No, Caravaggio & Rupnik Are Not the Same

The Rupnik sycophants are reeling as more and more religious sites and the Vatican expunge Rupnik from their properties and publications. The lengths they go to defend the man’s art are ridiculous and show a complete lack of charity and consideration to his victims. They just need to suck it up, apparently. In case you are not familiar with the charges against Rupnik, this is two of his more than 20 victims: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/256894/two-of-father-rupnik-s-alleged-victims-speak-publicly-for-the-first-time

First, Rupnik’s “art” is awful. There’s no depth to it and it looks as if mosaic art and anime came together to form works that could have been produced by a sixth-grader. It certainly doesn’t even come anywhere close to this: https://www.wondersofsicily.com/sicily-christ-pantocrator.htm

Now, people like Austen Ivereigh — who said he’s never, never, ever going to take down his Rupnik art — seem to ignore this, but Rupnik’s artwork was often created in an act of abuse. Or, perhaps, maybe that’s why they like it? He used the art to abuse women, and he used the abuse of women to create the art. They are monuments to abuse, not sacred art, and it’s completely agonizing for his many victims. This isn’t the same with Caravaggio. He didn’t actually fight or kill someone while he was painting.

And the latest lame attempt at comparison…”But Caravaggio was a sinner! Are we supposed to ditch all art created by sinners?!?!” Uh, we’re all sinners. That said, there are two kinds of sinners – unrepentant and repentant. Caravaggio spent his life contemplating the faith AND he also had issues. He availed himself of the sacraments and after killing a man, he spent the rest of his life seeking a papal pardon. https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2025/05/12/caravaggio-2025-radiant-in-the-darkness/  Does this somehow mirror the life of Rupnik? Rupnik actually was excommunicated for absolving an accomplice. He refused to cooperate with the Jesuits resulting in expulsion. And he has NEVER repented of any of this. He was even staying at a convent during the Vatican investigation. Insane. https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=64956 

If the Church wants to truly walk with abuse victims, the notorious abuser Rupnik’s artwork needs to be removed everywhere. Thankfully, it looks like Pope Leo XIV has taken the first step to correct the utter disaster the Vatican saddled him with when they didn’t act swiftly and decisively in the case of Rupnik and continued to let him trot around the world. Hopefully the rest will come down soon and Rupnik will be locked away, if at all possible.

Another James Martin, SJ Spiritual Face Plant

The ever hopeful me always hopes James Martin, SJ will slither back under a rock or repent. I guess it’s been a disappointing month for him, though, so I guess he’s joining Bishop Michael Martin (just something about that surname, I guess) in powering forward just in case he’s shut down completely.

Can Catholics celebrate Pride Month? Yes, and here’s why.

Outreach Original James Martin, S.J. / June 2, 2025

For the LGBTQ person, pride is not about vanity but about human dignity.

This article was originally posted on June 1, 2022. It has been updated.

As if this wasn’t a spiritual face plant the first go around, he’s decided to update it. Maybe it’ll contain an ounce of Church teaching now? Probably not. Let’s just start off by saying that sodomy and masturbation are an affront to human dignity. Dressing in BDSM attire is an affront to human dignity. Parading naked around little children is an affront to human dignity (and abusive to the dignity of the child, which is deserving of a millstone if one listened to the Lord). Accepting your sin or disorder as a good is an affront to human dignity. You know what’s not an affront to human dignity? Truth. But let’s just ignore that.

Can Catholics celebrate Pride Month, when the LGBTQ community marks its place in society?

“Marking their place in society”??? Are we referring to the urinating dudes at the “Pride” parades apparently trying to mark their territories? And, again, doing it in front of children? It’s demonic, father.

 Can Catholics celebrate the series of events that take place in June, during what is often now simply called “Pride”? 

“The series of events”??? Please. Go ahead and google “Pride Parades”, people. Nothing is simple. It’s downright disgusting. I have to bleach my brain every time I research this stuff. 

Can they do this when pride is one of the traditional seven deadly sins?

No. All done.

Isn’t it wrong to show pride?

“LGBTQ+ Pride” is always and everywhere wrong. For far too long we’ve had a month dedicated to the disordered lifestyle, dedicated to peoples’ personal sin. Thankfully it seems people are done being brow-beaten into accepting these “Pride” events.

First, it’s important to remember that there are (at least) two kinds of pride. The first is the satisfaction that can come from your own accomplishments. This can turn into vanity, which is something to avoid. That brand of pride says, “Look how great I am!” It’s the opposite of humility, a key virtue in the Christian life.

Umm…This is literally the “Pride” of which we are speaking. Only a proud person thinks that everyone needs to accept their disorder and sin. The same-sex attracted person humbling seeking God and His mercy doesn’t go to “Pride” parades. They go to Church. They seek to overcome their obstacles to that. They take up their cross. The rest? They demand we have “Pride Month.”

Humility reminds us that we are not the center of the universe and that our lives depend on God.

This is the OPPOSITE of what you teach. You teach that lives depend on acceptance of peoples’ actions. It does not.

 This is the kind of humility Jesus speaks of in the Beatitudes when he says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Mt. 5:3). So the first kind of pride can be a threat to humility, to discipleship and to the spiritual life overall.

Again, that’s the pride you promote. 

But the second kind of pride is a consciousness of one’s own dignity. And that’s closer to what Pride Month is meant to be for the LGBTQ community: a recognition of the human dignity of a group of people who have, for centuries been, treated with contempt, rejection and violence.

There’s no dignity in sodomy, masturbation or any other kind of sin. Our dignity comes from God, not our disorder and sinful acts. You’re stealing knowledge away from people. You’re lying to them. You’re not recognizing their dignity as a child of God. You’re telling them to cut themselves off from Him. When you’re conscious of your dignity as God’s creation, you aim towards Heaven. That’s what we wish for all of us. What we have contempt and rejection of, or at least we should, is sin that keeps our friends and family from this goal. We also have contempt and rejection of the actions of the bad actors that promote that disorder and sin comes from God. (That would be you in case you didn’t get it.)

For the religious person, this month is also a reminder that LGBTQ people are beloved children of God.

Most religious people don’t need that reminder, but you apparently do, for you don’t encourage them to reject their disordered desires and fall on his mercy. I guess you’re still telling people that we are so distant from homosexuality that we just hate people? Sorry. Most of us live in the world with homosexual co-workers, friends and family. You’re the one who tries to cause division between us by telling those suffering with SSA that we hate them and that we are martyring them because we cannot accept their lifestyle.

Pride Month reminds Catholics to treat LGBTQ people with the “respect, compassion and sensitivity” that the Catechism commands, the “closeness, compassion and tenderness” that Pope Francis has taught, and the love and mercy that Jesus showed to all people, especially those on the margins, during his public ministry.

The problem is, you don’t think this can be done with Truth. And as the saying goes, Jesus met all people where they were, but He didn’t leave them there. That’s what you are insisting we do. Leave them. You often boast about your long-term male friend “married” to a man. You’re going on decades now and I’m wondering he’s any closer to embracing dignity. It’s sad to think you’re just telling him “God’s good with your lifestyle because he made you this way.” What a lie! God has told us the penalty for embracing sin and rejecting his mercy. Why isn’t this high on your priority list? 

It’s especially important for churches to mark Pride Month since much of the rejection that LGBTQ people have faced has been motivated by Christianity—at least what many people think Christianity teaches. An example: One of the most common reasons for homelessness among LGBTQ teens is that they have been kicked out of their families for ostensibly religious reasons.

You never ever give specifics here. Did you ever think that some of these children are breaking every other rule of the house, too? Parenting is hard enough without you suggesting that parents are supposed to accept a lifestyle that is harmful to their children. “Not in my house” can be a perfectly loving rule in the grand scheme of eternal life and their physical health, which you never seem to point to. Some parents aren’t going to tolerate drug use in their house. Is that not loving? Tolerance of sin is a lie.

Churches have also been places where LGBTQ people have felt insulted, rejected and unwelcome, a result of the words and deeds of not only some bishops and pastors, but Catholic lay leaders and the faithful. So, it’s important for churches to mark Pride Month and remind our LGBTQ friends that they are welcome in what is, after all, their church, too.

Who is rejecting who? We all should welcome people who struggle against their personal sin as we are all called to do. Welcome! Come on in. You should not expect people to be acceptant of the sin itself, though, or of you embracing the sin. That’s contradictory to what Christ and his saints said. “Go and sin no more” was actually said by Christ. You only tell half of the story. Half truths aren’t truths at all. We’re called to admonish the sinner, no? And, yes, you can do that in a loving way despite what James Martin, SJ would have you think.

We also have to remember that in many countries, being LGBTQ is a life and death issue. In several countries, you can be executed simply for being gay or engaging in same-sex relations. In these places, LGBTQ issues are life issues.  In some 70 countries, you can be jailed for LGBTQ advocacy. And in many others, LGBTQ people are regularly harassed, assaulted or murdered. The church is called to stand with these persecuted people throughout the year, but especially during Pride Month.

Uh, no. I have to stand against murder of anyone, all the time. Nobody should be murdered, but for you to tie that to the readers of this article is ridiculous. “Homosexuals are being killed, therefore you have to rubberstamp all things LGBTQwhatever or you’re just like murderers (in Islamic countries I may add)!.” Would you agree with that statement? Seemingly so. It’s just another twist on your usual “whataboutisms.”

And just because you celebrate Pride Month doesn’t mean that you necessarily agree with what every person, every organization or even every float in every parade has to say.

It is tacit approval and support of a lifestyle that is harmful to them.

Using all of your spin: “Just because you celebrate the Women’s March doesn’t mean you’re for abortion.  I mean, they’re for killing babies and say so in every speech, but women are being killed in some countries so we should support this movement!”  That’s what it comes down to. “Pride” is not about human dignity. It’s about an immoral movement to make everyone accept a lifestyle contradictory to the Catholic Faith. And, seriously, are you saying that there’s nothing totally scandalous about your average “Pride” parade?

