I know this is Fr. Rutler's parish, but isn't it also home to our forum colleague Pedro D'Aquino?

debt-free [. . .] well-attended

QUICK! BETTER SHUT IT DOWN!

I'm guessing that this might be impossible in NY due to the cost... but in Detroit, parishioners of St. Albertus, closed a number of years ago, banded together and bought their church. They hold Masses (TLM and OF) with some regularity, are restoring their building on their own, and are literally "taking leadership" in making sure their community lives on.

http://stalbertusdetroit.org/

The number one threat to Holy Innocents is an intra-diocesan culture, made up largely of older clergy and chancery officials who are completely incapable of "thinking outside the box" with regard to "re-imaging" (to use a popular neologism) parishes in ways that can help them continue to survive, or even thrive, in conditions of demographic change, economic shifts, and cultural upheaval.

The incredible amount of rezoning of formerly commercial and/or manufacturing areas in New York City, with the resultant boom in conversion of formerly commercial buildings into residential apartments (coupled with much new residential construction) has created entirely new residential communities that cry out for evangelization by the Catholic Church (including the area around Holy Innocents). In many of these areas, large, old (read: gloriously beautiful and traditional) Catholic churches, which have been bleeding members and decaying, present ready-made venues for the resurgence in traditional Catholicism in particular, and evangelization in general.

Would that the Archdiocese of New York would look to the wise leadership of some other Dioceses across the U.S. and see how inviting some of the newer religious orders and institutes to assume pastoral care for these churches can often be a win-win situation for all (of course that may be exactly the point - these newer groups tend to be very traditional, conservative, orthodox, call it what you will, and the higher ups may not want that!)

Pray! Pray! Pray!

Gaudete in Domino Semper!

The closing of St. Michael's seems particularly bizarre since it's practically across the street from Hudson Yards, the largest private real estate development in the history of New York City (5,000 residential units, 5 office towers, etc.), which is due to open in the next few years.

As we all know, when it comes to closing churches it is often the question of the value of the real estate. There is no logic involved so I wouldn't find St. Michael's bizarre. The way they deal with this is infuriating.

Doesn't the USA government protect his church?

That's not a thing here.

Abp. Dolan allowed ICK to work in Milwaukee and 500 (or more) souls now attend the EF Masses held there. However, Abp Dolan (and his predecessor AND successor) closed lots of parishes, too.

Cardinal Burke made some pertinent remarks on the "do's and don't's of parish closures" last month. Fr. Z featured it on his blog with some pertinent red-ink comments of his own.

The gist of it, according to Cardinal Burke, was that churches should not be closed if they are financially solvent, and if there are financial reasons for closing a church, those reasons must be demonstrated and documented, and, as Fr. Z said, the lay people of the parish ought to be privy to that information since they pay the bills.

I'm in one of THE Epicenters of parish closures in the United States - This diocese is THE battleground, as well as the poster child for fighting closures.

Here's what I've learned (mind you, I am the DOM of a newly created parish as the result of a merger between two former parishes, a former parish where I was DOM is now closed, and two churches very near to my current parish have reopened after winning an appeal with the Vatican):

There are no good answers to this. Emotions run high on every side and both sides have logic and make good points. The situation faced by dioceses in this "post-Catholic" region of the country is horrendous. Gone are the days where there was a parish on every corner staffed by a Pastor and 5 associates and there were parishioners and plenty of money to support it.

And it's not about the priest shortage, either - at least not totally. It's about demographics, population loss, white-flight, the losses of the Catholic Church to Protestants, the financial situation of most of the country, and many other factors.

Things often are more complicated than they seem. A nearby parish won their appeal and has reopened. They claimed to be "financially solvent." They have a million dollars in the bank. Their entire constituency is also almost entirely over 60, and their two weekend masses average attendance of 30 each. Oh, but they have money! They shouldn't be closed!

So - what we now will have a front row seat to witness will be this parish blowing through 1 million dollars over the next ten or so years, paying staff, a secretary, etc. in order to maintain their very own dying kingdom. Their savings will run out, their people will die off. And they will close again within ten years. And that million dollars that could have went to the diocese, could have been used to shore up other parishes, could have been used for any number of other things, will simply have been spent employing someone to type up a short bulletin every week and employing someone else to change the toilet paper and mop the floor so that the 60 people who attend each week could attend in the building of their choosing - as though that is what church is about.

