By 
Jan 13, 2026 / 11:41 am (CNA).
Reacting to Bishop Michael Martin’s Dec. 17, 2025, pastoral letter announcing the impending abolishment of altar rails and kneelers in the Diocese of Charlotte, North Carolina, 31 of the diocese’s priests have signed a letter to the Vatican’s Dicastery for Legislative Texts containing a set of questions, or “dubia,” related to the matter.
According to The Pillar, which obtained a leaked copy of the diocesan priests’ letter last week, the priests directly question “whether a diocesan bishop may prohibit the use of kneelers to assist members of the faithful who, of their own accord, wish to receive holy Communion kneeling.”
In December, Martin issued a pastoral letter saying that by Jan. 16, the use of altar rails, kneelers, and “prie-dieus” (movable kneelers) will no longer be permitted in the diocese, and any “temporary or movable fixtures used for kneeling for the reception of Communion” must be removed.
In his pastoral letter, Martin said while an “individual member of the faithful” is free to kneel to receive and should not be denied Communion, the “normative posture for all the faithful in the United States is standing,” per guidelines from the U.S. bishops.
“The faithful who feel compelled to kneel to receive the Eucharist as is their individual right should also prayerfully consider the blessing of communal witness that is realized when we share a common posture,” he wrote.
In their letter to the Vatican, the diocesan priests specifically question the bishop’s actions to impede the faithful from kneeling at built-in altar rails when that is the norm for a parish, a practice the bishop has insisted upon when he celebrates Mass at such churches in the diocese, according to Brian Williams, an advocate for Charlotte’s Traditional Latin Mass community.
When Martin concelebrated a Mass with several other bishops last summer at a parish whose commmunicants usually kneel at an altar rail to receive, per the bishop’s direction, according to Williams, Communion was distributed in front of the altar rail to discourage parishioners from kneeling.
“Since an altar rail is a common and traditional ‘structure and ornamentation’ that marks off the sanctuary from the body of the church within the Roman rite, it is asked whether a diocesan bishop has the legitimate authority to prohibit the erection of altar rails within churches or other sacred places in his diocese,” the diocese’s priests query in their letter, as reported by The Pillar.
A priest in the Charlotte Diocese who wished to remain anonymous due to an alleged “atmosphere of fear, retaliation, and mistrust” told CNA that the actual number of the dubia’s supporters is “well north” of the 31, or a quarter of all priests in the diocese, who actually signed it.
“Certain priests have prudentially decided to withhold their signature,” he told CNA.
According to a social media post by the Traditional Latin Mass community in Charlotte: “Several diocesan sources in Charlotte have confirmed that the actual support for the dubia is closer to 50% of priests, nearly double the number of signers.”
In his December pastoral letter, Martin also specified norms for extraordinary ministers, prohibited the practice of intinction (when the consecrated bread is dipped into the wine before being placed on the tongue), and encouraged the reception of Communion under both kinds — the bread and the wine — which he says fell out of practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In May 2025, a draft of a letter detailing several other of Martin’s intended reforms of traditional practices in the diocese was leaked. In that letter, the bishop said that because “there is no mention in the conciliar documents, the reform of the liturgy, or current liturgical documents concerning the use of altar rails or kneelers for the distribution of holy Communion, they are not to be employed in the Diocese of Charlotte.”
The diocesan priests’ Jan. 5 letter to the Vatican manifests that “both the leaked letter from this past summer and the pastoral letter of Dec. 17 have caused a great deal of concern amongst the priests and faithful of the Diocese of Charlotte, especially in those parishes that have allowed the faithful to use an altar rail or prie-dieu for the reception of holy Communion.”
The diocesan priests’ letter also addresses issues from Martin’s leaked May letter in which the prelate suggested that certain liturgical practices and elements such as the use of Latin, ornately decorated vestments, certain prayers, and altar ornaments will be prohibited because they are not in accord with changes made after the Second Vatican Council.
Asked about the Jan. 5 letter containing the dubia, a spokesperson for the Diocese of Charlotte told CNA that the bishop “has not ‘restricted kneeling.’”
In a Jan. 8 statement to CNA, Martin stated: “My brother priests are always welcome to ask questions and seek clarification about the application of liturgical norms. To be clear, the only modifications that have been made since the Diocese of Charlotte last updated its liturgical norms in 2011 involve the distribution of holy Communion, as spelled out in my letter to the faithful in December.”