 Pride Month is mainly about supporting the fundamental human rights of the LGBTQ community: the right to live in safety, the right to be treated as equals, and the right to be fully welcome in society. 

…and for us to accept all of this or we’re complicit with any bad thing that happens to them. It isn’t the Catholics in the pews out killing homosexuals.  

Besides, complaints about the use of the word “pride” never seem to apply to other groups. People often say, “I’m proud to be an American” on the Fourth of July. Or they wear buttons that say “Proud to be Irish” on St. Patrick’s Day. Or when something wonderful happens in the church they tell their friends, “I’m so proud to be Catholic.” Few people object to that or would describe that as vanity. People generally understand the kind of pride that these people are talking about.

Let me spell it out for you: disordered tendencies do not equal race, nationality or Catholicism.

Another objection is marking Pride Month during the same month that Catholics celebrate the Month of the Sacred Heart. But, as I see it, the two are complementary, not contradictory. The Sacred Heart teaches us how Jesus loves; Pride Month reminds us whom Jesus invite us to love today. (I address that at greater length here.)

Love is a choice you make to will the good of another. One more time for those in the back. Sodomy and masturbation with no confession and contrition leads to perdition. That is not a good. It is not love. “Pride” and the Sacred Heart are completely contradictory. The former is the rejection of the latter.

Maybe read about the Sacred Heart devotion.

“My Divine Heart is so inflamed with love for men, and for you in particular that, being unable any longer to contain within Itself the flames of Its burning Charity, It must spread them abroad by your means, and manifest Itself to them (mankind) in order to enrich them with the precious graces of sanctification and salvation necessary to withdraw them from the abyss of perdition. I have chosen you as an abyss of unworthiness and ignorance for the accomplishment of this great design, in order that everything may be done by Me.”

I missed Christ telling us that it is necessary to go to a “Pride” event.

“My Divine Master revealed to me that it was His ardent desire to be known, loved, and honored by men, and His eager desire to draw them back from the road to perdition, along which Satan is driving them in countless numbers, that induced Him to manifest His Heart to men with all the treasures of love, mercy, grace, sanctification, and salvation that It contains.” https://www.churchpop.com/visions-of-the-sacred-heart-of-jesus-4-mystical-messages-to-saint-margaret-mary-alacoque/

Sadly, you would have them believe that there is no road to perdition. You’d have them believe all roads lead to salvation.

This year, pride celebrations worldwide may be more relevant than ever. For a number of reasons mainly political ones, some corporations have removed their yearslong sponsorship of pride events (both at work and in the public square);

Oh, no. How will they scandalize little children in public now? I could put a really gross list of the realities of “Pride” events but I won’t put anymore than I have already. I started typing it out and it was just too disgusting.

pride events are being scaled back out of fears of reprisals; the term “LGBTQ” has been labeled “DEI” and is therefore anathema in some quarters and there has been a increase in negative language (and actions) directed at transgender people.

Dude, even homosexuals are calling out “Pride” events as grooming fetish events. Yes, your days are numbered. And that’s really what all this is about – you.

This growing climate of fear can make LGBTQ people feel reluctant, discouraged or even frightened of participating in pride events.

Good! They should be afraid of losing their immortal souls.

Add to that some church leaders saying that pride events are inconsistent with Catholic values and it’s no wonder that many LGBTQ Catholics want simply to withdraw.

Those are great Church leaders. They care for souls. They don’t care about being the darling divas of a movement that’s keeping them on the road to perdition like you.

Maybe the best way to think about Pride Month is to imagine what you would say to a young person who finally summoned up the courage to tell you that they are LGBTQ. You know that God created them. You know that God loves them. And you know that God wants them to be who they are. So, you would probably say, “I am so proud of you for being able to say that.”

That’s the kind of pride we celebrate this month, and that Catholics worldwide can celebrate.

Happy Pride!>

Uh, this is all completely weaponized ambiguity. We are not our sin and proclivities. This is the part you always leave out. We are children of God made in His image and likeness. That’s who we are. Nobody is “LGBTQ.”   If we are in sin, God doesn’t want us to stay that way. He does not accept our sinful lifestyles any more than Christ did when he told people to repent and sin no more. The loving thing to say would be “Thanks for sharing your struggles with me. Let’s struggle together against sin so we can live eternal life with God.” I’m never going to say “God made you that way. Do as you will.” Would you say that to a drug addict??? Drug addiction is not James Martin, SJ’s favorite disordered tendency, so probably not. He just thinks some disorders should be embraced like a warm fuzzy blanket that won’t lead you to hell. This is why he’s trying to convince people that the claiming of “LGBTQ Catholic” is akin to a race or nationality. He doesn’t want them to overcome. He wants them to wallow. How about we all be Catholics trying to overcome our disorders, evil inclinations and sin as the Church tells us we must do to gain Heaven. Please note that this doesn’t mean they simply disappear. Overcome has a meaning. It means to succeed in dealing with a problem or difficulty. Confession, contrition and repentance along with the Sacraments is what people should be engaging in to do this, not celebrating “Pride Month.”

Blessed Month of the Sacred Heart!

 

 

Dissection of the GIRMaphobe

This might just be the thing that gets me off the blogging bench. This is so over the top I cannot resist. Sorry for the length but I did find all the correct citations from the documents he was alleging to cite so you don’t have to. At best he’s never read them and at worst he just thought you’d never check .

Quick background in case you’re one of the few who haven’t heard…This tale comes from the  Diocese of Charlotte, which had booming vocations and a Catholic population that doubled in size under Bishop Jugis’ care. He retired due to health issues and Bishop Martin was appointed. Martin obviously thinks that overhauling one of the dioceses with the best growth stats is the way to go. While the wisest would probably be studying this diocese and using it as a model, Bishop Martin is enough of a narcissist to think the opposite.

Before I get into this…

First, this has apparently been shelved in its entirety at this point. Also, you can tell it was written when Pope Francis was still around.  I think Pope Leo is also an unknown to them and they were afraid there wouldn’t be backing. If Bishop Martin were comfortable that he’d have Vatican backing, I’m sure he would have done it despite the protests. Lastly, this has ++Cupich Inc. all over it. I almost feel sorry for some of these bishops. They don’t understand they are the stooge that’s being used to float the insane. “We’ll let Martin try it. If he can get it through in Charlotte, we don’t have to worry about looking stupid.” Sorry, that would happen regardless.

So let’s look at this amazing piece of stupid. I mean, seriously, he was going for broke with this one. I’m sure he’s mighty upset it was leaked.

I will snip for brevity where I can but please see it in its entirety here. https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2025/05/rorate-exclusive-anti-traditional-and.html

“Go In Peace, Glorifying the Lord By Your Life”

A Pastoral Letter on the Celebration of the Liturgy in the Diocese of Charlotte

If peace means trying to drop a second nuclear bomb on the Diocese of Charlotte, I guess he achieved that goal.  “Pastoral” was the wrong adjective for this slop. Imagine if you had an adult son, who has his own very happy family, and you walk into his house and tell him how to manage his children and decorate his house under some sort of penalty. What do you think the reaction would be? Well, he’s finding out. This was draconian. Micromanaging at its finest all while telling us the priests shouldn’t put their “whims” on their flock. 99.9% of this rambling was the bishop’s whim and not found in Church teaching or direction. All that precious collegiality we heard whenever a liberal priest wanted to do something liberal goes out the window.

My brother priests,                                                                                                                                                                      

Since my appointment as the bishop of the Church of Charlotte, I have had the privilege of visiting many of our parish churches, schools, and communities. I am edified by the liturgical fervor of the majority of people that I have encountered throughout the diocese.

Translation: “I’m so edified by the liturgical fervor I’m going to change everything because, well, I want to.”

<snip>

The living liturgical life of the Church is a rich gift from Christ that he, in turn, entrusted to his Church. Its celebration is a responsibility that has been handed on to each of us according to our calling. The Second Vatican Council, seeking to lead the faithful into the revival of our understanding of the liturgical life and our participation in it, was profoundly wise in using three unambiguous words to describe our engagement: full, conscious, and active (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 14). These words must resonate in every action of the disciple who desires to engage in the building up of the Kingdom and the mission of the Church, which is to promote human dignity, proper worship, compassionate assistance to the marginalized, and proclamation of the Good News. As the ancient expression reminds us, “as we pray, so we believe.” I would like to add that “as we believe,” so we act in all dimensions of the human experience. In whatever areas of life we are engaged, we must be full, conscious, and active as evidenced by Our Lord and the holy men and women who have gone before us (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 10). These three words taken together are the heart and foundation of my following reflections and instructions on the sacred liturgy in our diocese.

Said by the man who’s about to contradict a whole lot of Sacrosanctum Concilium. He’s just betting most won’t bother reading.

Every member of the Church has experienced a different road along the same path of salvation. Along the way, each of us can give into preferences regarding certain elements and tastes in the life of prayer and worship. 

“And when I mean “we” I really mean “me” but I’m going to say it’s you.

In itself, personal appreciation for one or another thing that has personally drawn us closer to Christ is not wrong. It is also good to acknowledge the beauty in legitimate diversity as it expresses itself in different times and cultures throughout the world.

Legitimate diversity is what he says it is. If he doesn’t like it, it’s bad diversity.  I always have to laugh at the culture angle because if you look at someone like Cardinal Sarah, they have a very different take on it.

I am an African. Let me say clearly: the liturgy is not the place to promote my culture. Rather, it is the place where my culture is baptised, where my culture is taken up into the divine. Through the Church’s liturgy (which missionaries have carried throughout the world) God speaks to us, He changes us and enables us to partake in His divine life.  https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2016/07/cardinal-sarah-on-incorporation-of.html

I love how some bishops think they are the guardian of “legitimate diversity” rather than listening to those they’re fighting for. I got whiplash reading this whole thing because “we must have diversity”/”we must be unified” ran through the whole thing. Make up your mind, man!

