happy about it.
And stop saying the Novus Ordo is a Protestantized version of the Mass. It’s insulting to the many devout Catholics who have been faithfully raised post-Vatican II.
It sounds rather unlikely to me that the Latin Mass was becoming “irrelevant” when there was such high attendance compared to today’s Mass attendance rates. At least in the West.
My father, an agnostic who didn’t go to church much (mother and father were briefly members of the local Episcopal Church), said that all his Catholic co-workers (mostly men at the time) stopped going to Mass once the Novus Ordo was imposed. The changeless Church had changed the Mass and they (father’s co-workers) were having none of it. The Church lost credibility.
The local Episcopal priest even attended the Catholic Mass on occasion, but once the NO was imposed, he stopped going since “there was no longer any point to going.”
My aunt by marriage was a convert from the Episcopalian church. When the changes occurred, she stopped going to Mass with my uncle. She said that’s what she had come from; why should she go back to it? So sad.
If the immediate post-Vatican Church sanctioned open sex in the aisles along with ripping out altars, hootennanny Masses, the removal of confessionals, casting communion rails into the garbage heap, and Communion for ‘here comes everybody’, then we’d have had that too.
In 1970, upon graduating from a Catholic men’s college where upon entry we were still wearing jackets and ties, we had “Holy Mass” in our dormitory apartment to celebrate and thank our parents. For the Eacharist, we used Wonder Bread and wine we had on hand “consecrated” in beer glasses. For the Mass Readings which the college chaplain told us we could choose, we heard from Kahil Gibran’s The Prophet, and The Art of Loving by Erick Fromm. I think we “allowed” the Gospel of the Day to be read. Out of six Catholic roommates, three still practice the Faith (a miracle in itself).
Sounds like the Christian Brothers high school I attended. The Brothers were positively giddy about the possibilities introduced by the Novus Ordo. We saw every sort of nonsense liturgy imaginable. Result: Out of my graduating class of about 150 people, I hear there are no fewer that six lesbian “marriages.” Frankly, I would doubt if there are even six practicing Catholics left out of the whole senior class.
The vast majority of Catholics did NOT accept the new Mass. They stopped attending Mass altogether. The high point of the Novus Ordo was the very first year it was introduced. In every year since, the Mass has been celebrated by fewer and fewer priests, on fewer altars, before ever dwindling numbers of practicing Catholics. Moreover, those Catholics who did adapt to the new Mass gradually became, in belief and morals, less and less distinguishable from Protestants. That is indisputable. If you deny it, you live in a fantasy world.
The committee that created the new mass wrote about what changes they made and why. The main reason was to allow Protestants to attend the new mass without making them uncomfortable. How do you maintain a liturgy that is catholic while introducing practices and beliefs that are Protestant?
“The Latin Mass was becoming more and more irrelevant to people. In fact, the vast majority of Catholics accepted the new Mass and were happy about it.”
The vast majority of Catholics in what is now England, Wales, Scotland, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, et cetera, left the faith during the time of the Reformation, and they were happy about it.
The vast majority of Catholics in places such as Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the U.S., Spain, Holland, et cetera, stopped going to Mass altogether after the changes. Catholics have been losing the faith in droves in Latin America, to the point that there are some countries that are becoming majority Protestant.
The New Mass is Protestantized. All one need do is compare the prayers between the New and Old. Most references to the Blessed Virgin have been taken out of the New Mass. If that’s not a Protestantization, I don’t know what would be.
It is a Protestantized version of the Mass and it is not insulting to Catholics whose faith have been formed by the new Mass. If you did not know any better, you can’t be blamed for not knowing it’s Protestantized. But many whose faith have been nurtured by the NO still turned to the TLM because they see a reverence and a transcendence that is just lacking in the NO. The most common celebration of the NO that you will find in parishes like is mine is banal and lame and lacking in reverence.
What is astonishing (besides the clear errors pointed out above, per things required that the Bishop forbids) is the shocking degree of micro-management, to the level of nano-management over every detail. My flabber is thoroughly ghasted. I cannot conceive why ANY Bishop who loved his flock, Christ, the Eucharist, and the Church would get out of bed in the morning and decide to browbeat everyone into conformity and uniformity in every single detail, trying to erase EVERYTHING that expresses any sort of piety (really, no kneeling??), any sort of beauty (really, no bells?), any sort of thing that the lowest of low-church Protestants would not applaud – the liturgical equivalent of North Korea. I surprised he hasn’t decreed that we must all wear the same jackets to mass.