Apparently referring to the leaked May letter, Martin continued: “Questions arising from the internal and confidential conversations of the Presbyteral Council are premature and lack substance, since no definitive action has taken place outside of the December 2025 letter. The norms highlighted in the letter keep our diocese aligned with the broader norms of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the universal Church.”
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.
Bravo to these priests for standing up for what is right. But the kneelers are the ONLY thing they questioned??? Why? The Bishop in question is clearly power mad and full of himself, and has banned MANY things not in his purview. Like lace on priestly garments?? This Bishop is not suited to run a diocese as he clearly lacks people skills and empathy and will not allow his authority to be questioned. The Vatican picked a lemon with this guy and should be willing to accept the responsibility for a bad decision and remove him before more damage is done. Again I suggest the folks in this diocese withhold their donations until he is replaced. Or, put in his place. .
LJ: Don’t think for a minute that the Vatican PICKS bishops. Bishops are picked by the current power brokers- Cupich, McElroy, Dolan, Gregory, et al. Then the name is passed on to the Papal Nuncio.The Vatican then SIGNS OFF ON THE APPOINTMENT. That is why over the past 15 years we’ve had horrible men named to the episcopacy. And that is why are bishops are homosexual-friendly and we have so many homosexual priests. I hope this helps.
According to Murr* freemasons hands selected nominee bishops from the 1950s into the 1990s…
*Fr Charles Murr, Murder in the 33rd Degree. 2022.
I don’t know what diocese you’re from but but as the wife of a deacon, I’m ashamed of you comment. I know a great number of the priests in my diocese and they are true servants of God. If God’s chosen are truly guilty of your claim, it is for God to judge and not you. Going back to initial training and teaching, to defame priests in general as you have is to create scandal which brings harsh judgements for you are acting as judge which is only for God.
Dffm: You ought to be better informed. Sadly you’re not. Then, again, you weren’t in my office when a sitting bishop in a Northeast diocese came to see me after having been referred for a consultation. You didn’t have to hear firsthand how he, as a bishop, was having sex with more than one of the priests in his own diocese. You obviously have not read up much on the “l’affaire McCarrick.” You have not read much on the online lists of bishops and priests credibly accused. You are clearly not aware of the hundreds of millions of dollars paid out to victims who were sexually abused. You undoubtedly never read the John Jay Report. You obviously never heard of St. Luke’s treatment facility or Southdown or Jemez Springs NM. I could go on and on about all that you’re obviously not aware of. But you’ll never become aware because you’re too busy protecting those who caused rot in our Church.
Why was he referred? So you could tell him what he likely already knew? That what he was doing was absolutely wrong, if not a sacrilege? That he was breaking his vows? That he was betraying his congregants, AND Jesus? That he was a poor moral example? And what was the upshot? Did he just walk away and continue the behavior? Whats just as appalling to me is that he evidently could not even claim to have “fallen in love” with another man. ONE man. Not if he was having random sex with as many as 3 other priests. Sleeping around is a moral disqualifier for civilians, most certainly for any Priest, but most especially for a Bishop who is supposed to be setting a visible moral example.
When all of us wonder why the church has lost the high ground on teaching sexual morality (which they never EVER teach from the pulpit), THIS is why. How could they teach the value of chastity if they are not living it themselves? Disgusting. And their actions blacken the reputation of all priests, unfortunately. But also, its just very very disappointing to hear this. We dont expect our priests to be perfect. But we DO expect them to be faithful to their vows. Or at least try. If you are a priest and want to have sex of any kind, quit the priesthood. There are literally tens of thousands of other kinds of jobs out there you can do.
Finally, I feel for the priests who ARE faithful to their vows. And they are many. But they are looked at with suspicion by parishioners who have heard all too many stories like the one you just told.
The church is no different from other large organizations (many who now have “compliance” departments to try and stay ahead of any type of violation that might get them in trouble) in that they have a difficult time dealing with the wayward, and often don’t even believe allegations could possibly be true.
Dear Deacon Ed, I was ordained for the Diocese of Charlotte 38 years ago and was the first Deacon at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. I currently serve in the Diocese of Tucson. I would just remind you that Jesus ministered to all those who were shunned by society.