Different people and eras have rightfully developed certain ways of praying and worshipping. However, personal preferences among the clergy tend more and more to make the worship of the Church “ours,” rather than the work of the Holy Spirit. 

But you’re about to do this very thing! You are about to “our” it to death. Forbidding things that are optional, things that are directed in Sacrosanctum Concilium, things outside the Mass, and some that even follow the rubrics found in the GIRM, is you trying to make the Mass your own personal sandbox. You want to point out where someone isn’t following the rubrics of the Mass, go right ahead. You want to change everything to what you’d like, admit you’re doing what you are accusing others of doing.

When we allow worship to be the work of the Holy Spirit, it unifies the Church, but when we celebrate the liturgy according to our own likes and partialities it causes division.

What he really means is that if he likes it, naturally it’s the work of the Holy Spirit. If he dislikes it, it’s from satan.

To be united in the mission of the Church, which is to evangelize all peoples, we must place our own preferences aside.

Dude! The diocese you took over was doing that tremendously. Maybe you ought to just stop and learn a lesson or two from Bishop Jugis. He did the evangelizing thing pretty darn well.

 Those who enter our churches to worship God are at different places in their spiritual journey. In fact, some enter having never experienced God’s sacramental economy lived through the celebration of the liturgy. If we desire to impart the life of the Church to all, we must shed the personal elements that only resonate with the few in order to give witness to the broader needs of the Body of Christ.

Only resonate with a few??? Again, that diocese had doubled doing these things. I cannot wait to get down to the part where you list the items that are wrong, personal and nobody, i.e. you, likes. If you were right, you wouldn’t have to misquote the the heck out of all your citations.

As the bishop of the Diocese of Charlotte, it falls to me, too, to set my own preferences aside to be in communion with our Holy Father, Pope Francis, and my brother bishops. Together, we must discern the signs of the times as well as the particular and unique dynamics throughout the Diocese of Charlotte and the Southeast.

Again, are you this full of yourself that you cannot see the dynamic diocese it was before you walked into it? You’re just trying to dumb it down to all the failing dioceses. Why? Because people who might walk in our doors are just too stupid to understand? This is where Bishop Jugis got it very right. Don’t treat people like they are stupid.

 In this process, there are no particularities that would allow any of us to contravene the magisterium of the Church or the rich tradition that has been handed down to us. No theologian, pastor, blogger/podcaster, religious congregation, or well-intentioned pious layperson can claim this role for himself or herself. Ultimately, as the moderator of the liturgy in this diocese (Sacrosanctum Concilium, para. 41) and chief liturgist (Ceremonial of Bishops), I must exhort each of us to live this life of prayer and worship to which we are called. May this letter be one that I pray you will receive in the spirit of our shared vocation to serve the common good.

You’re about to contravene even the GIRM as well as Sacrosanctum Concilium and probably some Canon Law somewhere. Again, read what the Church teaches. Here’s what he’s saying he’s relying on to impose tyrannical sanctions just for fun.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

The teaching Church has richly blessed us through the centuries with countless exhortations, instructions, and decrees in order to instruct the faithful in an understanding of her role as a sanctifying Church. 

Sadly, it seems, you missed or misread many of those.

 Indeed, the Holy Spirit was at work in the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, which has a primacy in our day for understanding the foundation for all the teachings that have come since. I ask all of us to reacquaint ourselves with Sacrosanctum Concilium, the “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” which is of utmost importance and from which so much of the Church’s liturgical life flows. I would never attempt to place my words in this document among the tremendous treasure of the teachings of the Council Fathers, nor is it my intention to highlight and comment on every part of our liturgical life.

Oh my gosh!  You do just that repeatedly. You spent a lot of time poorly paraphrasing and cherry picking and commented on a whole lot of liturgical life. 

<snip>

Liturgical Rubrics and Texts

In the celebration of the sacred liturgy, it is widely accepted that ordained ministers or, in their absence, lay ecclesial ministers who preside over the rites are to do so according to the rights and responsibilities that belong to them.

It is also necessary, at times, that the pastoral nature of the liturgy requires modifications to these rites within the norms of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. 

Who’s not doing what correctly? Are these really “modifications” or options?

These particular pastoral modifications on one occasion, though, should never become the ongoing practice in a place or community without the express permission of the bishop.

I would think a priest should not make modifications to anything except as stated in the GIRM, on grammar. Nowhere else does it say modifications must be made.  They should and can within their responsibilities and duties allow/make options according to their pastoral need. And the bishop can add a couple of options. And in no place does it say one option has to be chosen over another at every Mass. Nowhere. Your use of “modifications” of anything except the one allowed is a re-write of the GIRM.

Ministers must never forget that the words, actions, and selections they choose are always within the context of a celebration that is greater than themselves.

By “greater than themselves”, you mean you?

 As such, these same choices should never be subject to the whims of their own preferences that can sometimes be present in the Church. It is unjust that the worshipping congregation should be subject to such a wide range of differences depending on who celebrates the Mass or which parish they attend.

Why do you insist that using an option given to them for pastoral reasons is a “whim?” Because you don’t like the choice of said option?

Ministers must keep in mind the necessity to remain in communion with the larger presbyterate and the local bishop for the sake of those who come to us from all over and those who will come after we are gone.

Oh, good. Let’s just go back to the Latin so we can be in communion with those from all over or those who will come after us when we are gone. You know, all of us from all over the world could be doing it in communion. Heck, they could even go to the Ordinary or Extraordinary Form and understand it.  Don’t you love it when they make the case for Latin without realizing it? Of course, some are suddenly stuttering and stammering “No! Not that much communion! Only as much communion as I want!”  Talk about whims. Again, options are options. I can’t wait to read further and see if he banned all Eucharistic Prayers but #2.

At some places in our diocese, there tends to be a recurring tendency to attempt a reclamation of the rubrics, actions, and sensibilities of the Missal of 1962 or pre-Vatican liturgical customs and to implement them in the celebration of the Novus Ordo Missae.

This can also extend to art, architecture, and other liturgical and “para liturgical” celebrations.

Pre-Vatican II art  and architecture is now bad?  This is just a hint as to the laundry list he formed. If anything was found to be resembling something from the pre-Vatican II days, it’s awful and will lead your soul to perdition! It doesn’t matter that it’s allowed, encouraged, the last 4 popes have done it. It’s bad, bad, bad.

Of lesser prevalence here locally but causing an equal amount of disappointment are those ministers who continue to use the Novus Ordo Missae as a type of living dynamic that can expand or contract at their own discretion.

He literally just described the choice of the Eucharistic Prayers. Yes, your Excellency, there are options within the liturgy.

 This troubling dynamic fails to envision the liturgy as the noble work of the entire Church (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 7/4) but degrades it as a personal tool amid a cultural tug-of-war that is reminiscent of what is present in our country today. As we all cry out for our civil leaders to get beyond personal gain and partisanship for the sake of working for the common good, we can all too often fall prey to the same binary modalities.

What is he babbling about? Anyone? I feel like now he’s just making the argument for the traditionalists. Seems a little rigid to me. LOL! He just said we must be in communion with everyone which literally entails in most dioceses having Masses in multiple different languages, but cultural tug-of-wars are bad? Do they read what they write?

It is my thought that when we find ourselves in challenging or uncertain times, it can be an easy refuge to grab hold of the past or push forward to an undetermined future as a safe haven.

Your Excellency, grab hold of what works. Again, your diocese doubled under Bishop Jugis. DOUBLED while other places are hemorrhaging.

We tend to preface our decision making with phrases such as, “If only our Church went back to…,” or “If only the Church would adapt to….” 

Or, for probably the 10^th time, why not do what has been shown to work? There isn’t “if only” coming out of your diocese. There is “This has worked well to bring people into the Church!” You just seem to lack the humility to see it. Also, why is it you seem to think everything from the past is bad? Again, who really wants the diocese to be a personal sandbox rather than one that continues to double over the next decade?

 Far from delivering us from the anxiety we wish to escape, it only reinforces its own necessity to cling to this or that, further drawing us away from a real encounter with the true life of Jesus that is exemplified in his Incarnation and communicated to us through the faithful celebration of the liturgy. 

And you want everyone to cling to what you want. You had diversity there but again, whiplash.  You had faithful celebration of the liturgy.

Whether my observation of the rationale for these tendencies among the Church’s ministers is accurate or not, it is the way it is perceived among the faithful.

Who are you speaking of when you say faithful? Everyone sitting in the pews? The ones who are actually faithful (meaning those who believe in the teachings of the Church in their entirety)? Maybe find the ones who don’t questions the teachings of the Church on abortion, euthanasia, birth control, women priests, etc., etc., etc. and find out what they think? My bet is that they liked the way it was going just fine no matter which form they embraced. The list you provide below doesn’t scream harmful or detrimental to our faith.

 When someone embraces liturgical tendencies that harken to the liturgical life of the Church prior to the Second Vatican Council or of a Church yet to come – even when done with the best and holiest of intentions –, it communicates to the faithful that the Novus Ordo in itself does not have the power or capacity of transmitting the full gift of God’s sacramental work and graces.

We cannot deny that there are some people who believe that “Novus Ordo” is deficient. We also cannot deny that there are a whole lot of other people who think the teachings of the Church can be accepted or rejected at will. That doesn’t affect my salvation in the least. Reverence towards God does. What’s ironic is that in your diocese you had diocesan priests ordained under Vatican II who were saying both forms in parish churches. I hardly think they were getting up and preaching out against either pre or post Vatican II. But now? Now you’re sequestering them in a bunker away from everyone else. Yup, that’s going to promote unity. I’ve seen that work a thousand times.

