It is hard to watch what is happening in the Diocese of Charlotte. It is hard to watch what is happening and wonder if there isn’t something seriously out of whack. It’s as if the 1980’s are back.
First, the bishop has issued a “pastoral letter” “on norms for Holy Communion”. Download PDF.
Here’s a sample (my emphases and comments):
Manner of Receiving Holy Communion
According to liturgical norms, regional episcopal conferences are entrusted with establishing more precise norms for the reception of Holy Communion. 6 The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), with the approval of Rome, has established “[t]he norm … that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling” and that a bow is the act of reverence made by those receiving. 7 The normative posture for all the faithful in the United States is standing, it is nonetheless the free choice of an individual member of the faithful to kneel, and Communion cannot be denied this individual solely based on their posture (Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 91).
A normative posture is not only given so that we may be united in how we receive Holy Communion, but also as an aide to direct our catechesis and sacramental preparation. While it is the right of an individual member of the faithful to kneel, pastors should not direct their faithful to do so as something that is “better.” It is the responsibility of those in a pastoral or teaching role to instruct those in his/her care the episcopal conference norms for reception without prejudice. Doing otherwise disrupts the harmony and unity [“harmony” as used in the documents by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party] that the Bishops have legitimately set forth for the manner of distribution of Holy Communion in the United States. [Wait a minute… look around in these USA at other dioceses. Are other bishops going this far to repress kneeling for Communion? Are even the neighboring dioceses? But now get this nasty dig…] The faithful who feel compelled to kneel to receive the Eucharist as is their individual right should also prayerfully consider the blessing of communal witness that is realized when we share a common posture. [Sort of nauseating. Yeah… that’s what people are thinking about when going to Communion… “what a beautiful communal witness this is”.]
The episcopal conference norms logically do not envision the use of altar rails, kneelers, or prie-dieus for the reception of communion. [Qui tacet consentire videtur.] Doing so is a visible contradiction to the normative posture of Holy Communion established by our episcopal conference. Instead, the instruction emphasizes that receiving Holy Communion is to be done as the members of the faithful go in procession, witnessing that the Church journeys forward and receives Holy Communion as a pilgrim people on their way. 8 The USCCB in its explanation for the norms governing reception of Holy Communion reminds us of the beauty of this procession: “In fact, each time we move forward together to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord, we join the countless ranks of all the baptized who have gone before us, our loved ones, the canonized and uncanonized saints down through the ages, who at their time in history formed a part of this mighty stream of believers.” 9 [Who writes this dreamy blah blah? And does this seem familiar? Almost exactly a year ago HERE in which Feser and Esolen comment on the goofy notions under consideration.]
Therefore:
-
- Clergy, catechists, ministers of Holy Communion, and teachers are to instruct communicants according to the normative posture in the United States. They are not to teach that some other manner is better, preferred, more efficacious, etc.
- The use of altar rails, kneelers, and prie-dieus are not to be utilized for the reception of Communion in public celebrations by January 16, 2026.
- Temporary or movable fixtures used for kneeling for the reception of communion are to be removed by January 16, 2026.
He also promotes Communion under both kinds if “there is no danger of profanation of the Eucharist”. Problem: danger of profanation is galactically increased thereby.
And this:
In addition, the practice of intinction has arisen to distribute under both kinds in a handful of our parishes. While allowed in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, it should not be considered an option in the Diocese of Charlotte for distribution to the faithful in public celebrations.
You know what he is doing here, right? He is trying to stop any sort of reception of Communion on the tongue instead of in the hand.
Can he do that? I suspect not. But, hey, he would probably find a way to crucify a priest who offered it for some other reason because he has power and the priest doesn’t.
He trots out the old “progressive solemnity” chestnut. I thought that was pretty much a nothing burger about a decade ago. Note also, the notion of “progressive solemnity” was originally a music issue. The problem with “progressive solemnity”, which seems to be a good idea founded in common sense and the obvious difference between a “dies non” ferial day and a major feast is that it produces a minimalism on less weighty days which enervates and diminishes liturgy. This is particularly so in the realm of sacred liturgical music… not that there is much worthy of that name to be encountered these days. “Progressive solemnity” starts with the watering down of some Masses, rather than raising the bar, and militates against the use of the true propers of the Mass, especially sung. It’s curious to see it introduced in this context. Is this a subtle utilitarian treatment of the Most Precious Blood? An “instrumentalizing” of the Eucharist for the sake of an agenda?
