Just a moment of your time, Your Excellency…
75% of Charlotte Seminarians Come from Parishes with Altar Rails
This weekend the faithful of Charlotte have learned that as of the 1st Sunday of Advent November 30, 2025, Bishop Michael Martin has ordered that altar rails should no longer be used for the distribution of Holy Communion in the Diocese of Charlotte. Additionally, any parishes using kneelers (or unfixed rails) must remove them. This, we have been told, is to remain consistent with the norms established by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
While just announced, the faithful are already being told that obedience requires submission. However, we have also heard (unconfirmed) that some priests may be reviewing this with canon lawyers or even requesting a clarification from Rome. We hope that more seek this route as the USCCB does not forbid the use of altar rails, but rather simply states that the norm is to receive standing, while fully permitting the faithful to kneel. It would seem to be a matter of both justice and charity for the Church to provide assistance for those who choose to kneel (accomplished by distributing at a rail).
Indeed, the cultural norm at a significant number of parishes in the diocese is for the faithful to receive kneeling and on the tongue. However, it isn’t just the number of parishes that is interesting, but rather, which parishes and what else is happening there.
This past week the USCCB celebrated its annual National Vocation Awareness Week. As stated on their website:
“National Vocations Awareness Week…is an annual week-long celebration of the Catholic Church in the United States dedicated to promoting vocations to the priesthood, diaconate, and consecrated life…”
One of the most healthy and robust areas inherited by Bishop Martin from his predecessor Bishop Peter Jugis is priestly vocations. Currently Charlotte lists 44 seminarians on their website, an impressive number for a diocese of about half a million Catholics. Additionally, the diocese has ordained 13 men to the priesthood in just the past 2 years, with another 7 11 set to be ordained in 2026.
[Update: I have been informed that 3 other seminarians are being ordained to the transitional diaconate next month and will also be ordained to the priesthood in 2026. Additionally, we have one seminarian being ordained for the FSSP next May].
But there’s something else interesting about the boom in vocations in the Charlotte diocese: 75% of those young men come from parishes where the use of altar rails or communion kneelers has been the norm. Consider that: 3 out of every 4 men in seminary in Charlotte had their vocations fostered in parishes which utilize altar rails.
To be clear, in no way should we assume that correlation is causation; obviously the discernment process and the fostering of vocations is complex: from God’s call, to the prayerful attentiveness to hear and to say yes, to the support at home from family, as well as from the parish community and the pastor.
However, it would also seem irresponsible to ignore that 75% of Charlotte’s current seminarians, and well over half of their recent classes of ordinands, come from such parishes. A recent study even suggested what many of the faithful would say is obvious: how we receive the Eucharist, and how a community supports that reception through traditional practices such as kneeling for communion, plays a sizable part in Eucharistic reverence and belief.
As we consider all of these matters we can only hope that someone will share this information with Bishop Martin.
For the links in the article, go over to the original at Liturgy Guy (linked at the top).
Loading ...
I have read comments from the suffering parishioners in Charlotte and it keeps on getting worse. Why? A return to the 1970s when many thousands of religious and clergy and also the faithful left the Church? While is has happened many countless that one man, a bishop, can destroy a diocese, we wish it would not keep happening. The suffering of the faithful means nothing to such a one.
If one wanted to destroy the Catholic Church, how would it look any different than this?
I hope that, regardless of how the clergy handle this (and I’m hoping they do the right thing and that they do it in unison), the laity should continue to kneel, regardless. Younger parishioners should escort older parishioners up, provide support for those who want to kneel, and even bring some kind of padding for them.
Authority has legitimate limitations. Orders which exceed those limitations and which directly act to do harm to the common good should NOT be obeyed. A blind and false obedience to every hateful decree coming from someone like Bishop Martin is not virtuous.
St. Athanasius, pray for us.
Where is the “Synodal Church” in the actions of the new bishop of Charlotte? Oh, that’s right. No “Synodal Church”(ing) here.
As I live down the road from Charlotte (in South Carolina), I know a number of folks in Charlotte,who,despite the orders of their bishop, will continue to kneel for communion. The bishop may indicate this cruelty but people can continue to kneel for communion of their own volition. They have told their pastors of this and the pastors cannot really do anything about it. Yes, it is disobedience but sometimes it is necessary. These people do it out of love for their Lord.
Ban! Ban! Caliban…
Has a new* master:—get a new* man.
Freedom, hey-day! hey-day, freedom! freedom, hey-day, freedom!
*(from 1969. Can’t spell “hip replacement ” without “hip”)
In my work experience, a tongue-in-cheek quip concerning bad management was, “The whippings will continue until morale improves.”
It seems this is also being followed in the Church by bad bishops. I see here that same knee-jerk reaction by this bishop against anything “pre-Vatican II”. I believe he is scared because the so-called “spirit of Vatican II” days are numbered. As Scriptures says there is a “season for every activity under the heavens”
Pray for the priests and people of Charlotte; also pray for their bishop that he listens to them.