Even if that unspoken message is not the minister’s intention, it is communicated clearly when members of Christ’s faithful are exhorted to either reclaim components that some believe were unfortunately discarded for the sake of novelty, or when they are exhorted to embrace pastoral creativity

Wait. What? What in the heck is “pastoral creativity?” That’s a loaded phrase.  I’ve seen a lot of “pastoral creativity” in my day and it never had to do with following the rubrics. You’ve been right every time you’ve said “whim” but you’re aiming your gun at the wrong perpetrator.

as the right of the celebrant to make the liturgy somehow more relevant.

Mass is where we worship Our Lord. Mass is not a conference aimed at the attendee. Maybe the homily is the problem, not the Mass. If you want to make the liturgy more relevant to the lives of the people in the pews, focus on sin, building virtues, etc., not gloves and bells. (I’m giving away a plot twist.)

What is more, many of these extremes to one side or another bring about a contradiction to the Second Vatican Council that desired a greater engagement of the faithful. Full, conscious, and active participation is best experienced when one experiences the same liturgy celebrated from celebrant to celebrant and parish to parish.

Then, again, why any Spanish, Korean, Tagalog, etc., Masses? You really can’t have it both ways. 

Throughout the Church, there still remain celebrants who deviate from the text of the liturgy, lamentably inserting or changing the words of the liturgical prayers where no such latitude is intended or given.  The faithful who have grown accustomed to the rhythm and rhyme of prayers and dialogues that have been handed down for generations are then jarred by the celebrant’s own words, rather than the words of the Church. While the intention is often to make the moment clearer or more related to the particular celebration, it can easily cloud that moment and leave the congregation moved from participating actively in the liturgy to listening passively to the minister’s invention or worse, doubting the validity of the celebration. To preside over a liturgy is to provide a model and example of prayer. Intentionally inserting or changing one word where the rubrics give no indication that the celebrant can do so is no more or less unfaithful to the spirit of the liturgy than changing or inserting entire texts or phrases. 

Wait, are we cracking down on that? I’m all for it. Is he also going after the orans posture and the hand holding?

Adding texts and responses to the Mass is not always on the part of the minister. It can also lamentably come from the congregation. The introduction by the faithful of certain exclamations after the showing of the Host and the Chalice after their consecration is absent in the rubrics of the Mass and completely inappropriate. The only responses indicated by the Missal are the responses to “The mystery of faith.” It does not call for the faithful to call out, “My Lord and my God.” If the faithful desire to utter some pious acclamation, they are welcome to do so from their heart and silently. Pious practices of some people do not need to spread as communal responses of all the faithful. I have confidence that priests can properly instruct the faithful that they are to adore the Eucharistic species in silence at the moment they are shown to the people. This needs to be addressed more in Hispanic communities where this has unfortunately become prevalent.

I once went to a church in a diocese on vacation that donated the last few lines of the homily every week to a small section of the GIRM.  Maybe you should do that. That said, it will probably come back on you. 

<snip>

The Latin Language

One of the desires expressed by the Second Vatican Council was to embrace the vernacular language in our liturgies as an intelligible vessel through which the faithful may better comprehend the mysteries of the faith. 

Here’s where suggesting Sacrosanctum Concilium is going to come back to bite him. You don’t get to cherry pick.

In my experience here in the Diocese of Charlotte, I have encountered a frequent and prevalent use of the Latin language in our parish liturgies. Latin is used from place to place for various and different motivations. Some have employed its use as a safeguard against what I have addressed above: textual innovation and abuse. However, the faithful’s full, conscious, and active participation is hindered wherever Latin is employed. (emphasis mine)

I missed that in Sacrosanctum Concilium. Also, as a mom of many, it’s a load of hooey. You teach your kids to speak. You teach your kids to read and write, you can teach them the Latin for what’s said at every Mass they attend for what you hope is the rest of their lives. And, guess what? You are capable of learning to translate it really fast, too. Here’s what Sacrosanctum Concilium actually says, despite the bishop’s opinion on it.

 

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

 

 54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

 

Nevertheless steps should be taken so 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.

And everyone who’s taught their children anything knows that singing makes it easier. There’s a reason we sing the ABC’s.

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.

Uh, maybe get a nice translation booklet or piece of paper. No, it’s not unattainable and hardly fallacious. And, hello, half of our language is based on it. Why was Sacrosanctum Concilium such a good thing a moment ago and now he’s ignoring it??? Maybe this all has to do with, like me, he is not a linguist and it’s more of a challenge than he would like. Maybe he’s pronunciation is as bad as mine. Whatever it is, he is wrong.

 Our ancestors “heard” the Mass in Latin every Sunday but never understood it. Their experience was the reason that the Council asked the entire Church to welcome the use of the vernacular languages (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 32.2).

 Uh, at best he’s citing this wrong because there is no 32.2.  I think he’s likely trying to cite what I cited above.  That said, he’s not quoting it for a reason. The reason is:

“the use of the Latin language is to be preserved”          

How in heaven’s name does this translate into “Latin should be ditched because y’all too stupid.”?

 I find it disturbing that so many pastors and celebrants are inclined to force an unknown language on their congregation when the Lord’s mission is to engage the lost. The Church’s teaching on evangelization and missionary efforts cry to us for sensitivity on the part of pastoral leaders to engage people where they are to bring them to Christ. Full, conscious, and active participation in a liturgy that uses Latin would require each person to learn the Latin language, which is an impossible request. So many of our faithful simply walk away when they don’t understand the language and then miss out on the other beautiful aspects of the liturgical celebration.>

OK, let’s say a church has been gutted of all Latin, why wouldn’t it be possible to slowly teach them?  Start with “Oremus!” and the people in the pews are highly intelligent enough to see it in the missalette. Maybe stop talking down to people? As I said, saying the Ordinary week after week makes it easier to follow the Latin. Your line of thinking is what actually led to the disunity. We’ve got everyone attending the Mass of the language they like except Latin? The idea that people sat in the pews and knew nothing before Vatican II is silly. Most had a missal which had English on one side and Latin on the other.  My mom went to “the French School” and knew neither Latin nor French at 5 years-old but walked out of that school learning how to read, write, speak French and Latin. So please don’t tell me when you read the same thing week after week you can’t understand.

And if you’re going to throw out the old canard of “If you’re reading you aren’t praying”, then what the heck are you doing when you read the prayers of the consecration? Hmmm???  Or your breviary?  (If you actually use it.) Oops. Also, again, music makes it all the easier.  If we had read more into Sacrosanctum Concilium as you did, we would be far more united. Hispanic, Korean, etc., could all worship together. You all ditching Sacrosanctum Concilium totally ruined that.

The Latin language, no doubt, holds a special and official role within the Latin Church (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 32.1)

Again, wrong citation. It says something, however, way more than that. It says it must be preserved. It also says it should be used for the Ordinary (or parts that we say at every Mass that remain the same).

 In fact, all official texts, documents, and ritual books are published in Latin as the editio typica from which the vernacular translations are derived. The Church even exhorts that the Latin language be studied in seminaries and theological studies (cf. John XIII, Veterum sapientiae). The Church does not, however, call for the Latin language to be used widely in the liturgy. 

He’s either ignorant or lying. I clearly stated what the Church said above.

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. 

This is soooo silly. I’m not sitting around conversing or reading in Latin. I’m actually not much of a linguist at all as I’ve said before. I was, after a few months of reading the prayers of the Mass side by side, able to sing them without problem and know what I’m saying. Might I recommend this to you, Bishop? https://ignatius.com/mass-of-vatican-ii-mv2p/ There are similar translations for the Extraordinary Form, too.

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.

See story of Mom above. That said, I’m not sure I actually remember anyone trying to impose an all-Latin Mass on anyone. This is quite the red-herring. I attend a Mass in Latin that literally is a melting pot. People straight from Mexico, Poland, Ethiopia, etc.  They would be offended by this notion. (We have the best potlucks, just sayin’.)   

Some who desire the use of Latin can point to a few documents of the Church to justify their selections and personal preferences. While the Church makes clear that we still embrace the Latin ritual patrimony, these choices to introduce Latin are not pastorally sensitive. 

You aren’t really the best judge of pastoral sensitivity. At the rate we are going, you’re running out of priests to say the 25 different languages of all the immigrants. What are you going to do then? Nobody should go to Mass? Again, Latin provides a haven to all. Ignoring Sacrosanctum Concilium, as many of you have done, is going to lead to a lot of problems. Well, it already has since you’ve placed people in linguistic bunkers of all sorts. Please don’t point to the Latin loving folks and say they are the problem with unity when those who ignored Sacrosanctum Concilium actually turned us into Babylon.

I understand the majority of Masses in our diocese are being celebrated in the vernacular. However, there are several places that are introducing Latin Mass responses, Latin Ordinary chants, Latin antiphons, and even the Memorial Acclamation and Our Father. Latin polyphony and motets are being sung at the Offertory and during the distribution of Holy Communion. All these parts are rendered less engaging by the use of Latin (USCCB, Music in Catholic Worship, 51b). A place for using Latin in the liturgy would be, to name a few examples, a specific gathering of scholars, clergy, or those trained in classical music. This is not the reality in our parishes and communities. (emphasis mine)

 OH. THE. HORRORS! We can teach people a new catchy hymn by Hillsong week after week but we can’t teach them the Kyrie, Agnus Dei, Sanctus and Pater Noster? Oh, OK.  Hate to tell you but those are, for whatever reason, trotted out at the local parishes every Lent. Nobody has a coronary. This is insanely snobby of you, Your Excellency. I have no college degree. Not a scholar nor trained in classical music.

The use of Latin in our parishes fosters two unacceptable tendencies. The first is a rejection of the Novus Ordo Missae. 

Joke’s on you. There are more than one Latin Mass of Vatican II’s out there. I have no rejection of Vatican II as you can tell by my knowledge of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Neither do my children.

When Latin is used in our parishes, other elements of the Missal of 1962 are always interwoven into it.

Such as? Please. Since you’re so knowledgeable.