What I find particularly irritating is that the whole thing is sandwiched – introduction and conclusion – between references to Pope Leo, as if to say, “Hey.. this is what Pope Leo thinks too!” To wit: “As Our Holy Father’s motto — In illo unum uno — reminds us, “In Him who is One (Christ), we are One,…” and “These norms for our diocese move us together toward the Church’s vision for the fuller and more active participation of the faithful, especially emphasized by our Holy Father, Pope Leo XIV, at the beginning of his Petrine ministry.” That second quote is footnoted:
“Brothers and sisters, I would like that our first great desire be for a united Church, a sign of unity and communion, which becomes a leaven for a reconciled world” (Homily for the Beginning of the Pontificate of His Holiness Pope Leo XIV, May 18, 2025).
Amy gets it.
The directive hinges on two points. First, consistency with the episcopal conference (the USCCB?) and the desirability of a common posture during Mass to express the unity of the Body of Christ.
On the first point – you can drive 30 minutes southwest of Charlotte, cross into… https://t.co/lioOIfaNmC
— Amy Welborn (@amywelborn2) December 18, 2025
Next, the Pillar reports that
[…]
The Diocese of Charlotte announced a change to its seminary formation program in a Dec. 15 email to the priests and deacons of the diocese.
Starting with the upcoming academic year, diocesan seminarians will spend a pastoral year teaching at a local high school or middle school, the email explained.
Seminarians will each have a lay mentor, and will receive pay and benefits. Each seminarian will live at a local rectory, paying room and board at a rate established by the diocese.
[…]
One Charlotte priest said the initiative will ask seminarians to function in a sort of in-between state, “kind of a lay person, kind of a seminarian” — and that situation could cause confusion.
Others lamented that seminarians will reportedly not be permitted to wear clerical garb during the “teaching year,” which could undermine, priests said, the effort to form a clear clerical identity during priestly formation.
[…]
Priests in the diocese said their biggest concern is that a major change to priestly formation in the diocese comes without a widespread consultation before making the shift.
And in that light, priests expressed frustration with Martin, and a sense among the clergy, they said, that their bishop has not developed a synodal leadership style.
One priest of the diocese called the bishop an “autocrat,” while another said he is “a bully” who has a reputation for berating his priests, going once on a lengthy tirade toward diocesan seminarians that left clergy frustrated.
Criticisms of that nature seem to reflect a growing morale problem among Charlotte clergy, which several priests said is causing them concern.
[…]
He said the new program adds to a general feeling of instability and uncertainty with the priesthood, and frustration at feeling unheard.
“Everybody is upset. It doesn’t matter — liberal, conservative, traditional, not so traditional, whatever. It’s a style of leadership issue,” another individual commented.
And while many of the recent headlines surrounding the diocese have focused on liturgical changes, the real issue is much bigger, sources said.
“It’s not just about the liturgy,” one person emphasized.
“The liturgy gets in there, and it is the flashpoint that people respond to, but this is a much deeper problem of a kind of leadership style that is antithetical to the Catholic way of life.”
Loading ...
I miss the lay nobility. What we need is a good Count or Duke or Earl to pull this buffoon aside and explain how he’s going to cool his jets immediately if he wants to enjoy the remainder of his term as bishop outside of the local dungeon.
The construct of the bishop having absolute unchecked power in his region has to go. This is unsustainable.
So +Martin wants uniformity in worship. Then why isn’t he banning the laity for using the “orans” position” during Mass.
This “unity” through same posture schtick is total BS: The people may receive in the hand or on the tongue: where’s the unity in that? When the mass part calls for kneeling, some people sit (including those who are disabled but also some others), where’s the unity? Half the congregation still does the sign of peace by waving, others by shaking hands: where’s the unity? Most people FLOUT the RULES by raising their hands in the orans posture for the embolism (“For the kingdom, power, and glory…”) while half don’t: not only is there no unity, not a single bishop in the country has told people to stop doing this because it violates unity and it violates the norms. In plenty of places in the US people stand after the Agnus Dei, despite this being contrary to the US adaption of the GIRM, and I have yet to hear a bishop act against it (and in most places where most people stand, some people (rightly) kneel, so there’s an obvious lack of unity of posture). Given all this, claiming “oh, the unity of posture” is awfully hollow as a claimed reason. Looks an awful lot like a stick with which to beat Trads.