Deacon Chuch Morse: See my response to Dffm.
Our Lord met everyone where they were but He didn’t leave them where He found them.
You have an issue with homosexuality? Jesus never condemned it nor mentioned it.
Why would he need to? It was common knowledge, especially among first-century Jews, that sodomy was a perverse sin.
Christ never condemned or even mentioned bestiality or child molestation either.
Nor pornography. I can’t see where he mentioned or condemned heroin. Heck I can’t see where he condemned crucifixion either-even while experiencing it.
That was the same sort of logic I employed when I was seven and my parents caught me doing something wrong or just plain stupid. “But you never said not to do THAT”.
One of our frequent commenters on here used to relay an experience with a friend who contracted AIDs and in his illness, observed the futility of inseminating a colon.
If he’s so inclined, he can relay the account himself.
Fornication
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n010rp_Homosexual_%20St.%20Cath.Siena.htm
Knowing the history of you learn many of what Christ wants.
That’s pretty accurate… I’m amazed at how many people think the Vatican is actually involved in picking the bishops and other decision’s involving day to day diocesan operations. The facts are almost zero and they indeed just rubber stamp most everything and you’re 100% right, that includes who the next bishop is going to be…
I have no view on the personality matters.But as a cradle Catholic who is a longtime member of a large oarish with a center altar that has never had kneelers since its remodeling, I can attest that our experience is not diminished in the least by receiving communion in our hands. Anyone with mobility issues is served in the front pews. Our sanctuary was remodeled…it was a mess..with much thought given to the changes brought by Vatican ll. I am old and have had much experience with old and new variations. My large and very busy, overflowing T times urban parish is a joyful place.
The practice of receiving the body of Christ in our hands reinforces the understanding that we are all a priestly people. What I have seen happening in some of the Catholic churches that stubbornly cling to Latin is a requirement that the congregation receive at the altar rail. I am also an older cradle Catholic who recalls some pre-Vatican II practices. I cannot understand why some people cling to Latin. Jesus did not speak Latin. He spoke the vernacular of the people at the time. Although Latin is an old language for the church, it was never a language of Jesus
Vivian writes: “Jesus did not speak Latin. He spoke the vernacular of the people at the time.”
That settles it; Mass will now be celebrated universally in Aramaic.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Mass was celebrated Exclusively in Aramaic, Greek, and Latin for the first 9 centuries of Catholicism. They became sacred languages because of their association with the Logos. Just as Hebrew did before them. The triptych of sacred NT languages features on the cross above Jesus.
A priestly people does not mean lay people are priests. As a lay person my hands and fingers have not been consecrated.
How do you know Christ did not speak Latin? Maybe we should all enrol into Aramaic classes.
The Roman Catholic Church has one faith, one Pope, one liturgy, one language. As a dead language Latin was used as it did not allow for words to change their meanings over time as a living language like English does. This is important in transmitting the faith unchanged from generation to generation.
If you recall more pre-V2 practices, you should recall that there were many changes to the Mass beyond the language. There really aren’t many (if any!) traditionalists who assist at the TLM strictly, or primarily, for the Latin. It’s helpful for being able to attend the same Mass with English-, French-, and Spanish-speakers. It also helps to unify us with the 2000 years or so of Latin-Mass attending Catholics, to distinguish the commonplace from the sacred, etc.
Latin is the language of the Latin Church. Aramaic is the language of the Syriac and Maronite Churches. Coptic is the language of the Coptic Catholic Church. Old Slovak is the language of the Ruthenian Church. Greek is the language of the Byzantine Catholic Church. The use of a particular language specifically for worship goes beyond the Catholic Church though. The Jews used Hebrew, not the Aramaic vernacular. While Jesus probably preached in Aramaic and perhaps Greek, He would have worshiped in Hebrew, the sacred language of the time.
But the real point is Tradition, which is why we’re called traditionalists, not Latinists.
The Israelites were called a priestly people. Those who were not ordained priests did not receive the sacrifices in the same way that the ordained priesthood did. Our participation in the Sacrifice of the Mass is not to act like we are ordained priests with consecrated hands, but to pray the Mass, to offer our sacrifices and sufferings and good works of the week in union with Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, and if prepared, to receive Him in Holy Communion.