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:

Oh my gosh.  Really? Could we stop fostering hatred and fear of not just our fellow Catholics across town but our parishioners? We do people always have to resort to race-baiting or classism?

 those who understand and those who do not understand.

What am I to think of those who go to the local Korean Mass then? What about the occasional Spanish Mass I catch when illness in the houses keeps me from my normal parish, etc? Just stop.

Fosters a clericalism that is unacceptable because, sadly, the priests are those who are more likely to understand while the faithful remain left out.

Did I miss Bishop Jugis forcing people to go to Latin Mass?  You’re trying to solve (and by that I mean create) a problem that didn’t exist.

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.

You’ve failed to prove this in any way. It might be because you have a warped definition of full, conscious and active participation.

Cross-Pollination of the Liturgical Rites

Like the unfortunate importing of Latin into the Mass,

You mean the Latin that was NEVER supposed to leave?  Don’t let him tell you what Vatican II said about that. I’ve cited the document he’s been referring to during this whole dreary exercise. 

 the faithful are being exposed to different ritual elements that are not part of the Novus Ordo Missae.

You mean the “orans posture” which is theologically incorrect?!  So glad you’re dealing with this, Your Excellency. Oh, not what you were going for? Boo.

Not only are our faithful coming to our churches to find the language of certain parts unintelligible, but also find some parts of the Mass celebrated differently. In certain places, the faithful have been told that it is better to receive the Holy Eucharist kneeling, on the tongue, from the priest, and even at an altar rail. While the Church clearly gives the option to the communicant to receive in the hand or on the tongue, teaching that one way or the other is “better” completely undermines a proper theology of sacramental grace. Some may advocate for the right of the communicant or the personal piety of the individual, but our role as pastoral leaders is to unite our flocks in a common prayer and ritual action. For this reason, the USCCB has established, with Rome’s approval, a normative posture for Holy Communion, which is standing after having bowed one’s head (GIRM n. 160). To instruct the faithful that kneeling is more reverent than standing is simply absurd. It would be equally absurd for another to instruct that prostrating oneself for Holy Communion is more reverent than kneeling. This reminds me of what my Novice Master taught us years ago: “Don’t try to be holier than Holy Mother Church.” Our instructions and catechesis will always reflect from this point forward that all options to receive Holy Communion are equally reverent. Moreover, no minister may ever instruct that it is better to receive Holy Communion from a priest than an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. All our catechesis about the Holy Eucharist needs to be anchored in the Church’s teaching on sacramental efficacy: ex opere operato. The grace received from the sacrament does not depend upon the posture of the communicant or from whom it is received.

He just thinks you’re stupid. Standing is the norm and kneeling is an option, but nobody can be denied communion for this either way. I go to a church that employs a kneeling rail.  I’ve literally never heard the Pastor say a word on this. People have always done it. Those who choose to stand, for whatever reason, do so and receive Communion with no problem. We all know the norm but zero people sit around and judge people or even pay attention. And, funny enough, all he said that is wrong, wrong, wrong was encouraged by Pope Benedict XIV. He made that the norm for Papal Masses. But, you know, what did that guy know??? 

There are many characteristics of “blending” aspects of the pre-Conciliar Mass with the Novus Ordo Missae which communicates the erroneous message that the Mass is not sufficient in itself to be a channel of the graces of Calvary in their fullness. Several parishes have removed the use of lay Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and introduced altar rails.

None of that is forbidden in the rubrics at all. Not one thing. I wonder if you were freaking out as much when altar girls were introduced without permission? No? Regardless, employing extraordinary ministers or altar girls was never the norm.

These decisions frustrate the ability of the faithful to receive Holy Communion under both species, a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet.

Uh, that’s not a norm or mandate in any shape or form. Fuller sign doesn’t mean mandated. It is an allowance and there is no less grace received under one species. Are you explaining the below to the people in front of you? I mean, they probably know that because Bishop Jugis but, still. From the GIRM:

Communion under Both Kinds

281. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.[105]

282. Sacred pastors should take care to ensure that the faithful who participate in the rite or are present at it are as fully aware as possible of the Catholic teaching on the form of Holy Communion as set forth by the Ecumenical Council of Trent. Above all, they should instruct the Christian faithful that the Catholic faith teaches that Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament, is received even under only one species, and consequently that as far as the effects are concerned, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any of the grace that is necessary for salvation.[106]

They are to teach, furthermore, that the Church, in her stewardship of the Sacraments, has the power to set forth or alter whatever provisions, apart from the substance of the Sacraments, that she judges to be most conducive to the veneration of the Sacraments and the well-being of the recipients, in view of changing conditions, times, and places.[107] At the same time, the faithful should be encouraged to seek to participate more eagerly in this sacred rite, by which the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is made more fully evident.

283. In addition to those cases given in the ritual books, Communion under both kinds is permitted for

Priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate Mass;

The deacon and others who perform some duty at the Mass;

Members of communities at the conventual Mass or “community” Mass, along with seminarians, and all who are engaged in a retreat or are taking part in a spiritual or pastoral gathering.

The diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups. The diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason.

Back to Bishop Martin. 

In addition to these two decisions is the tendency in some of these same parishes to exclude female altar servers.

As I said before, this was never a mandate. It was an allowance after an abuse.  And, yes, the exclusion encourages vocations. And the allowance? It gives false hope that someday the rules may change. He’ll float something a little later that is a rather incomplete citation. 

 Using the altar rails to keep people out of the sanctuary, removing lay people’s assistance with Holy Communion, and welcoming only boys to serve at the Eucharistic mysteries create an air of clerical superiority, communicate a spirit of unwelcoming as if the congregation should just be spectators, and can suggest that the parish rejects the liturgical reforms brought about at the behest of the Second Vatican Council.

Please show me where the Vatican II documents say altar rails must be torn out and abandoned and that lay people must assist with Holy Communion. Anywhere? Bueller? Bueller?

Two ritual elements of the Mass that are admittedly optional (but have become so widespread as to become almost normative) are the sign of peace and the procession of the gifts during the preparation of the gifts and the altar.

Finally he admits something is optional!

 These are two more very important parts of the liturgical reform that allow the people to participate fully, consciously, and actively. Some ministers would seem to suggest that the procession of gifts and the sign of peace distracts from the Eucharistic centrality on the altar. However, the procession of gifts represents the faithful’s movement toward the altar as they unite their own offering to the Eucharistic offering, 

Oh the drama. It’s been done both ways and I didn’t even notice the change until he pointed it out. And, again, he shows his lack of understanding in full, active participation. If it means people have to physically be doing something then look at all the people left out at every Mass he says. Shame on him. Of course, it doesn’t.

and the sign of peace represents the horizontal communion of charity between believers before the reception of Holy Communion, which is none other than their vertical communion with the God that brings the community together. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal assumes that all other things being equal, both moments usually take place. There may be very few particular celebrations in which they are omitted for pastoral reasons, but they should ordinarily take place in Masses celebrated with the people.

Except the Church doesn’t say that in the GIRM. He should have stopped at optional because, no, neither is essential.

Several other liturgical preferences reintroduce ritual elements of the Missal of 1962 that have no place in our Eucharistic celebrations. 

Here comes the rapid fire….

 These include the minister making the sign of the cross with the Sacred Host during the reception of Holy Communion,

No comment from Vatican II or GIRM on that…

 overly ornate vestments that put more focus on the ministers than the Eucharist, and vestments that are no longer prescribed for the Mass (fiddleback chasubles, birettas, crossed stoles, server gloves, and the maniple).

Can you show me where these are forbidden? Didn’t think so. Also, his reason for the use of them isn’t even close to why they do it.  My gosh. If you use his logic, why wear vestments at all? Just go with the clerics. Heck, why even those? It’s about wearing your best for God, not yourself. If you want “work vestments” go for it, but I’d like my priests to wear the nicest he can for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

While every priest is required by Canon Law to make prayerful and suitable preparation and thanksgiving before and after Mass, the vesting prayers are no longer part of the Roman Missal.

Vesting prayers are not disallowed at all. I feel like we’re starting to get into the thought police area.  What suitable preparation does he suggest? What would be wrong with this? How is this not a good preparation???

VESTING PRAYERS FOR PRIESTS
While he washes his hands
Give strength to my hands, Lord, to wipe away all stain, so that I
may be able to serve Thee in purity of mind and body.
As he places the Amice over his head
Lord, set the helmet of salvation on my head to fend off all the
assaults of the devil.
As he puts on the Alb
Purify me, Lord, and cleanse my heart so that, washed in the Blood
of the Lamb, I may enjoy eternal bliss.
As he ties the Cincture
Lord, gird me with the cincture of purity and extinguish my fleshly
desires, that the virtue of continence and chastity may abide within
me.
As he puts the Stole around his neck
Lord, restore the stole of immortality, which I lost through the
collusion of our first parents, and, unworthy as I am to approach
Thy sacred mysteries, may I yet gain eternal joy.
As he puts on the Chasuble
O Lord, who has said, ‘My yoke is sweet and My burden light,’ grant that
I may so carry it as to merit Thy grace.

Before and after Mass, there should be an environment of welcoming and openness. In terms of gathering and exiting the church, the music should be inviting and not distract from the faithful gathering and leaving in a spirit of community and engagement. 

Pick up a hymnal.  Super easy to do. Don’t have to have special training to sing the melody. And, whoa! Here’s an idea. How about it be music that has to do with the liturgical season? The readings of the day? Why does he seem to think it “exiting accompany music” rather than a final prayer to God?  

The music chosen should encourage signing, not simply listening.

I love how he doesn’t mention anything about God, the readings of the day, etc. As long as it’s a catchy tune it’s fine. Just needs to be easy to sing. Message optional. By the way, wonder if he saw the many times “organ” is used in the GIRM? 

the dismissal, there are some churches that have reintroduced the communal recitation of the Prayer of St. Michael the Archangel. This prayer is no longer prescribed in the Novus Ordo Missae. While the intention to defeat the power of Satan and other evil spirits is commendable, its recitation at the end of Mass can lead to the unfortunate doubt that the Eucharistic liturgy is somehow insufficient to bring about the scattering of evil and motivation to do good. If parishes have the custom of praying this prayer communally at the end of Mass, it ought to be done separate from the liturgy and, therefore, no sooner than after the Recessional hymn.