It is obvious that, for most of the last two thousand years, NOBODY received Communion as part of a “stream” of believers. Rather, for most of Catholic history, everybody who wanted to receive, would come forward singly or in twos and threes, and whenever the person wanted to do so and felt ready.
The idea of a row-by-row reception of Communion as a “stream” is entirely that of the American parochial school, and has nothing to do with the vast array of communicants throughout history.
This is exactly what happens when the freedom of child communicants is too significantly impaired — you get a bunch of weird, ahistorical ideas of what is commanded, when they become adult bishops.
Oh, and this also suggests that anyone lacking two hands cannot receive Communion fittingly, and the same thing for anyone who can’t walk to receive Communion, or who carries an infant in her arms.
All these people are lesser, because only people who can walk to Communion and cradle the Lord in a two-handed Throne are really real Catholics.
Ugh. It’s hateful. And it shows hate for priests and even EMHCs, too.
As I thought about the directives given by the bishop the following Scriptures came to mind:
“Who having heard the king, went their way; and behold the star which they had seen in the east, went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was. And seeing the star they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And entering into the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and falling down they adored him;…” Matt. 2:9-11
“And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, and the living creatures, and the ancients; and the number of them was thousands of thousands, Saying with a loud voice: The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive power, and divinity, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and benediction. And every creature, which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them: I heard all saying: To him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb, benediction, and honour, and glory, and power, for ever and ever. And the four living creatures said: Amen. And the four and twenty ancients fell down on their faces, and adored him that liveth for ever and ever. ” Revelation 5:11-14
So Scripture describes the appropriate posture when coming into the immediate presence of the King of Kings, but our bishops want to claim that instead that we are to step up and hold out our hands in a gimme posture, and walk away, the procession itself being the point, not Whom we come before at the end of our procession.
“Clergy, catechists, ministers of Holy Communion, and teachers are to instruct communicants according to the normative posture in the United States. They are not to teach that some other manner is better, preferred, more efficacious, etc.” I presume, then, since this is catechesis of communicants, they also should be told that receiving Our Lord kneeling and on the tongue is also perfectly acceptable, and they cannot be denied Holy Communion dependent on their posture.
I also noticed there was a specific mention (in his decree, but not mentioned in this article) that using the the first pew to kneel while receiving Holy Communion was also not permitted. Do you think the good bishop reads the comments here at WDTPRS? :-)
Honestly, I think the entire congregation should just not go to Holy Communion until this ridiculous decree is reversed. Let them do a spiritual communion instead, offering up not receiving as a penance and reparation. Let the priest and Eucharistic ministers stand there dumbly as the congregation does not come forward. I suppose then the people will be chastised for not “coming in procession.” And when that happens, they should all go forward in procession, bow profoundly when the priest or Eucharistic minister says, “The Body of Christ,” say Amen, and process back to their seats without unfolding their hands and receiving the host. Wonder what would happen then.
One hopes that the faithful will read the whole of GIRM no. 160 referred to in footnote 7 with its third-paragraph specification “The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant.”
But I suspect many will need a real-life kneeling-facilitating walker given the merciless “use […] not to be used” [sic!] and “to be removed” Diktate.
As a teacher in a Catholic high school, I completely disapprove Bishop Michael Martin’s plan to require all seminarians to work as teachers for one year. The reason is very simple: having a vocation to the priesthood does not guarantee that one will be a competent teacher. His plan will put many men into a job for which they do not have the proper inclination, training, talent, or enthusiasm. And lest I be misunderstood, I am not talking about so-called “teacher certification,” which is complete bilge. I am talking about knowledge of content, passion for the work, and the ability of helping others to understand what one knows.
Not to be Debbie Downer, but if there’s a bad seminarian, it’s the kids who are taught by that seminarian who will suffer. How closely are these seminarian-teachers going to be monitored?
I’m sure this is a needless worry, in most cases. But there have been quite a few cases of predator priests, who later turned out to have started predator behavior as soon as they hit a parish, and sometimes were preying on neighbors or relatives while they were still in seminary.
So if any seminarian is a bad apple, we can expect that he’ll attack kids at some point during that teaching year.
And that means that schools would have to keep an eye on all the seminarian teachers, just in case, since they wouldn’t have the background info that they would have on a teacher or student teacher that they had hired themselves. So I’m not sure that the seminarian teachers would be a help, aside from providing more male role models (since male teachers are scarce these days).