I mean, just read over those bullet points. The most charitable conclusion I can come to is that the man is not well. He needs help, not insults. A dear friend of mine who developed dementia behaved like this, demanding complete and utter control over every aspect of his family’s life. NOTE I am NOT saying the bishop is developing dementia, not at all – just point out that excessively controlling behavior far beyond anything remotely reasonable seems to point to SOMETHING else going on.
The guy sounds like a smug bully, in addition to being unacceptably rigid. Bad qualities in any priest, let alone a Bishop. He is clearly ill suited for pastoral work and someone should yank him back to an administrative function before he does more damage.
In necessariis, unitas. (In necessary things, unity)
In dubiis, libertas. (In doubtful things, freedom)
In omnibus, caritas. (In all things, charity)
****
Very good advice, thank you!
Aah, but first : who gets to determine what is necessary
Thank you, Fr. Stravinskas, for working through and pointing to problems with the bishop’s letter.
I quake when prelates claim the NO fructifies the full, active, and conscious ‘participation’ of congregants. Said prelates are deficient in their understanding of philosophy and metaphysics. The ontological ‘participation’ refers to man’s sharing God’s grace. So now this Martin bishop points to his preferred liturgy as the preferred efficient cause of God’s grace! We should shout: “Blasphemy!”
Martin’s fetish surrounding styles of women’s head-dress reflects Francis’ and Roche’s prohibitions on bulletin announcements. One instance of inane mismicromanagement follows another. How can even a semi-aware laity not groan at the petty triviality?
My imagination refuses quelling. It sees the ghost of Francis roaming the earth for more mortals to mortify. How long, O Lord, how long must we suffer our prelates’ stupidity?
After reading the excerpts from the bishop’s draft text two things occurred to me: A) The proposals are so over the top I’m wondering if he was just “spitballing” every idea that came to mind, whether he was in favor of the idea or not, and just threw them out to see where he got the most resistance or support. (Okay, maybe I’m being overly charitable.) B) I’m very curious as to what kind of priest or pastor he was before becoming a bishop. In looking at his background, I think he has mostly an academic and administrator background with only about one year as a pastor before being named bishop.
You are being overly charitable
After doing a little more research, I agree. The draft document was so over the top I was simply looking for an explanation that wasn’t so obvious. But I think in this case Ockham’s Razor applies.
Inimicus Missae Latinae est procurator Satanae.
From the historical perspective, we might be reminded of the 9th-century Charlemagne who conducted a broad campaign to re-establish the king’s Latin. Only to find that the evolution/devolution toward the various Romance Languages was already to for along.
The deal about the Latin today is that the precisely-thinking Pope Benedict enabled the Tridentine Mass NOT as a competing rite, but as the extraordinary form of the one Latin Rite as also found in the Novus Ordo. The idea was one of mutual elevation of reverence and communio, both.
The other thing about Latin for the Canon of the Mass, possibly rather than the vernacular, is that as a so-called “dead language” the meanings of the words cannot be evolved, adulterated, or even flipped. The kiss of peace”, for example, is more than the Woodstock two fingers (or maybe five, or even one?).
Latin is actually very intercultural too! Said the Chinese emperor when asked what he would do to save his nation: “I would restore the meaning of words.”
My initial reaction to Bishop Martin’s proposed changes regarding the Mass was profound sadness. It’s truly baffling how a bishop could champion such a destructive stance against the Latin Mass, especially considering how clearly valued it is in the Charlotte diocese. What forces could compel a bishop to act in a way that so directly harms the Body of Christ?
My thanks to the author and may many bishops and hopefully the pope clarify the value of serving the Body of Christ through the Latin Mass.
It indicates a hatred of some of his sheep.
Vatican II clearly did not oppose, nullify, forbid or suppress the Latin Mass in any way, shape or form. It did open the way for the Novus Ordo to be celebrated in the native language of the area in which it is preferred.
The corollary here is reflective of the Freedom of Religion clause in the U.S. Constitution – Freedom of religion guarantees the proper exercise of religion according to one’s own beliefs, without government interference or repression. Freedom of religion can never be interpreted or presumed to imply a freedom from religion. Vatican II simply stated that while the Latin Rite is the Traditional Rite of Holy Mother Church, Mass can be said in the vernacular as well. Nowhere in the Vatican II documents do we find overt statements implying or directing the suppression of the Latin Mass.
What is simply required is the proper authority within the Magisterium to clarify this singular point, once and for all.
On Catholic Unscripted, they said it was Cupich and Tobin who pushed for Martin to be named bishop, over the wishes of then-Cardinal Prevost.
That’s all you need to know.
What matters now is what Pope Leo does or doesn’t do.