To say nothing of the fact that the reopening of these dying parishes, small as they may be, siphoned off just enough people from us so as to be a small punch in the gut for us and a cause for slightly lower morale as we saw our numbers go down (although very slightly) when they opened. This in a parish that is mostly successful, but still feels like we are in a fight to remain solvency ourselves.

Now I'm not saying that these examples are true in the case of this NYC church. And I'm not even venturing an opinion in this case; I do not have one.

All I'm saying is that these situations are never easy.

I guess my actual plea was more that the people of the parish itself would be wise enough to say "it's silly to blow through 1 million dollars just because we don't want to go to mass a couple blocks away. It's also nuts to tie up a priest to say mass for 30 people when there's a mass going on a couple blocks away and that church isn't full."

Instead, they are determined to die in that parish, spending (blowing) all their money as they go. And who cares what happens when they're gone?

I guess I'm always hoping for people to do what they can't seem to do: Take the emotion out of it and act with wisdom and charity.

Praying for the whole situation at Holy Innocents.

The lesson for my generation seems to revolve around wisdom and charity, too. There is wisdom in the Church's teachings on family life, and it is charity in action means remaining open to life.

Demographic shifts have many causes, and one huge one is birth control and abortion. The shrinkage of the Catholic family size- and priesthood- was not and is not unavoidable. Money will not solve the problem. We have to admit the neglect of Church teaching on family life. Bishops, priests, parents, everyone. We have to talk about it, and commit to responsible and generous parenting.

PGA is right- wisdom and charity in all things will get us through this.

The lesson for my generation seems to revolve around wisdom and charity, too. There is wisdom in the Church's teachings on family life, and it is charity in action means remaining open to life.

Demographic shifts have many causes, and one huge one is birth control and abortion. The shrinkage of the Catholic family size- and priesthood- was not and is not unavoidable. Money will not solve the problem. We have to admit the neglect of Church teaching on family life. Bishops, priests, parents, everyone. We have to talk about it, and commit to responsible and generous parenting.

MaryAnn you hit the nail on the head with this!

In a January 2013 column for the archdiocesan paper, Cardinal Dolan wrote that the money from the sale of closed parishes will go to four new archdiocesan endowments.

Funds for these endowments will come largely through the sales or rentals of closed parish properties and donations.

So we're saying this would be flagrantly illegal?

..." the personal parish of St. John the Baptist".

FYI: St. John the Baptist is a territorial parish. St. Francis is a quasi national parish without geographic borders (originally established for Italian-speaking immigrants).

At least this is so barring any extremely recent changes that I may not be aware of.

Gaudete in Domino Semper!

Dad29, this is sad news re: Milwaukee. I just assumed Wisconsin was almost an EF paradise since you have, comparatively speaking, quite a few traditional parishes there; Cardinal Dolan himself approved some of them, if I'm not mistaken, when he was the ordinary there.

There are no traditional parishes in the northeast outside of NJ and PA---only Sunday Masses at random churches and places like St. John's Cemetery in Queens (where we do the music). Our round trip to the cemetery chapel every Sunday is 64 miles, and we must haul all the equipment since there is no organ. I hadn't tallied it exactly before, but it's a lot of schlepping. Actually, there are some families who come from even farther out east on the island. (You have to do a lot of driving on Looooong Island no matter what you do.)

Holy Innocents is the closest thing to a traditional parish here in the NY area since there is a daily EF Latin Mass on the schedule, but from Amityville to Holy Innocents the round trip is 80 miles though we go on holy days sometimes because it is so beautiful.

probably beat just about everything one would find on any weekend in the Diocese of Orlando!

That cannot possibly be difficult...

The order of service is from Milwaukee Cathedral and Fr. Krisman is saying that it beats what can be found in Orlando.

It is lawful for the bishop or archbishop of a diocese to make that law for his diocese. You don't have to like it but it's not wrong.

Byzantines do it.

It is lawful for the bishop or archbishop of a diocese to make that law for his diocese. You don't have to like it but it's not wrong.

Um. The bishops can't force that upon the people.