OTOH, the seminarians potentially would be in danger of sexual harassment by teachers, parents, and even students. They’d be exposed to slander too, and of course they’d be traveling around more and prone to car accidents, etc. So how is the bishop prepared to keep seminarians safe, during this year?
I recall priests walking over to elderly or disabled people in the first row of seats to give them communion. We need to bring that back so that these catholics can receive on the tongue if they desire. I can only speak for myself. The last thing wanted is to stand out. However, in order to give due worship to God in my heart I do not wish to receive standing. So, were I to live where this pointless cruelty is inflicted I would bring my own garden kneeler and use it. If Father makes a face or a fuss so be it. Jesus knows my intentions, nothing else matters much anymore.
What kind of unity would the laity want with men like this. These bishops and these nitpicking rules drive a stake through the heart of unity. These are cruel men.
Amazing that people continue to tolerate this stuff. St. Anthony of Padua Church in Charlotte should be overflowing with people.
I checked out of the silliness two decades ago. Luckily the diocese where I am located in the badger state has not gone full nutty yet. We also have recourse, albeit a long drive, to ICRSS, FSSP AND SSPX.
I feel very bad for the people of Charlotte. The lex orandi is being attacked in an attempt to change the lex credendi. If I lived in the diocese of Charlotte I would feel compelled to go to mass outside the diocese, attend St. Anthony of Padua or move my family close to a location where this silliness does not exist.
This guy should try working on unity of belief before unity of posture….not sure what the figure is for the diocese of Charlotte but I’ll bet that belief in the Real Presence isn’t above the 75% mark and maybe much lower for those who stand and receive communion in the hand….
I think the stats support me.
I wonder if the need to have uniformity of posture overrules the requirement to be in the state of grace? Must the entire row all receive, regardless of the state of anyone’s soul?
Part of the letter I perused a few days ago referred to the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (EMHC) particularly with communion under both species. Here’s a few observations:
1. A parish not far from me was trying to recruit more EMHC’s post-Wuhan Devil when the pastor wanted to bring back communion under both species. It somewhat fizzled but there are EMHC’s who feel like they are serving too frequently.
2. This parish not far from me has had some incidents with communicants taking the host back to their pews (no, this is not for homebound) that monitors and ushers have been taking the time to watch proper reception of communion.
3. I was an EMHC in college but now I try to receive from either a priest or a deacon. I also receive on the tongue instead of the hand (I received in the hand when I was younger). I have been asked over the years to be an EMHC (I do help usher sometimes) but I have politely declined.
4. It seems like the criteria for EMHC’s varied from parish to parish. At our college we were taught that you had to be baptized, received first communion, be confirmed, be a practicing Catholic (and set a good example of behavior – I think I can spare details), and if married the marriage had to have been a sacramental marriage. I think I recall names of EMHC’s had to be submitted to the chancery but I don’t know if that’s universal for every diocese.
That said, this reception of communion is going to create some additional headaches and yes, it looks like the 70s and 80s called – I hope the next move isn’t to have youth ministers have participants sit in circles, light candles, and talk about feelings.
Why am I reminded of the abbot who proudly recounted that his confreres at the General Chapter regarded him as a “left-wing brat”?
The tone of the letter is gay.
I thank God that our Ordinary, who mandates that we remain standing after saying the Agnus Dei, has not interfered with the manner of receiving Holy Communion. This may be because one of his predecessors and his minions had a very successful project of wrecking larger churches in the diocese, which included removing Altar rails.
When I receive Communion in our Church, I do so standing, and our pastor, who is about as short as I am, still bounces up on the balls of his feet to administer the host on my tongue. I have no idea what he has to do for taller people.
Could a Bishop get away with mandating (in the Novus Ordo) Communion on the tongue only? Last month in our parish a lady received in her hand, and our Pastor had to stop distributing Communion and follow her back to her pew because she had not consumed the host. A protracted conversation ensued in which she said she was taking the host home, and that she had been doing this for fifty years. Receiving Communion in the hand ought to be banned immediately, as should reception under both species.
Receiving from the cup is unnecessary and the risk of profanation too great. Plus, one could get rid of a lot of “Extraordinary Ministers” without the cup.