Amanda: You speak common sense so eloquently as I could only hope to.
Certainly Jesus would have primarily spoken his native language, Aramaic. However that does NOT mean he didnt also know and speak Latin. The Romans had conquered Israel about 70 years before the birth of Jesus. Doubtless St. Joseph, as a businessman, knew the language. As Rome was an an occupying force in Israel, it would be almost impossible to survive in a situation where you did not learn at least enough of the language to understand a general interaction, or a soldier’s orders to you as a civilian. It would not be unlike an immigrant to the US speaking whatever language they know at home, and speaking English when going about in the general public. We all know it is very difficult to get ahead in the US without sufficient English. So it would have been in an era when Rome controlled most of the known world. Knowing the language would have been practical common sense.
NO kneelers? Then you never kneel at all at Mass, not even during the consecration? Honey I can tell you that you might as well be a protestant then. What an uninspiring Mass that would be. I can tell you that lots of us would never EVER attend a Mass held in a church like that. And that includes me in a big time way. Let me guess. Blue state??
My mother lives in a blue state and attending Mass there was torture for me. Until recently, when their regional Bishops conference decided to wake up and have the people KNEEL during the consecration.(It never stopped ME from kneeling when I attended Mass there, and I didnt care at all if they liked me doing that or not. But I think the Pope needs to crack down on this very sloppy and disrespectful method of conducting Mass.) Is it really any wonder that so many Catholics today do not believe that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, when we have “catholic ” churches that operate like this?
From a marketing standpoint, when you start “watering down the brand” you risk inflicting significant damage. This is what happened and as you say brushing up close to Protestantism is one of the results.
Good response. I can concu.
The one thing I’ve noticed is people are not stepping to the side, facing the cross and tabernacle and then taking the host from their hand, then crossing themselves. Isn’t that how we were trained?
I agree. Next to prayer, SWithholding funding is the surest and fastest way to encourage action
I sympathize with the clergy of the Charlotte diocese. Dealing with bishops who act like autocrats is not easy. I wonder if the bishop isn’t intentionally trying to demoralize his clergy with a heavy handed approach.
Then Jesus addressed the crowds and His disciples. “The Scribes,” He said, “and the Pharisees sit in the chair of Moses. Therefore do and observe everything that they command you; but do not imitate their lives, for though they tell others what to do, they do not do it themselves. Heavy and cumbrous burdens they bind together and load men’s shoulders with them, while as for themselves, not with one finger do they choose to lift them. And everything they do they do with a view to being observed by men; for they widen their phylacteries and make the tassels large, and love the best seats at a dinner party or in the synagogues, and like to be bowed to in places of public resort, and to be addressed by men as ‘Rabbi.
Deacon: excellent Bishop appointments in New England recently!
For those who humble themselves will be exulted, and those who exult themselves shall be humbled.
Those 31 priests are best off contacting the Society of St. Pius X which established a training program several years ago specifically to address the growing number of disgruntled and dissatisfied priests of the “novus ordo” protesto-catholic fraternity (does it deserve the term “church”?) and draw them back into the fulness of the Catholic Church and faith – where their priesthood can actually flourish and where they can be valued for their growth in holiness and resolve to faithfully and reverently offer the holy sacrifice of the Mass. The program is quite successful as “novus ordo” priests as well as priests from the former Ecclesia Dei communities have found a much-needed, much-merited respite from the badgering and “boomering” of their bloviating Bishops. Until such time as this iteration of the compromising-catholic fraternity can END – the need for the “Priest Training Program” will continue to grow. Deo gratias!
The SSPX is definitely MIT the answer. They’re the root of the traddie problems today.
I hope that the dubia is prayerfully considered , definitely answered in good time and ultimately obeyed; and that the Bishop will be able to accept any correction if called for.
The second Vatican council is being treated like the second coming of Christ! Nowhere in any Vatican to document does it refer to such drastic moves by the local ordinary.
How this bishop gets from the second Vatican council to removing all vestiges
of the prior 2000-year-old method of worshiping is beyond me.
The GIRM explicitly states that the posture norm for receiving Communion is standing. Individuals, of their own volition, may kneel. Kneeling for Communion is not to be adopted as a local parish custom over standing because that contravenes the GIRM.
