At mass, crying rooms for chatters? The worshiper reported and commented decades ago.

MODEST SUGGESTION . . . . An idea whose time has come, or so said the worshiper. A special room for people who want to chat during mass. Yes, we’ve had crying rooms for people with babies, he conceded. But now it’s time for chat rooms in church! It would be a way of recognizing that some people worship differently from others.

He walked into church one Sunday, and everyone was talking. Mass hadn’t started, it was not too big a crowd, it was like walking into a school board meeting before it’s called to order. And as in some board meetings, the calling to order did not entirely silence some, who took mass as chat time: it was a family group, with infants in arms, just the kind of people you like to see. But couldn’t they be quiet?

PARISH BULLETIN WARNS PEOPLE AWAY FROM ILLEGAL LATIN MASS CHURCH . . . . It’s a “chapel,” says the bulletin, “that advertises itself as ‘Our Lady Immaculate Roman Catholic Church.'” But it’s actually not Roman Catholic but is run by the St. Pius X society founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, who was excommunicated, etc. etc.

The bulletin quotes the Pope about the “grave offense” involved in adherence to the Society leading to excommunication. The worshiper is at risk, therefore, by now and then attending the Latin masses at Our Lady Immaculate.

Would the parish consider now and then having a Latin mass, so as to ween him away? For pastoral reasons? A recent special mass for gays and lesbians at a neighboring church was a one-time thing, apparently. Maybe have a one-time thing for Latin mass enthusiasts who make no claims about being born that way but only say they were raised that way?

THE MODERN CHURCH AT PRAYER . . . Warmup for a recent RC funeral mass included an organ-ized rendition of “All the Things You Are” — lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein II. Only the music (by Jerome Kern) was played, however. The words go this way and would have been applicable to the deceased or to Jesus, though that would be a major surprise to Hammerstein:

You are the promised kiss of springtime That makes the lonely winter seem long. You are the breathless hush of evening That trembles on the brink of a lovely song. You are the angel glow – that lights a star. The dearest things I know – are what you are. One day my happy arms will hold you And someday I’ll know that moment divine When all the things you are are mine.

Ain’t liturgy grand?

KEEN ANALYSIS . . . Sacramentalism used to be the thing, but in contemporary Catholicism it’s the person. We take our cue from Evangelical Protestantism, where grace (divine help) comes from praying with partners after service and not from the sacrament. Potential partners wait at the end of each service, usually couples. It’s ministry up close and personal.

Ritual was the medium in Catholicism, not one’s fellow worshipers. This was a major sticking point of the Reformation, as in whether the sinfulness of the minister affected a sacrament’s value. “Ex opere operato” was a key term, from or because of the thing done, vs. “ex opere operantis,” from or because of the one doing it.

It’s a 500-year-old or older divide. In bald terms, for the sake of argument, does it matter who administers the sacrament (who’s the minister) or does the sacrament carry its own weight? Fall on one side, you have something good anywhere, any time, any place. Fall on the other, it don’t mean a thing if you ain’t got that swing.

Lacking ritual, you have something here today gone tomorrow or next century. Lacking the personal, you have the unsalable, the unpersuasive. You always depend on people. But with ritual, you have what lasts, what relies less on performance by the minister. Do a good formula right, you’ve got it right.

But Catholic worship has gotten flaccid and informal, compared to 50 years ago. It features priest as performer, even showman, vs. priest as follower of ritual prescribed by the church as millennial institution.

Importance of ignoring what’s up front during mass, 2004 . . . Various ministers are thrust up front by current rules. It’s not their fault. Politeness does not require looking at them, however. So don’t look but mind your own business, reading and meditating on the day’s Scripture. There’s so much going on up front, traipsing to and fro with book held high over forehead as if to ward off falling plaster, prior to reading Scripture of the day. It’s not helpful ritual but merely distracting. Then you look up and see priest looking at you. He can’t help it. Reverentially downcast eyes have not been part of his training. But you can help it by not looking.

Halfway through the last year of the 20th century the worshiper mused about what happened to the mass in the previous 30 years and put it in writing . . .