But, frankly, I am tired of all the frivolous mandates, imprudent changes, inane pastoral letters, and lies from the Chancery, the USCCB, and the Vatican. And, after all, didn’t our religious betters teach us during the Covid panic that the Mass and all that falderol are so unimportant that they can be forbidden to the laity, even at Easter?
Some priests use the practice of intinction becasue they do not like that people can receive Communion on the hand. Priests use intinction to get around the option for Communion on the hand because they do not give the people the option to receive the holst only.
I know priests like this. It may be that this is why the bishop is forbidding the practice. Priests will no longer be able to use intinction to get around the option of Communion on the hand.
Pingback: Pope Leo XIV’s 1st Christmas Address to the Roman Curia – I’m sensing a theme | Fr. Z's Blog
To me the most interesting thing is that the seminarians are being required to live in a local rectory during the teaching year and pay rent out of their salary from teaching. In addition to being a way to milk money out of Catholic schools, this looks to me like a chance for this Bishop to find out which seminarians are homosexual or have such inclinations, or which can be manipulated and abused. It sounds like a sick man who enjoys his disease and wants to spread it. (Given the way, as I have read, the diocese trained priests in the recent past, I doubt there are very many weak vocations, which means the bishop wants to get rid of good men.)
Who is responsible for this man being appointed a bishop?
Over 20 years ago the prior at a traditional Abbey told me he knew Catholics who thought obeying their bishop was so important that they should willingly follow their bishop to hell. I think this is the kind of idiotic obedience this bishop expects.
“…what a beautiful communal witness this is…” more likely one is trying to ignore the dreadful communion “music” than be a witness
“…witnessing that the Church journeys forward and receives Holy Communion as a pilgrim people on their way…”
Witnessing to whom? Is there some viewing stand people are watching from? Wow, look at those pilgrim people “getting” communion. Is everything a show now? Such bologna.
Suburbanbanshee: “NOBODY received Communion as part of a “stream” of believers…”
Our family noticed in Italy there was no “orderly process” or line -people just got up and went forward from wherever they were
This isn’t really all that different than those years bishops spent wrecking perfectly fine churches by “modernizing” them. They are attempting to alter behavior and thus thinking about being at church. Notice how people wonder around a more modern church as opposed to a more traditional one where you experience more quiet and genuflecting. People are bringing back more holiness to receiving communion and it got noticed.
While footnotes 11, 15, 16, and 19 had references to parts of the GIRM section “Communion under Both Kinds”, I once again hope the faithful will make themselves familiar with that whole section, if they are not already. For instance, GIRM no. 284 concludes with “Any of the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion under the species of bread alone should be granted their wish.” Together with the sentence I quoted before from GIRM no. 160 – “The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant” – I take it this not only means the communicant can receive “under the species of bread alone”, “on the tongue”, and (also in GIRM no. 160) kneeling, during any Mass where “Holy Communion under both kinds” is offered.
And I take it that it also precludes any situation of the sort Dbechtel mentions, as the communicant could ask to receive “under the species of bread alone”, “in the hand”, before intinction takes place (as described in GIRM no. 287).
Pingback: MONDAY LATE-AFTERNOON EDITION - BIG PVLPIT
Perhaps the Bishop got the idea of teaching for a year from Jesuit formation, during the period called regency. But this period is usually for three years and comes after careful preparation (two years of novitiate, classical studies, and several years of philosophy). The “regents” are carefully prepared for their teaching assignments, and very thoroughly evaluated as they finish this period by “informationes” before being admitted to theology and progress toward ordination. They live in a community, dress in clerics, are addressed as “Mister”. But there were always exceptions, some were allowed to do advanced studies during this period, or work in the missions as catechists.
For the Bishop to set up a “regency”period for his seminarians, he would have to have a lot of careful planning and preparation. Any maybe some seminarians are not called to be teachers, with neither the interest nor talent for that work. Why set them up for a frustrating year.
The other question: why delay their ordination for a year? Yes one can always improve with more experience. But most of us found that we learn to be better priests by being priests, by doing the work of the priesthood, allowing ourselves to be challenged by the example of good and faithful fellow priests, and the faith of the laity to whom we minister. The real formation for priesthood comes after ordination.
This letter acknowledges a communicants right to receive kneeling. At the same time all kneeling things will be removed in January.
Therefore those who continue to receive kneeling, being forced to do so on the hard floor as that is now the only option, should sue the diocese. The diocese now only provides a potentially injurious manner to receive under a recognized right.