The bishop is right, the priests who signed the letter are wrong, and I hope to God that Rome responds to their dubia in support of the bishop because then this issue will be put to rest and the trads will have lost again.
Why are we reminded of “The Truce of 1968” when nineteen priests were disciplined by Archbishop O’Boyle (Washington DC) for very publicly dissenting from Humanae Vitae, but this discipline was appealed to Rome–and reversed!
The open door to a culture of broad dissent, since there would be no consequences. https://catholicexchange.com/the-truce-of-1968-once-again/ After only a few years many of the dissenting priests had left the priesthood altogether.
Now we have the mirror-image case where dozens of priests in another diocese are petitioning Rome on local permission (local permission!) for the laity to opt for kneeling as is readily permitted throughout the universal Church….what a difference sixty years makes.
Thanks Sebastian, took the words outta my mouth!
Has someone who identifies as a traditional Catholic done something to personally offend you Sebastian? Why the hope that they should “lose”?
Every time the Body of Christ is divided & conflicted we should remember the origin of the word diabolical: to split apart. It’s not a good thing or something we should take pleasure in.
Catholic & universal doesn’t mean identical & uniform. We’re One Church with many rites & liturgies. There’s room for diversity.
Well put, mrscracker!
mrscracker: excellent comment. When I attend Mass at one of those protestant- like “happy/clappy” churches and they start holding hands during the Our Father or assume the “orans” position, then during the “kiss of peace” they have a “love in” by waving to their friends, leaving their pews to shake everyone’s hands, I just kneel, ignore their inanities and prepare to receive the Body of Christ (on my knees and on my tongue).
In a world where reverence is dying, why would any priest want to make it a hardship for someone who chooses that reverence. If God came before you, I would imagine you would kneel. He is before you in the Eucharist.
Exactly, Judy!! Should it be made impractical to receive in a reverent posture if that’s what one desires?
Casual reception of Our Lord makes no sense if you really think about it.
Standing can be reverent.
Yes, true; for example, when it comes to the military. Or if a procession passes by. Although one usually salutes, stands at attention, or bows one’s head as they pass. Walking up to the person you’re trying to reverence isn’t the same.
But kneeling is always understood as reverential. Because you’re making yourself lower (literally) than the person you’re deflecting to. You’re not trying to stare at them on the same level.
Interesting, yeah we stand when a lady or someone else important enters the room.
Perfectly stated.
That from the same Bishops who covered up sex abuse as a business practice, testify in deposition that they didn’t know that it was illegal to fail to report sex abuse of minors to the police, and prostitute the diocesan network as a NGO-political-apparatus for mass outlaw immigration in exchange for FED-BIDEN cash. And this Bishop Martin, from the corrupt leadership inside the OFM establishment?
12-Yr Old: “Mom, those Bishops don’t really seem like good shepherds. They’re just being mean.”
Mom: “I know darling, you’re right, some of them are really mean. Let’s pray for the faithful people they are trying to hurt, and that maybe some day there might be better Bishops, who aren’t so foolish.”
So the GRIM takes precedence over VII or 2 centuries of tradition?
Really? Yet when my Mom travels to Europe she tells me they not only kneel but have altar rails. Its clear that many dioceses operate doing whatever their particular Bishop says. Or their particular regional Bishops Conference. Its just too bad so many Bishops are little power trippers who are pushing away faithful Catholics. I travel the US with some frequency and I can tell you Mass is conducted differently from location to location. Not drastically, but enough that you are aware of it. If you imagine that every church is following some rule book to the letter, I can tell you that you are wrong. Now, if we were to go back to the pre Vatican 2 era, my guess would be there was a heck of a lot more uniformity from place to place because NO ONE would have DARED change a thing. In today’s era, its all about me, me me. Sad.
“Kneeling for Communion is not to be adopted as a local parish custom over standing because that contravenes the GIRM.” So many problems with this sentence, too little time.
1) Define “adopted.”
2) Non-sequiter. Sebastian contravenes the GIRM he uses for his evidence. GIRM specifically states that kneeling is allowed.
3) The GIRM specifically characterizes kneeling as an act of reverence, devotion, and adoration.
4) GIRM specifies that the faithful should kneel at the Consecration, the most solemn moment of the Mass, reflecting profound respect for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
5) Kneeling during receipt further reflects profound respect for the King as well as humility by His subjects.