The things we do these days for the sake of "unity"!

Would this be what you are looking for?

390. It is for the Conferences of Bishops to formulate the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself. They are such as these:

• the gestures and bodily posture of the faithful (cf. no. 43);

If it is, please notice that it says "Conference of Bishops".

EDIT: Nevermind, found it. So you're right, it does mention the diocesan bishop. However, it also says "should" in reference to what the people do. It doesn't say "must".

Okay, I'll post it in full.

(Would Chonak like to split these relevant posts into another discussion?)

Here's the GIRM:

43 (paragraph 3). In the Dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy) until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by ill health, or for reasons of lack of space, of the large number of people present, or for another reasonable cause. However, those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the Priest genuflects after the Consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.[53]

It references Sacrasanctam Concilium:

40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:

1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should then be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.

2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them.

It also references Varietates Legitimae:

41. The liturgy is an action, and so gesture and posture are especially important. Those which belong to the essential rites of the sacraments and which are required for their validity must be preserved just as they have been approved or determined by the supreme authority of the Church.[87]

The gestures and postures of the celebrating priest must express his special function: He presides over the assembly in the person of Christ.[88]

The gestures and postures of the assembly are signs of its unity and express its active participation and foster the spiritual attitude of the participants.[89] Each culture will choose those gestures and bodily postures which express the attitude of humanity before God, giving them a Christian significance, having some relationship if possible, with the gestures and postures of the Bible.

I suppose that based upon this that the bishops who make the change to standing during Communion have deemed it to be in accordance with the traditions and cultures of the American people. I could believe that. After all, it's the American culture to kneel before no one!

I wonder if these changes have been suggested to the Apostolic See before being implemented as stated in the first quote.

That's a MIGHTY FINE line there. Would you make that same argument if the Holy See said that all parishes everywhere "should" use the propers exclusively? But I don't even see the word "should" or "must." It says "The faithful kneel ... unless the diocesan bishop determines otherwise."

It's in a section I cut out. I was trying not to make my post so long.

In regard to your argument, I would say no. But they are different things. Posture has never been something that's been extremely enforced aside from Communion on the tongue while kneeling and also kneeling during the consecration. Now, it seems to be an "obey or else" attitude by some. While I recognize that posture can be important, it's odd to stress so forcefully something solely for the sake of "unity" or cultural reasons, especially when it goes against the long-held traditions of the Church. Furthermore, one wonders why there is such a focus on posture when, as we all know, things of much more importance are being ignored. We have priests proclaiming bizarre teachings (I was recently told I only need to go to confession if I FEEL like it!) to the faithful, but what's being done to address that? Uniform posture isn't going to foster any real unity if the faithful are not being taught... and if they were taught, why in the world would we be requiring them to stand AFTER communion -- a time when that person has the most intimate union with God through the Eucharist and would be better spent kneeling down and praying in thanksgiving?

There are a lot of unanswered questions that these bishops should be addressing.

No, no. That's not the logic. Paul Turner has written about this: the posture of the early Church, the language in one of the Eucharistic prayers that says "...worthy to stand in your presence," the fact that kneeling is actually a penitential posture, etc.

Kneeling has long been a posture of adoration. In regard to what the Church does, we should remember that the liturgy has developed organically. Going back to the infancy of the Church and eliminating all that development isn't wise. I realize it's the trend right now, and honestly, we're seeing the results of it.

The reasons are theological and have nothing to do with American culture requiring us to kneel before no one.

You seem to have failed to notice the sarcasm in what I said in regard to that.

Liturgical theologians who know more than I do have spoken and written eloquently about it.

Yup!

Either way, the question was about why that appeared in the cathedral's bulletin. This should answer it.

Indeed it does. Thanks for pointing me to that.

Liturgical theologians who know more than I do have spoken and written eloquently about it.

Foofoodust generators, by and large.

It's always fun to see people who laud "progress" turn around and laud "antique practices" at the drop of a Ph.D. Since the 1600's or before, kneeling during the Mass has been the practice. It most certainly was so during the 1950's, '60's, '70's, and '80's. Then, suddenly, we "progressed" to the Rome of A.D. 50.

More germane: the Archbishop of Milwaukee has not made kneeling "optional" in this area.