Actually, it’s usually said after the priest says “The Mass has ended…” or, outside the Mass. He also clearly wrote this before the election of Pope Leo. I mean, the guy he chose to name himself after composed that prayer. And, again, not disallowed in any way outside the Mass. I would also like to point out that the Regina Caeli is not found in the “Novus Ordo Missae” and guess who does that? Pope Leo. Silence on a prayer doesn’t mean it cannot be done. And your line about the St. Michael Prayer causing doubt…Please. 

The Altar and Its Orientation

The central element of our church buildings and the Eucharistic celebration is the altar of sacrifice. The altar is a new Calvary upon which the re-presentation of the passion, death, and resurrection are carried out. It is a new Bethlehem where Christ is made flesh in the Eucharistic species, the Creator comes anew to his creation, and the Lord of Lords offers himself for adoration. In order for the faithful to participate as the Council requires, visual engagement is necessary.

What is not found in the Vatican II documents for 100, Alex? Versus populum. That’s right kiddos. It’s not there.

 

For this reason, the Church has been clear that ad orientem is not appropriate. 

I’m sure you’ll cite a source for that.

If he’s read the Missal Romanum, he should see iad orientem is the only thing that makes a whole lot of sense, because why would you ever have to turn toward the people if you were already facing them. It’s not an affront either, unless you are a completely egotistical person. See this for a nice little lesson. https://wdtprs.com/2015/08/the-importance-and-legitimacy-of-ad-orientem-worship/

It has not been permitted and will not be permitted in the future in any public chapel, church, or oratory in the Diocese of Charlotte. Moreover, it is important that the altar of sacrifice be free of any visual impairment. Candles, standing crucifixes, and Missal stands all impede the ability of the faithful to see the Eucharistic elements.  These elements were all incorporated into the Roman Rite when it was offered ad orientem, but they no longer are needed on the altar in the Novus Ordo Missae. The two altar candles can easily be placed on the side of the altar, rather than creating a visual obstacle on the front edge of the altar.

What in the what??? Wow. He’s lost it now. Clearly just re-writing the GIRM to his liking. Seriously, how did this guy make bishop???

Post Vatican II GIRM:
308. There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation. It is appropriate that such a cross, which calls to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord, remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations.

117. The altar is to be covered with at least one white cloth. In addition, on or next to the altar are to be placed candlesticks with lighted candles: at least two in any celebration, or even four or six, especially for a Sunday Mass or a holy day of obligation. If the diocesan Bishop celebrates, then seven candles should be used. Also on or close to the altar, there is to be a cross with a figure of Christ crucified. The candles and the cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified may also be carried in the Entrance Procession. On the altar itself may be placed the Book of the Gospels, distinct from the book of other readings, unless it is carried in the Entrance Procession.

And a missal stand? Yeah, I guess that’s not mentioned in the GIRM but also not disallowed in any way.  And, oh, popes from Leo back to John Paul used them so, really???  Seriously. Google “papal mass.” It’s kind of like whatever helps you better see the words of the consecration is good!  Talk about inflicting personal whims on people. He’s a master.

Conclusion and Prescriptions

The considerations I offer for your reflection do not exhaust the items that need to be addressed in our diocese. However, I believe they are an effective start for our joint venture toward a more uniform celebration of the Mass in our diocese. The faithful who come to celebrate the Lord’s mysteries in our churches deserve a liturgy that is according to the mind of the universal Church. From one church to another, we must provide a celebration in which they can participate entirely. It is unjust for the people of God to be subjected to older liturgical practices, musical selections, and ancient languages that were intentionally reformed or eliminated from the Novus Ordo Missae.

“Unjust I tell you!” The drama in this one. I feel bad for the parents. I can’t even imagine the teen years. What this does add up to is inconsistency of thought. From one church to another in his diocese I cannot “participate entirely” as is his suggestion for full, active, participation. If I’m supposed to sing some Korean hymns, it’s not gonna work, right? Of course, he’ll have to re-write his own definition to accommodate those Masses because it’s only Masses in Latin that are unjust. 

 The Mass and all the sacraments are for us to ultimately be sent and to serve, which is the ultimate meaning of a life that is full, conscious, and active. While this mission to the poor, marginalized, suffering, and sick deserves a fuller reflection by us all, I will leave that exploration for the future. Our redemption is not rooted solely within the walls of the church and within the Mass; it is rooted in the mystery of the Holy Cross and Christ’s sacrificial love, which extends to even those who do not worship with us. May Christ’s Mother, the ever-virgin Mary who stood by the foot of the Cross as a witness to his sacrifice, intercede on our behalf so that we may carry out in our lives his saving work as faithful sons and daughters of the Church.

Silly me. I thought they were ultimately for our salvation. Also, does it seem he’s missing what really goes on at Mass?

With this motivation of purifying and unifying the celebration of the Mass in the Diocese of Charlotte, I decree the following prescriptions for the celebration of the liturgy:

Weren’t we lectured earlier about how some priests tell people their way is better. Wasn’t that clericalism or something?

Liturgical Norms:

1. In terms of the altar and its appointments, the following characterize the public sanctuaries in our sacred spaces:
2. In new constructions and renovations of sacred spaces, altar rails are not permitted and, therefore, the sanctuary is to be separated from the nave by a change in elevation (GIRM, 295). Moveable altar rails should be removed, and permanently fixed altar rails should no longer be used. The placement of a prei dieu for the reception of communion is not appropriate.

Here’s the GIRM. As usual, you can see it doesn’t mention altar rails at all.

295. The sanctuary is the place where the altar stands, where the word of God is proclaimed, and where the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers exercise their offices. It should suitably be marked off from the body of the church either by its being somewhat elevated or by a particular structure and ornamentation. It should, however, be large enough to allow the Eucharist to be celebrated properly and easily seen. 

He’s paraphrasing incorrectly below – again.

b. The altar is to be freestanding, and Mass must be celebrated facing the people (GIRM, 299).

 Straight out of the GIRM.

299. The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.[116] The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated.

 

Desirable does not equal mandatory versus populum. It may be his directive but “must” ain’t in there. And let’s not forget that Pope Francis celebrated Mass ad orientem on occasion. 

c. During the celebration of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the altar is only to contain the corporal, purificator, vessels containing the Eucharistic elements, and Roman Missal. There is no mention of a missal stand (GIRM, 306). If a priest with visual impairment needs to elevate the book, there can be used a simple, low-profile book stand that should not obstruct the faithful’s view of the Eucharistic species.

The last 4 popes need a lesson from you. Have you seen the papal missal holder???  This is ridiculous. You want to know what clericalism is? This. “I am the Queen and it shall be as I say!”

d. In terms of candlesticks, they are always to be arranged around the altar since placing them on the altar will always obstruct the vision of the faithful (GIRM, 307)>

Not in GIRM.

307. The candles, which are required at every liturgical service out of reverence and on account of the festiveness of the celebration (cf. no. 117), are to be appropriately placed either on or around the altar in a way suited to the design of the altar and the sanctuary so that the whole may be well balanced and not interfere with the faithful’s clear view of what takes place at the altar or what is placed on it.

Next placement tip?

1. When a cross cannot be placed near the altar, it is to be laid flat on the mensa so that the faithful’s view is not obstructed (GIRM, 307).

Definitely not in the GIRM.

308. There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation. It is appropriate that such a cross, which calls to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord, remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations.

 f. Flowers and other decorations may never be placed on the mensa of the altar (GIRM, 305)>

He got one right! Literally one! A blind squirrel and all…

305. Moderation should be observed in the decoration of the altar.

During Advent the floral decoration of the altar should be marked by a moderation suited to the character of this season, without expressing prematurely the full joy of the Nativity of the Lord. During Lent it is forbidden for the altar to be decorated with flowers. Laetare Sunday (Fourth Sunday of Lent), solemnities, and feasts are exceptions.

Floral decorations should always be done with moderation and placed around the altar rather than on its mensa.

g. Regarding the use of technology in the liturgy, care should be taken to make certain that its use enhances the celebration without distracting from it.

1. Sound equipment of a caliber of quality is essential for full, conscious and active participation of the faithful. Assistive technologies for the hearing impaired should be available in all Churches with clear instructions for their use. The ODW can provide assistance with vendors who have provided high quality service in this area.
2. The use of projectors in churches has a place that can be, if utilized properly, a valid worship aid. There are numerous creative and discreet ways to accomplish this in new church construction and renovation. The installation of projectors must be done in coordination with the ODW to ensure that their placement does not detract from the overall sacred action of the liturgy. It is desirable, where possible, that screens not be used, rather that projection be made against a blank wall. During any liturgical celebration, the projection should only be for:

1.musical lyrics (and possible musical notation);

2. translation of Readings during the Liturgy of the Word in congregations that are bilingual;

3. common Mass responses in congregations that are bilingual or in other liturgical celebrations where a printed program would ordinarily be used;

4. transmitting a pre-recorded homily by the bishop or short videos that have been created for the congregation that can be presented after the concluding prayer and before the final blessing.>

Chuckling at how we’ve been told throughout this whole crazy exercise that we shouldn’t have Masses if translations are needed.  Like I said, whiplash.

 h.Projection should not regularly be used in Churches for advertising, announcements, simulcast video of the current liturgical moment, or liturgical art (larger celebrations [eg. Eucharistic Congress] in event halls transformed into liturgical spaces are an exception). The goal of this technology is that it be invisible as possible when not functioning in one of the 4 purposes noted above.