Kneeling may be permitted or customary during the reception of Holy Communion, depending on local episcopal norms. Some dioceses encourage receiving kneeling, while others allow standing (cf. GIRM 160–161, regional adaptations).
Back to the Books, Seabass. Back on your Knees if your anatomy allows.
“The diocesan priests’ letter also addresses issues from Martin’s leaked May letter in which the prelate suggested that certain liturgical practices and elements such as the use of Latin, ornately decorated vestments, certain prayers, and altar ornaments will be prohibited because they are not in accord with changes made after the Second Vatican Council.”
Where are these documents that demonstrate those things that have become prohibited after Vatican II, or are they merely missing links because they do not exist?
Perhaps some of the semi annual meetings of Cardinals should be devoted to clarifying Vatican II documents and the implementation of them. Definitive guidelines could be presented for ALL bishops to follow. We need clarity. Short of that another Council : Vatican III.
Why are we reminded of “The Truce of 1968” when nineteen priests were disciplined by Archbishop O’Boyle (Washington DC) for very publicly dissenting from Humanae Vitae, but this discipline was appealed to Rome–and reversed!
The open door to a culture of broad dissent, since there would be no consequences. https://catholicexchange.com/the-truce-of-1968-once-again/ After only a few years many of the dissenting priests had left the priesthood altogether.
Now we have the mirror-image case where dozens of priests in another diocese are petitioning Rome on local permission (local permission!) for the laity to opt for kneeling as is readily permitted throughout the universal Church….what a difference sixty years makes.
Where are the links to those documents that list those things that were once part of Tradition and The Teaching Of The Magisterium that have become prohibited after Vatica
Where are the links to those documents that list those things that were once part of Tradition and The Teaching Of The Magisterium that have become prohibited after Vatican II, and on whose authority have these things become prohibited, certainly not Christ The King, for whom “every knee shall bend”.
Bishop Martin would make a good Episcopalian curate. He is certainly anti Roman Catholic.
BJ
Do you notice how the staunch defenders of communion in the hand and general lack of reverence in mass are all boomers. The Boomer Rite will die out shortly after they do. It’s just a matter of time. They failed to pass the faith on to their children and grandchildren. They sacked the churches and removed everything beautiful. They scorned catechesis and watered down every teaching so it would not offend. they took a hatchet to the mass and removed everything they could get away with. I guess I’m a lot younger than the rest of you and I am so sad that my spiritual heritage was stolen from me and hidden from me by you boomers. By God’s grace I found the tlm and all the aspects of the ancient faith that fell out of style in the cultural revolution of the 60s. Buy your fruits you shall know it. The church is dying because of the changes to the Mass, the world is dying because of changes to the church. Changes that Vatican II never too never called for.
Short history lesson: Boomers get blamed for a lot of things and much is deserved. However, the oldest boomers (born 1946) didn’t turn 21 (the legal voting age at the time – reduced to 18 in 1971) until 1967. Vatican II ended in 1965. Who were the bishops, priests and laity who “implemented” the reforms? It was the Greatest Generation and the Silent Generation. By the time most Boomers were adults the train wreck was already well underway. I know when we see famous film of events like Woodstock it is young boomers, but a lot of older folks also gulped the Kool-Aid of the 60s.
Amen to this my friend
I, too, feel robbed. (Millennial here)
For example, the architecture of most parish churches in the US: odd, unappealing, too open, stripped bare. All the elements that make modern architecture so offensive to the senses. Never before has a civilization built deliberately ugly buildings (until the 20th century!), but somehow that was allowed to pollute our cities starting in the 50s. What’s more, it was given free rein in our churches, where we actually house The Lord. It’s shocking, really.
And these barren, concrete, angular blueprints have been replicated again & again in every parish…it seems like they really gained steam in the 70s. It’s not like these were works of some rogue architect—someone approved these plans. To say nothing for the abstract crucifixes in some parishes…which are so deeply offensive because they contradict the Incarnation.
I always delighted in any visits to cathedrals; I longed for them. My generation is starved of beauty.
Bravo. Exactly. I like traditional church architecture myself and agree with you.