Again, what is the root of such an action? I can no longer provide any credence to the idea that this obsessive deconstructionist personality disorder has any root in academic research let alone Roman Catholic spirituality.
Semi-related: Can someone explain to me why the Nunch thinks he needs to lecture the US Bishops about Vatican 2 every time he makes an appearance?
Which part did we not get right?
The part about banning Latin?
The part about how Gregorian Chant is anti-participatory?
The part about destroying communion rails?
The part about “active participation” requires decibels and enthusiasm?
Oh those aren’t part of V2
As I recall, ages ago our USCCB issued a document re: receiving the Eucharist wherein reception in the hand was described as “the norm”— and that document was used to discourage/deny reception on the tongue.
.
But what those liturgical gatekeepers were overlooking (or ignoring) was that the USCCB document they were citing was using “norm” in its *descriptive* sense, as in “this is what we see the majority of people are doing now”, while the anti-Communion-on-the-tongue crowd were using “norm” in its *prescriptive* sense, i.e., “this is what all people MUST do now”.
.
I’m wondering if claims that the USCCB has legislated that kneeling to receive Communion is verboten is based on a similar misunderstanding (or deliberate exploitation of an ambiguity).
Another thing affected parishes can do is to leave the first pew on each side of the church empty during Mass, and then use those pews for the reception of Holy Communion. I have seen comments from people that this is what their parishes that have no communion rails do. It may be a little tricky having to raise and lower the kneelers as people enter and leave the pews, but I expect that can be managed.
I planned to say something about this Bishop, but just thinking that thought convinced me I now need to go to Confession.
There is only one correct response:
MOLON LABE
Can Leo XIV find this man a spot in Rome that at least sounds like a promotion where he can harmlessly spend most of his time?
Sadly, to liberal prelates, evidence that traditional practices foster priestly vocations is not so much an argument fortraditional practices but rather a sign that the seminary’s admissions process has failed to screen out the riff-raff.
They should file an ADA discrimination lawsuit. The Church makes it clear that every Catholic everywhere has the right to receive Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue regardless of conference norms. Therefore it is a violation of ADA not to provide an accessible way for the faithful who wish to do so to receive in that way.
We have to provide ramps to the sanctuary and elevators to the choir loft. This seems more important
Just to start my comment, I think Hitler got a bad rap. His biggest downfall was the same as Napoleon’s, He turned against the Catholic Church.
As far as “obeying” the Bishop, When we stand before God , “I was just following Orders!” Won’t wash.
I am trying (as so many others here seem to be) trying to understand why Bp. Martin appears to be so adamant and energetic in trying to stamp out receiving Communion kneeling and on the tongue. I…got nothin.’
To Clinton’s point above, I wonder whether the use of the term “norm” here is sort of a modified motte-and-bailey (for lack of a more precise term) where one acts as though it’s a mandate without saying explicitly it’s a mandate until they can rip out the rails and present a fait accompli.
Meanwhile the faithful grumble a bit and then keep on keeping on, allowing one to claim, “See? It was never a big deal to anyone.”
Still doesn’t answer the original question: Why burn the (metaphorical) capital on it?
Additionally, any parishes using kneelers (or unfixed rails) must remove them.
Disruptive compliance: put a pair of prie dieu up front at the beginning of every mass (or at Communion time). REMOVE them after every mass. This fulfills the directive “to remove them”.
@ Clinton, who suggests:
But what those liturgical gatekeepers were overlooking (or ignoring) was that the USCCB document they were citing was using “norm” in its *descriptive* sense, as in “this is what we see the majority of people are doing now”, while the anti-Communion-on-the-tongue crowd were using “norm” in its *prescriptive* sense, i.e., “this is what all people MUST do now”.
Actually, the norm as originally written indicated standing as the norm position for receiving and bowing as the norm for the act of reverence, intending it as the rule to be followed. The Vatican then corrected the USCCB’s understanding by noting that Rome’s approval of the US bishops’ request for bowing to be the national norm was an approval WITH THE STIPULATION that genuflecting and kneeling continues to be allowed. The norm as NOW expressed says:
the body of Bishops has determined that “[t]he norm… is 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 (no. 160)….Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing”
The bishop probably knows that if he tried to legislate that people must stand to receive, he would be knocked down on this, so he tries to skirt that by removing all the options for making it easy. I would urge Catholics in Charlotte to have EVERY SINGLE PERSON at the Cathedral receiving to flamboyantly kneel, making super heavy weather of getting down and getting up, and slow the line down tremendously (and urge the priests to support this – sub rosa).
They should file an ADA discrimination lawsuit.
I approve!!!
Can Leo XIV find this man a spot in Rome that at least sounds like a promotion where he can harmlessly spend most of his time?