NEVER mentioned in Vatican II or GIRM. We can just turn them off and put them away.

<2. In terms of the rubrics and texts of the Roman Missal:

1. No one person may change, add, or remove any part of the rubrics, prayers, or texts of the liturgy (SC, 22/3). This means that elements of the pre-Conciliar Mass which were eliminated by the Apostolic See may not be reintroduced.

Wow! Not targeted at all. All you adding the refrain to the Gloria? You’re good to go.

1. 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.

Which is it? Is this a hat tip for the groovy Kyries and Agnus Dei’s?

c. Since “it is a praiseworthy practice for the bread and wine to be presented by the faithful” (GIRM 73/3), the procession of the gifts is to be retained in all public Sunday and holy day Masses, and encouraged in all other Masses with the faithful.

Optional as you said earlier. Remember when collegiality was supposed to be good?

d. Since it is rarely not appropriate (Roman Missal, “Ordinary of the Mass,” 128) for the Sign of Peace to be exchanged in Masses with the faithful, I direct that the faithful always be invited by the deacon or, in his absence, the priest, to exchange the sign of peace during Sunday and holy day Masses.

Again, not mandatory and he admitted it was an option and yet he’s going to force the options.

e. The ringing of a bell(s) to signal the congregation to stand before the Opening Hymn is no longer to be used at any Mass. A verbal welcome by the Lector (or other suitable minister) followed by an indication of the hymn to be sung and an invitation to stand is most appropriate and should be normative at all Masses.  

Bells are now evil? Honestly, who dislikes bells? It’s not even mentioned in the GIRM. He’s just making this up as he goes along! “I like this. I don’t like that. Looks trad.”

 

3. In the area of liturgical vesture:

1. Ministers are to wear the prescribed liturgical vesture, as found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (para. 355ff) and the Ceremonial of Bishops (para. 65ff). In these instructions, there is no option given for priest celebrants to wear birettas, cross their stoles, or wear a maniple. Similarly, chasubles cut in the manner commonly referred to as “fiddle back”, are strongly discouraged. These vestments are seen and understood by the faithful as a clear sign of a priest celebrant who prefers the liturgical (and possibly theological) life of the Church prior to Vatican II given that these vestments have not been seen in most churches around the world since the 1960’s. Priestly vestiture is not intended to be the place for making such statements, intended or otherwise.> I’m not sure why he thinks the fiddleback is the only thing he can’t ban.

1. Vestments are to be constructed of noble materials and not be made overly ornate with overlaid decorations and embroidery (GIRM 344). Albs that have decoration or lace should have more fabric than decoration. 

Somebody’s paraphrasing the GIRM again.

344. It is fitting that the beauty and nobility of each vestment derive not from abundance of overly lavish ornamentation, but rather from the material that is used and from the design. Ornamentation on vestments should, moreover, consist of figures, that is, of images or symbols, that evoke sacred use, avoiding thereby anything unbecoming.

c. There is no option given in the current liturgical books that prescribe certain vesting or devesting prayers. Prayerful preparation before Mass and thanksgiving after Mass is to take place in some other way and, if possible, in common with the other assisting ministers.  

Again, nothing banning this anywhere. It’s not often I’ve seen a guy so incredibly creative with what he dislikes.

d. Women who have chosen to wear a veil as an expression of personal piety are not to do so when they are assisting in any official capacity (lector, cantor, altar server, usher, etc.)at Mass.

And now he’s telling women what they can and cannot wear???  Brilliant. Good luck, buddy. Unbelievable. How about mini-skirts and low cut blouses? Nope. Those are peachy. But put a piece of lace on your head?  You’re fired!

4. In the area of music:

a Music is to be chosen in which all the faithful can participate and pastors must diligently plan their selections in such a way that all involved in the liturgy can raise their voices in song to God (Musicam Sacram, 5).

Who is going to tell the bride she cannot have Ave Maria? Anyone?  But, please, let’s talk about Musicam Sacram. Good read. He clearly cherry picks from it because he’s failing to cite this:

(b) The following come under the title of sacred music here: Gregorian chant, sacred polyphony in its various forms both ancient and modern, sacred music for the organ and other approved instruments, and sacred popular music, be it liturgical or simply religious.[3]  https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_instr_19670305_musicam-sacram_en.html 

Oops.

b. In our present situation, Latin responses and Mass parts are not to be utilized in parish churches during regular celebrations since they hinder people’s participation (Musicam Sacram, 9). Retaining the use of Masses celebrated in Latin is not opportune in our present reality (Musicam Sacram, 48) since the faithful are not accustomed to it. Even in places where they have become used to it by more recent practice, this becomes problematic for visitors and/or new parishioners or those coming to the faith for the first time.

No, no and no.  

9. In selecting the kind of sacred music to be used, whether it be for the choir or for the people, the capacities of those who are to sing the music must be taken into account. No kind of sacred music is prohibited from liturgical actions by the Church as long as it corresponds to the spirit of the liturgical celebration itself and the nature of its individual parts,[7] and does not hinder the active participation of the people.[8]

Pick up a hymnal people. Put it in the bulletin. Not hard at all. Heck – you said we could use jumbotrons for translations.

IV. The Language To Be Used In Sung Liturgical Celebrations, And On Preserving The Heritage Of Sacred Music

47. According to the Constitution on the Liturgy, “the use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”[30]

However, since “the use of the vernacular may frequently be of great advantage to the people”[31] “it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used. Its decrees have to be approved, that is, confirmed by the Apostolic See.”[32]

In observing these norms exactly, one will therefore employ that form of participation which best matches the capabilities of each congregation.

Pastors of souls should take care that besides the vernacular “the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”[33]

48. Where the vernacular has been introduced into the celebration of Mass, the local Ordinaries will judge whether it may be opportune to preserve one or more Masses celebrated in Latin—especially sung Masses (Missae in cantu)—in certain churches, above all in large cities, where many come together with faithful of different languages.

How do you think he’s doing in regards to this document? Oops, again.

And let’s talk about his visitors comments. What if visitors don’t speak English, huh? Will the Mass now be in French? I mean, the visitors and all. You can see how ridiculous this all is. 

c. So that the faithful may participate more actively in the procession, preparation of the altar and the gifts, and the distribution of Holy Communion, hymns are to be chosen that are known by the congregation, easily singable, and available through a printed resource, such as a pew hymnal or worship aid. “Congregational singing is to be fostered by every means possible, even by use of new types of music suited to the culture of the people and to the contemporary spirit” (CDWDS, Liturgicae Insaurationes, 5 September 1970).

But the jumbotrons. Isn’t that what they are for?

 

d. The celebration of Mass on Sundays and Solemnities, regardless of the time of day, should be carried out with regard for its inherent and proper festivity. The celebration of so called “quiet Masses” that are celebrated without music or musical accompaniment is strongly discouraged even if desired by some of the faithful. The public designation of a Mass as a “High” or “Low” is not seen as appropriate even if the designation of such is still found in liturgical documents. The former patterns that are associated with these designations have shifted, leaving those seeing this in a parish bulletin or signage with a false association with the pre-Conciliar Mass.

Is this guy trad paranoid or what?  

 

5. Concerning those who assist at Mass:

1. In order to show the equal dignity and role of the baptized faithful, both men and women may serve as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, readers, and altar servers. No one may be denied a liturgical role proper to the faithful based on their gender (cf. “Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences,” Prot. n. 2482/93 March 15, 1994, see Notitiae 30 [1994] 333-335). 

 Uh, he might have wanted to read the answer to the circular letter!!! Or maybe he did. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4059

In accord with the above cited instructions of the Holy See, such an authorization may not in any way exclude men or, in particular, boys from service at the altar nor require that priests of the diocese would make use of female altar servers, since “it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar” (circular letter, 2). Indeed, the obligation to support groups of altar boys will always remain, not least of all due to the well­known assistance that such programs have provided since time immemorial in encouraging future priestly vocations (cf. ibid.).

Triple oops. Sorry. I can Google.

b. Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are to be trained and employed in those parishes where it will facilitate a more orderly reception of Holy Communion. The number of communion stations at Mass in any Church or location should be determined by the number of persons present for the celebration. A good rule of thumb is 1 communion station per 125 persons in attendance. The reduction of communion stations to eliminate the need for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion is considered an affront to the Church’s provision in such circumstances.

It might be an affront to you or people who demand to have that job but they might have issues. I’m so tired of  experience of EMHCs trying to bless my kids over the years. Or how about the ones wildly inapporpriately dressed? That’s an affront to me.

c. It is preferable and more fitting that Holy Communion be distributed under both species, even when it is necessary to employ the assistance of Extraordinary Ministers. Any mandates given during the pandemic are hereby lifted, entrusting the decision to receive under both species to the faithful.

Literally that was THE only good thing to come out of the pandemic. Le sigh! I’m assuming he’ll threaten them if they do not comply?

d. Altar servers are not to kneel in front of the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer with candles. They are to remain at their seat and kneel there. In moments of great solemnity, a thurifer and one other assisting alter server may kneel before the altar to incense during the consecration and should return to their places during the Memorial Acclamation. 

Heaven forbid they attend in adoration. Why in the world is this considered anything but good? He seems intent on breaking vocations.

e. Altar servers are not to wear gloves.

No reason given. Just a little too pious for him, I guess. It’s just too awful to act like the Real Presence exists and it’s a little too damning to those receiving in the hand and nobody can think twice about that!

6. In the distribution of Holy Communion:

1. Pastors are to catechize the faithful regularly on the normative posture for the reception of Holy Communion in the United States, which is standing after having made a bow of the head (GIRM 160).

Imagine if he actually told them to catechize their flock as to the Real Presence! But, I digress. Also not quite what’s in the GIRM. 

160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession. 

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

I’d suggest if the bishop thinks brow-beating the faithful who kneel is pastoral, he might think again.

 

 

 

b. Ministers and catechists are never allowed to teach that it is “better” to receive Holy Communion one legitimate way or another or from an ordained minister rather than a lay Extraordinary Minister.