Have you ever visited the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Washington DC? Beautiful. Especially inside. This church managed to make the church traditional while using contemporary materials. Stone, beautiful mosaics. Many side altars to Our Lady. Its located by the entrance to Catholic University, and is one of the 10 largest Cathedrals in the world. There is an amazing gigantic mosaic of Jesus on the vaulted ceiling above the main altar. You can walk around for a few hours or take the free (I think) guided tour. The tour was comprehensive and very good. Worth taking in if your travels take you to Washington DC.
No, but I’ll add it to my list! There are some beautiful cathedrals in the US. Even the smaller missions that Fr. Junipero Serra founded in CA were beautiful. There are some famous churches (not cathedrals) in Central Texas known as the Painted Churches of Texas. In the 19th century, German, Polish, and Czech immigrants tried to replicate the beautiful churches of their homeland. They’re masterpieces inside. They’re not huge, but they’re objectively beautiful, sacred spaces.
That’s the story of so many older churches in America…hard-working immigrants donated significant amounts of money and time to build a beautiful place of worship. It was that important to them. I think another poster mentioned St. John Cantius in Chicago…absolutely stunning; also funded by Polish immigrants.
Even if they weren’t wealthy (and they weren’t), by having a beautiful church where they could worship the Lord, I imagine they felt pretty rich every time they left Mass.
Many of those beautiful ornate buildings are in disrepair and are not cost effective to operate. Many dioceses are struggling and ate closing them because they have become unaffordable.
Really?? A roof is a roof and point work is point work. A furnace is a furnace. Stripping a church of any inspirational art , architecture or beauty is simply not the way to go. My mothers church looks like a city office building lobby and inspires nothing at all. The tabernacle is a VERY ugly wooden box on a pedestal to the side of the altar. If you like Vatican 2 churches, enjoy. But I think most of the rest of us will skip the experience. And I dont frankly think cost really enters into this.
I’ve read that shifting demographics are part of the problem. Children & grandchildren of the original parishoners in older ethnic neighborhoods moved out to the suburbs back in the 1960’s.
Even so, I agree that beauty is important. There’s no reason architectural features of inner city churches being abandoned couldn’t be repurposed into newer ones. I’ve seen photos of massive churches built in the 1800’s-early 1900’s that are slowly decrepitating & their interiors falling to ruin. It’s really distressing & wasteful.
I see your point, but how have centuries-old churches in Europe made it? Not just the famous ones, but the smaller churches in villages throughout Europe.
Just riffing here, but is part of the issue that priests get moved around too frequently? If one were more attached to, say, a struggling historic church, could he better bring the repair issues to light? Could each diocese direct some funds to its historic churches? Could outsiders send donations more easily? Could each diocese make its expensive older church the seat of some ministry?
Just trying to think of ways nurture a vibrant parish life instead of shuttering & demolishing our history one church at a time.
Remember, the finances have been ravaged by the payouts and also there are not enough priests coming up into the ranks.
1964 Baby Boomer here. You have to put the timelines in context, please. In the 50s and 60s we were recovering from a major world war, where we saved freedom from the Nazis and starting two more. It was a time of readjustment and tremendous economic growth, which resulted in the creation of the middle class. The country was still in the building phase. Many of these parishes couldn’t afford the buildings they did build, and the priests and bishops grew up during the depression and on war rationing coupons.
Don’t forget, Jesus preached in the dust probably much more than in the temple.
I neglected to mention providing a catholic education to all the baby boom kids was more important than just the church building. How much would you borrow to spend in those post war times when you were paying the nuns almost nothing to educate your children? The priests didn’t make much either. The school building probably was needed as well.
Mr. Beaulieu above (9:46 a.m.) – The Truce of 1968 – Why did Paul VI not stand behind Washington Archbishop O’Boyle’s attempted disciplining of his 19 priests’ dissent from Humanae Vitae?
We’re still reaping the “benefits”.
Yours is the really Big Question, “Why did Paul VI not stand behind Washington Archbishop O’Boyle…? Yes, the ancient wisdom: “a stitch in time saves nine.”