Is the two-mass Sunday schedule [down from three] related to diminishing numbers among priests? Is the change a one-timer, or are we headed for one-mass Sundays in our cathedral-class Gothic church with the big oak doors?

A certain kind of person is reminded of magazines and newspapers faced with declining circulation, whose editors remake the publication only to find the changes alienate regulars and attract too few new readers. Tricky business.

One is also reminded of earlier efforts at bringing the body religious into new realms. In the tragicomic vein, there’s the recent roping off of back pews (by a previous pastor) in this same church, with a view to getting us Catholics to sit up front and close to each other, not at comfortable distances, but close enough to exchange handclasp of peace at the appointed time.

There were the lines of yellow police tape one Sunday, silently telling us to move up front, as if plaster was going to fall soon on the prohibited pews. Yes, dear reader, in due time someone tore the tape and moved into the forbidden territory. This is rebellion, dear reader, the sort to be cherished years after the fact at class reunions, as above.

More seriously (and successfully) was the all-church changeover from Latin to English after Vatican Council II. Was this centralized planning or not? Enough to make a statist weep with envy. The world over, Catholics got used to mass in everyday language. It became part of the worldwide social engineering taking place – change by design, not by natural influences.

Vatican II celebrated the freedom of the children of God, but not in liturgy. Latin had to go. Latin went. Rebels were marginalized. Only recently has Latin returned with church authority’s blessings.

So it goes, change dictated from above for our own good by people who know what’s best. My friend M., in his last year before ordination as a holy Jesuit, complained. He had enough trouble believing in the mass in Latin, he said. Now the mystery would be severely lessened. He was not happy.

This from a Catholic-school-educated fellow, including Jesuit high school and college in the 1950s, a straight-arrow fellow from an Irish Catholic Chicago neighborhood, who swallowed hard and went on to be ordained — later to fall by priestly wayside, get married: the full catastrophe, as Zorba said.

M.’s problems sound strange to today’s 27-year-old who learned her Catholicism in our parish – the part about the mass being hard to believe in. But friend M. had much more to believe about the mass than she does today, when it’s essentially a church-sponsored, Scripture-referenced celebration of unity with each other.

He had to believe in transubstantiation – who now says the word? The bread and wine became the body and blood of Jesus in substance, while accidents (of breadness, etc.) remained, etc.

The priest held the host (bread) and believed he held the body of Christ. At least one could hardly do it and would stutter at the “words of consecration,” barely able to say them. A whole new mass developed after Vatican II — was developed quite consciously, as young Jesuits debated in the mid-50s, looking ahead — this liturgy of the future, vernacularized, would be as much communicating with people as with God. The priest would face the people, look at them, saying the dread words, making them more pew-sitter-friendly.

My friend M. saw the mystery dissolving away, and with it his belief. This has happened. Mass is now something else — arguably a very good thing, in which we celebrate unity with each other. As for the mystical and mysterious, that’s a happy memory, fast fading from Catholic consciousness.

St. Mark’s Day, Alleluia.

He was a disciple, gospel-writer, evangelist, worked Cyprus in 47 with Paul and his cousin Barnabas. Did same later in Alexandria, where he “won the glory of martyrdom,” as Deacon John relates in his splendid TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS PROPERS IN ENGLISH blog.

But not before he did same with Pope Peter, working as secretary to the first pontiff, not to mention amanuensis, taking notes from his sermons about Jesus’ public ministry which became Mark’s gospel, the second after Peter in the New Testament but probably the first written.

His was “terse, picturesque language [that] must have been very close to the words of the former fisherman of Galilee.” Don’t you love it? We live and pray the words and recollections of a fisherman!

You see why I call it St. Mark’s Day and add an Alleluia. Because he was a reporter, just like me. AND arguably the best writer of a Gospel. His gospel is “short, action-packed,” wrote one-time newspaper reporter and AP wire editor Jack Zavada.