It is my secret hope for a pope to identify the 1000 most problematic cardinals, bishops, and seminary teachers, call them in secret, individually, to the Vatican, and secretly tell them that he has “an important but quiet assignment for you, my deacon Bob here has all the details and your plane tickets, go with him, but you have to go now”. And send them to be missionary pastors (and for the worst cardinals, pastoral assistants) in the middle of Africa and Asia, where it takes 10 days of travel just to get there. Oh, one-way tickets, of course. It’s pretty hard on all the deacons being thrown under the bus doing this, but I’m sure their reward will be great in heaven.
Does the good Bishop Charlotte say anything about having a prie deux at the front of the sanctuary?
“Modern problems require modern solutions”
Hmm. Timing is off but todays reading Wisdom 6:1-11 might apply in this instance.
The bishop will lash out against a prie due (sp) and order them moved
He would find it more difficult to have some pillars of the community stand at attention to help people kneel for communion
Much more difficult to interfere with active actual parishioners of each sex
I would think that it would be wildly reckless from a personal liability standpoint for this or any Bishop (knowing full well the long established history of Communicants kneeling to receive the Holy Eucharist-invariably some frail and elderly) to presuppose that absent proper accommodation by the Diocese (i.e. kneelers) some old dears certainly will topple and injure themselves A foreseeable civil liability for the Bishop. Bishop better have his wallet ready.
Oh the joys of having an SSPX chapel close by…
I recently heard through a very credible channel that a US archbishop who is a JD and JCL recently told one of his priests that canon law prevented him from forbidding the pastor to install an altar rail in his parish, but that he’d reassign the pastor to a new parish if he did so.
I thought that was a poignant example of the reality that you can have the canonical upper ground in a situation, but the hierarchy (local or in Rome) often has a realpolitik mechanism to exert their will.
But I also wonder if enough priests join together (as seems to be maybe happening here) if they have their own realpolitik mechanisms – go ahead and reassign all of these priests in an environment where you don’t have enough priests to begin with.
St Cyril of Jerusalem gives clear directions on how to receive communion in the hand in the 4th century. The council of Nicea in its last canon instructs people not to kneel on Sundays. That’s pre Vatican I. The bishop is probably not thinking of these Traditions but there’s precedent for both practices he encourages.
@Justasinner I wonder why you mention this. It may not be popular to say this on this blog, but I would remind everyone that SSPX, as wonderful as they maybe, still do have an irregular canonical status. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong but one must obtain permission to attend a SSPX Mass to fulfill our Sunday obligation.
And let us not forget that Lefebvre ordained Bishops within the permission of Rome… and SSPX was offered an off ramp by JPII which they refused…
One correction, meant to say “without” the permission of Rome.
Bishop Schneider says the early church practice was not how it is done today. Read his book. People in the early Church never received in the left hand. They also reverenced it before carefully consuming it from their hand without picking it up. This is why the practice was changed to the tongue. Also, Bishop Vann Johnson grew up in a parish where communion was only received at the altar rail and most of the time on the tongue by a priest with an altar boy holding a paten under the chin of the communicant. The priest at his parish forbade lay ministers from taking communion to the sick. He did have 2 laymen (who had to wear cassocks and surplices like the altar boys) who would help distribute Holy communion along with himself at only 1 Sunday Mass at the communion rail. But only 1 laymen was allowed at that mass to help father. Everyone can kneel and for those who are frail, bring your own prie dieu to Mass, carry it, use it and then remove it!!!
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong but one must obtain permission to attend a SSPX Mass to fulfill our Sunday obligation.
I do so: you are wrong, one need not obtain permission to attend an SSPX Mass to fulfil the Sunday obligation.
Their status is irregular, yes. How wise it is, how right and wrong they are in certain things [*], how much this depends on what circumstances, these are all separate issues. But their Masses are Catholic Masses and so do, in themselves, fulfil the Sunday obligation. Ecclesia Dei said so in the 1990s when their members of episcopal rank were still excommunicated. That they wouldn’t, now, when their priests have Confession faculties is absurd.
Also, noone ever said that this depended on a permission. Some, I do not believe rightly, have said one ought not to go there at all, ever, because it would constitute adherence to a schism… but “in itself no, but with permission yes” is not an answer that any sizable number of people have given to this question.
It was, when I was a regular SSPX attender, my personal practice indeed to go to an entirely legal mass in addition on days of obligation, but that’s just that: personal practice (and perhaps a bit of something I otherwise have no problems with, namely, a scruple).
[* My personal chief disagreement is with the widespread attitude – whether it’s official policy I do not know – to treat for their own community, based on a rule that comes from nowhere, attendance at Novus Ordo Masses the way the Church treats intrinsic evil acts; and sometimes extending that even to non-SSPX Old Masses (I guess as long as the Church has not officially banned the Novus Ordo) considering them compromises too etc. I do treat them as priests of the Catholic Church, but as little as any other Catholic priests do they have authority to forbid me worshipping God together with my fellow Catholics.]
It is interesting that no consecrated Biahops (posit Schneider or a retired even auxiliary) tells us to hold our metaphorical fire and stick with Rome
Sorry. None has crossed to SSPX
That says hold our metaphorical fire and stick with Rome