To venture one possibility—in 1972 on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, Pope Paul VI made the remark, “the smoke of Satan has entered the Church.” Rather than possibly weak governance or distraction, maybe in 1968 he accurately read the “signs of the times” that things already were so unraveled that he feared creating false martyrs for the insurrection. Just a guess…
St. John Paul II entered the fray in 1979-1985 with his catechesis on “the Theology of the Body” and more broadly in 1993 with his Veritatis Splendor which clarifies that one can turn against God in individual concrete actions—that the whitewash Fundamental Option or the bundling of Proportionalism and Consequentialism (the bad apple in the barrel) are all falsehoods.
The daunting challenge of re-evangelization, today, is partly how to deflate the juggernaut of indifferent Technocracy and Consumerism of all kinds. Can we connect the dots between Hiroshima and Auschwitz, between contraceptive pills and abortion, between gender theory and child mutilation, and even between the techy miniaturization of Auschwitz and the home medicine cabinet/morning-after pills?
And, within the Church, can we retain the difference between a crescendo of townhall meetings and a distinct “synod of bishops”—within the Apostolic Succession connected to the hands and touch of the incarnate Jesus Christ? A sobering dose of St. Augustine and now a collegial and recurring “consistory of cardinals” is at least intriguing…
I am 61. Raised Jewish, and was baptized at 25. While I attended English mass for decades, I discovered the latin mass about 5 years ago at St. John Cantius in chicago. What a difference. Truly the mystery of God is present. While the local parishes dwindle in attendance and close/combine, my church pews are packed with young people and families. Quite often I can tell some worshippers are tourists/ visitors and i will engage them in conversation after mass. Each and everyone of them express the desire for something like this at their local parishes. We should be encouraging the practices the engage our young people to stay with the church, not those that drive them away.
I was a Latin Rite altar boy. I well remember my parish with an altar rail and padded kneeling area along the altar rail. Our old pastor was quite efficient and quick distributing communion to the congregation. Faster than the current practice. When the V2 change came, many of the old people were not happy, but what could they do? The old pastor would publicly go along with various V2 directives, but privately was a little bitter about it.
Sir, I’ve never been except as an infant and maybe at my baptism. That’s a good point that it can actually be more “efficient” the old way. There are several seconds waiting for the soul ahead of you to be on their way, especially with our aging parishioners.
Yes. One member of my family member worked as an efficiency expert during the rapid growth and development of factories during and after WWII. Efficiency experts would analyze tasks and processes in order to determine the most efficient way to complete tasks and manufacture products.
We could devise an experiment: Is one way more efficient than another? Compare the time it takes for Communion lines to process to the priest as he waits for each person to arrive, position himself in kneel or bow, say his “Amen,” receive, then move away so the next communicants could arrive, kneel or bow, say their “Amens,” receive, then move away… Compare that with the priest moving along a line of people waiting in place at the altar rail, kneeling, without speaking “Amen,” in place. Add in the lag time for the priest walking back to the other end of the rail.
I’m betting that altar rail receipt takes less time. Efficiency is in my genes.
I think there was a movie called “The efficiency expert” set in the 1960s but filmed in the early 90s
The crux of the matter is this: does worshipping God require solemnity?
Is the emotional, theatrical rave of the typical Protestant megachurch (which clearly evolved from tent revivals where people did whatever, whenever) greater than solemn ritual? Is that appropriate for the Catholic Church, where we receive the *actual* Body and Blood of Our Lord?
P.s. Shouting & dancing doesn’t equal worship. Also, solemnity doesn’t equal joylessness….solemnity is actually the greatest honor we can give with our person.
There was a tremendous amount of sacrifice prior to Vat II, by the faithful. They then were aghast after the changes they encountered. Baby Boomers often didn’t know guitar masses were new, when encountered in the 70s.
We should be immersed in prayer about these problems and not be having to contend with sudden improvident changes and forms of demeaning then trying to resolve everything after the fact. Paul admonishes the Corinthian worshipers. Have the Fathers of today been careful enough? Fully discerning?
1 Cor. 1:7, 10-14, etc.
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/1
Before Vatican II the sisters taught that when kneeling at the alter rail it was kneeling at GOD’s feet. When our cares were too heavy, we could lean on the railing. Leaning on the rail was leaning onto Christ’s lap.
The alter rail does not keep people away from GOD. It in fact brings people to the edge of altar. Since the removal of the altar rail how many times have you seen anyone kneel at the altar steps.
Has anyone noticed that when kneeling we are better able to concentrate than when we are standing.