Here’s Mark’s gospel’s opener, in the nonpareil Knox translation:

1
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
2
It is written in the prophecy of Isaias, Behold, I am sending before thee that angel of mine who is to prepare thy way for thy coming;
3
there is a voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, straighten out his paths.
4
And so it was that John appeared in the wilderness baptizing, announcing a baptism whereby men repented, to have their sins forgiven.
5
And all the country of Judaea and all those who dwelt in Jerusalem went out to see him, and he baptized them in the river Jordan, while they confessed their sins.
6
John was clothed with a garment of camel’s hair, and had a leather girdle about his loins, and he ate locusts and wild honey.
7
And thus he preached, One is to come after me who is mightier than I, so that I am not worthy to bend down and untie the strap of his shoes.
8
I have baptized you with water; he will baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
9
At this time, Jesus came from Nazareth, and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
10
And even as he came up out of the water he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit, like a dove, coming down and resting upon him.
11
There was a voice, too, out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Such a lead. No editor would touch it.
St. Mark, pray for us. Especially newsies of any stripe.

To believe or not to believe in the Real Presence? Important question for Roman Catholics.

I see, or we saw, where 2/3 of Romans in the U.S. do not believe in the Real Presence, also where on 2nd thought the pollster, heretofore taken as horse’s mouth in such matters, got it wrong. Ah. Make that 2/3 of us do believe in the Real P, says another pollster. (When was the last time such a violent discrepancy happened? Should we be worried? More than usual, I mean. Hmm.)

In any case, so it goes, or went this time, in the wild and woolly world of polstering, where the devil takes the hindmost. Nonetheless, we do have the big show coming in Indianapolis aimed at bolstering said belief and I wish I could make it but find myself absorbed and/or spoken for in my customary round of fevered comings and goings, including regular meetings of the local Over 90’s club.

Nonetheless again, I remain intrigued by the issue. Not kidding, of course, nothing to joke about, depending as I am in my decades-long adherence to this faith of the Romans enforcing my assurance of the Savior in our midst and accessible by all, thank God for that. Indeed, I am reading a book on the subject, a sort of you don’t believe us here we are announcement by the Pius X society, offshoot of the Vatican 2 feature, its go-ahead on liturgical change, primarily of the Mass, The Problem of the Liturgical Reform: A Theological and Liturgical Study, meant for aficionados of the New Mass, also known as Novus Ordo.

Not just aficionados either but people who know what Denzinger is and do or did theology and read Latin at least a little. Many of you cannot imagine such at this point of our history as civilized people but I can and I am one of them. Denzinger? It’s an ongoing compilation of doctrine, fruits of labor by Jesuits and other people since 1854 and so you have Denzinger such and such, whatever’s the latest rewrite. Denzinger is ever a work in progress.

When this writer was a pup, sitting in a West Baden, Indiana, classroom, it was Denzinger Bannwart, named after its editor, to which we students referred as our understanding something as told us by our teacher, code name Forty, a splendid man on a lifelong mission to get things straight with not an irritating or contentious bone in his body. In retrospect, he was the boy at the dike, holding his thumb in the hole before all gave way, in this case, the devil MODERNISM, though in the early ‘60s we rarely heard the term. Pius X used the the word, calling it “the synthesis of all heresies.” His defense against the same was right-wing extremism in our book.

Be that as it may, Forty stood for the faith as it remained before Vatican 2 experimenters/innovators got to it, though we young Jesuits either didn’t know what was brewing in Rome or in varying degrees liked it. In this book from the society named after Pius, I found explanation, I think, for the 2/3 not believing (as above) but most of all probed for the whys and wherefores of liturgical change — as in my view has contributed to our alarmingly lessened belief.

Communion in hand standing up comes to mind. So does the overall, ah, noisiness of the New Mass vs the traditional quiet so praised by Cardinal Sarah but makes us so busy listening and responding to the celebrant/presider that we can hardly get with the main event, which is real, not merely symbolic, reenacted redeeming sacrifice. This liturgical book argues the old way, calling up Denzinger and other sources repeatedly to show (expose) the theology behind the new mass.

About which more later, please stay tuned . . .

Illinois SAFE-T Act diminishes public safety . . .

Letting bad guys and gals go to sin some more against the body politic.

It’s what I’d call Blue State Blues.
Another taste of same available at my Illinois Blues: How the Ruling Party Talks to Voters