1. Since there is no mention in the Conciliar documents, the reform of the liturgy, or current liturgical documents concerning the use of altar rails or kneelers for the distribution of Holy Communion, they are not to be employed in the Diocese of Charlotte.

   If you want to talk about the actual VII documents, there aren’t any that say standing is the norm. If he’s got ‘em, he should show them. There’s also nothing to forbid kneeling.

d. Communion may not be denied to those who, after bowing their heads and individually approaching the minister, kneel to receive the Sacred Host (CDWDS Responsa ad dubium, 1 July 2002)

Well, at least he admits that!  But, wait! There’s more:

http://www.unavoce-ve.it/cocd01-07-02=eng.htm

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species. 

Next up:

e. When distributing Holy Communion, ministers are to hold the Host elevated above the vessel and say, “The Body of Christ.” The communicant responds, “Amen.” The minister then places the Host on the communicant’s tongue or in the palm of the communicant’s hand. It is forbidden to make the sign of the cross with the host before the communicant since there is no option to do so in the rubrics.

Well, if we’re talking laity, they don’t have the authority to bless anyone but their children, so maybe right on that. Where the rubrics are silent, I would think, it defaults on what was before. Also, if a priest can bless someone with the Host in a benediction or something like the Ubi et Orbi blessing, why not? Smart people? There’s a difference between what a priest may do and what the laity may do so if EMHC’s are employed they couldn’t. 

f. The faithful who desire to receive communion on the tongue should be instructed/reminded to open their mouths widely and extend their tongue so as to afford the minister the greatest ease of placing the host on the tongue.

By the way, where’s the lesson for those receiving in the hand? 

g. The use of communion pattens by altar servers is to be implemented judiciously given the diverse ways in which the faithful can receive. Where communion pattens are used, servers should be instructed well to first place the patten low, below where the communicants hands are, and then move the patten upward should the minister move to place the host on the tongue.

Problem solved. Why wouldn’t pattens be used? Altar boys weren’t for décor.

<Liturgical Preferences:

While the above stated prescriptions are now normative within the Diocese of Charlotte, may I suggest several preferences that I offer as your Bishop to further allow our liturgical life to live into its fullest celebration:>

Will this never end???

1. Sacred Vessels

 

The understanding and appreciation of the Eucharistic Liturgy as a meal suggests that, where possible, symbolism of ritual meal be made most clear and manifest. As such, it is preferable that the patten be more of a dish style that holds many hosts. There is no need for the larger host elevated at consecration to be afforded its own patten, but rather to be one with the rest of the hosts being brought forward at the offertory and consecrated.

Every effort should be taken to consecrate the number of hosts needed for the faithful to receive at each Mass, leaving the ciboria in the tabernacle for a small number of remaining consecrated hosts. Again, ciboria containing the sacred hosts that are more like a chalice (cup) in structure than a dish mitigates the symbolism of meal. There are multiple styles of dish ciboria that have lids and are stackable for the tabernacle (even though it is preferable to not have so many consecrated hosts remaining that multiple stackable ciboria would be needed).

Is a citation too much to ask???

The use of vestiture for the chalice and patten or for the ciboria similarly lessens the power of symbolic meal and has more connection to a veiled theology more common in the liturgy prior to the Novus Ordo.

What in the what?!

The use of a pall to cover the precious blood (or even before consecration) has become common, again as it was prescribed in the Missal of 1962. The use of a pall is helpful if flying insects are present and drawn to the sugar present in the wine. It is preferable that the pall only be placed over a chalice if such insects are present, leaving the chalice uncovered otherwise. That said, the pall should normally be simply laid upon the altar not in use. When use of the pall is necessitated for the presence of insects, it is removed during the consecration and elevation.

 Make sure you check for insects before use. Check.

2.Purification of the sacred vessels

The purification of the sacred vessels after communion has an appropriate place for practical and theological reasons. However, making this act so elaborate can suggest that a certain scrupulosity has set in. There is no need to use water and wine as was done prior to the Novus Ordo. Similarly, searching for the faintest dust particles on a patten misses an authentic understanding of the accidents and substance of the Eucharist.

The purification of sacred vessels can also take place at a side table rather than at the altar while the congregation engages in a hymn of thanksgiving or period of silent reflection.

That’s not what the GIRM says. Surprise! Sorry to repeat myself but it’s on him.

279. The sacred vessels are purified by the priest, the deacon, or an instituted acolyte after Communion or after Mass, insofar as possible at the credence table. The purification of the chalice is done with water alone or with wine and water, which is then drunk by whoever does the purification. The paten is usually wiped clean with the purificator.

Care must be taken that whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ after the distribution of Communion is consumed immediately and completely at the altar.

It doesn’t seem he’s actually read the GIRM. I mean, how can you get stuff so wrong if you did?

3. Posture post communion

Immediately upon receiving the Eucharist, either the sacred host and/or the precious blood, there is no need to bow or genuflect to the altar or tabernacle, nor to make the sign of the cross. Similarly, after returning to your seat, the posture of kneeling or sitting for reflection, prayer and song are both equally advantageous. It is normative in our Church that when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed, and/or the Tabernacle opened, that we remain kneeling if possible. However, the moments immediately following the reception of the Eucharist by the faithful are unique. In that moment, we all become the Body of Christ in the greatest manner possible on this earth. It is the very reason for which Jesus offered us his Body and Blood. To place greater attention on the Eucharist in ciboria being distributed and later returned to the Tabernacle than on the Eucharist we have all become, is to misunderstand the power of the Body of Christ and the purpose for which Jesus has shared his body and blood with us. There is no rubric that requires that we all remain kneeling until the remaining sacred hosts are returned to the Tabernacle. By doing so in that specific instance, we miss the opportunity to focus upon the communion that we all share in Christ and the call that we all have been given to go forth and be the Body of Christ in the world. 

Working really hard to discourage people from kneeling. It’s NEVER wrong to kneel before the Eucharist. Ever.

4. Location of the presider’s chair

                In some churches in our diocese, it has become customary of late to have the Presider’s chair located on one side or the other of the altar and facing the altar directly. As such it makes it difficult for the presider to address the people of God during the Mass parts that take place at the chair, given that the presider is not physically facing the people but rather is facing the altar. In most of these instances, the chair can easily be placed in such a way as to direct appropriate attention to the altar while still affording the presider the opportunity to face the people (without having to speak into/through the ear of the Deacon or altar server at his side). This can be carried out with a placement of the chair behind the altar (to one side or another) facing the people and the altar, or off to the side and angled between the altar and the people.

Honestly? I have no idea what he’s talking about. It seems nobody else has a problem with this. Our priests seem to handle it just fine.

 5. Cantor leading music from the ambo and podium

The People of God benefit from seeing a member of the music ministry encouraging and leading the congregation in song. This should normally take place from the ambo during the Responsorial Psalm, and from a podium in the sanctuary (off to the other side) for cuing the faithful.

                This role is one of real skill which, like lectoring, requires training. It is not sufficient that the cantor be a gifted singer but also be adept at facial expression and hand gestures that encourage participation while not becoming a show or distraction. It is most appropriate that the cantor sings the melody from the podium/ambo and that the cantor be mic’d. The fact that the rest of the music ministry is situated in the choir loft (in most churches) should not keep the cantor from leading the congregation from these locations in the sanctuary.

Again, his preference. I know an awful lot of cantors who do not need to be front and center. He acts as if the congregation can’t follow the responsorial psalm. This is super silly.  And, really, you want the cantor to come down from the choir loft specifically to lead the responsorial psalm that’s in the missalette because we need to see him/her to be able to follow along? Please. It’s not a performance as you stated earlier. Go with that.

6. The use of worship aids

There are many ways in which a worship aid can be a blessing during the celebration of the Mass. The most common use is for song, and there are multiple fine options on the market for parishes to consider. There are also several subscription services that individuals can utilize that are print and electronic which can be of assistance. That said, the use of these aids during the celebration of the Mass should be limited. In particular, their use during the proclamation of the Word should be considered exceptional, not normative. Why?

What we believe about the Word being proclaimed at Mass is often overlooked and underappreciated. If I were to sit down to speak to my beloved in an intimate moment of self-expression, would it be appropriate for my beloved to be reading the text (if they had it in advance) as I was speaking to her/him? Of course not! Rather, they would sit attentively, with eyes upon me, leaning on every word (hopefully!). That should be our approach at Mass. Certainly this assumes great proclaimers of the Word during the Liturgy of the Word, calling us to train them well. The answer is not worship aids, but rather our preparation prior to the Mass and even reading the readings in advance.

Oh my goodness? We agree. Miracles do occur. While my mind wandered a bit before I got to the last line. The last line is solid.

The same is true, but to a lesser extent, with the rest of the prayers said at Mass. Listening without reading along in a missal has greater potential to more fully engage us in the Liturgy where sight and sound and smell lift us to a greater place.

Rats. He went from people should prepare to something looks and smells amazing about the lector? Uh….

All of the above recognizes that there are those with special needs that may necessitate the more frequent use of these aids. That said, other steps should be taken first to improve the quality of proclamation, sound, and the availability of audio enhancing devices for those in need in all places of worship.

Is this something that really needs to be addressed? Or are you just happy to hear your self?

[Update note – 1:30 pm EDT: The Pillar: “A draft text detailing those plans was published Wednesday by the traditionalist blog Rorate Caeli; The Pillar has confirmed the authenticity of that text.” The Pillar says the letter has been shelved, “for now.”]

Obviously, someone with knowledge has told him not much of what he’s said is consistent with Church teaching. Was it written for him? I mean, if he just cracked open the GIRM alone this would have been a lot shorter.  It just seems to be he has a complex when it comes to trads and anything in the realm of pious and traditional. It also seems like he has a problem with anything distracting peoples’ gaze from him but that’s just me.