Anyone who’s hung around Catholic blogs for the past few years has heard about St. Joan of Arc parish in Minneapolis, a center of, er, creativity, etc.  SJA isn’t alone in that diocese, however. Its companion – and some say more extreme – is St. Stephen’s.
St. Stephen’s has made news over the past few days because the archdiocese has declared that its liturgical abuses must come to an end, and have assigned a new pastor committed to celebrate according to the ritual given by the Church.
This has made news because a contingent of parishioners has decided to leave the parish, and local columnist Nick Coleman has written about their walkout – sympathetically, of course.
There are many local Catholic-centered blogs up there commenting on this. We’ll start with those sympathetic to St. Stephen’s:
Michael Bayly is coordinator of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (it’s independent – not an archdiocesan office, even though it kind of sounds like it). He blogs extensively on this, and includes photographs of the procession of the departing parishioners to the place they’ll be worshipping as well as of some who remained in the gym to make a stance of what they call “holy resistance.”

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned that the parish I attend was recently ordered by the archdiocese to conform its various liturgies to the rubrics of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.
As I noted in my previous post, I’m sure that for many Catholic parishes, these rubrics serve well to express and reflect their faith and community life. Yet for the past 40 years, the Catholic parish that I consider my spiritual home, St. Stephen’s in South Minneapolis, has developed its liturgy in ways that reflect the presence of the Spirit as discerned in the unique gifts and needs of its members and in our shared life together.
This development has been a very intentional and faith-filled embodiment of the Second Vatican Council’s call for “full and active participation” of the laity in “liturgical celebrations” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 1963). Yet many now feel that, in one fell swoop, this embodiment – along with the Spirit that nurtured and inspired it – has been discounted by the archdiocese in its demand that it be abandoned for the rubrics of GIRM.
I can’t help but think that in this situation, the “form,” which Jesus said “profits nothing,” has been elevated above the “Spirit,” which gives life.

And what did these developments look like? Ray from MN, blogging at Northland Catholic, describes it:
(The “sacramental minister” is the priest, of course)

The “Sacramental Minister” and a woman walked together up to the altar, took their microphones and the “Mass” began with the female “minister” welcoming everyone and asking visitors to introduce themselves. The “Sacramental Minister” then said the introductory prayers and then stepped back and let the female “minister” lead the congregation in saying the Kyrie Eleison.
Then a middle aged man gave the second reading, the Epistle, letting us know that it would be accompanied by a poem by an environmental poet. It was Earth Day. Halfway through the reading, a woman (possibly his wife) joined the lector and assisted him in finishing the poem. Relieved, thinking to myself, well I’m glad that’s over, now we can get down to the meat of the Mass.
But the Sacramental Minister, legs crossed, looking extremely uncomfortable, remained seated next to the female “minister” and the couple proceeded to read the Gospel, taking turns. The couple remained at the microphone and then proceeded to give the homily, again in turn.
After the Gospel/Homily abomination, the Creed was omitted and there were “General Intercessions” coming from various members of the congregation. The Sacramental Minister remained seated, still ill at ease, crossing and uncrossing his legs, leaning over his knees, hands in his pocket, while the female “minister” continued to control the flow of the service.

If you read the various letters at the parish’s website about all of this – from the incoming pastor, Archbishop Flynn, a letter to the parish from the parish lay leadership – you hear words about confidence that everything will work out and so on.
Well, that would be nice – except for that whole 200 people walking out and establishing their own worship service in holy resistance thing.
Local blogger Cathy of Alex, a former SJA parishioner, writes, wisely:

In many ways, St. Stephen is almost worse then my old haunt a few miles to the south. They do some marvelous homeless outreach at St. Stephen’s but I don’t see why they can’t continue to do that AND conform with the Mass rubrics. Who knows? Maybe by doing so they will teach some of the parishes that perhaps don’t focus enough on homeless shelters, but do follow the rubrics, that perhaps they could consider opening a shelter or a soup kitchen too.

What is most unfortunate, of course, is that this has been allowed to continue for decades. Archbishop Flynn, in his letter, disputes any claims that the liturgical stylings of St. Stephen’s have been tolerated and allowed without challenge during all this time, but there are, of course, different ways to challenge. There is a kind of challenging that is pro forma, offered in the hopes that either the whole thing will go away or no one will notice. And then there is the kind of challenging that lays it all out and points out the reality of what it means to say one is a local expression of the Catholic Church and give people a clear choice.
And before anyone comments – look again at what Ray wrote. This is not news to anyone who’s familiar with more radical liturgical sensibilities, but it truly begs the question (as it always does for me) – why bother with the sacramental minister at all?
Honestly, if you’re going to blow the whole ritual apart and, by the way you reconstruct it, indicate that you really don’t think the Sacramental Minister has any more to do with any transformation of the elements that takes place than the community at large or any other minister the community designates to stand up there and hold things and say words,  why bother with the ordained guy at all?
To keep up appearances? To maintain some kind of tie to the institution thereby assuming a cloak of respectability along with an exciting frisson of transgressiveness?
Oh, and do check out the post from Minnesotan-in-Exile (if you want to call LA “exile”) Clayton Emmer on this. As he points out in a comment, he’s tried to be in dialogue with Michael Bayly for many years. Clayton also has good perspective Archbishop Flynn and the issue of timing.
The related story, of course, is the CDF’s declaration last week about alternative baptismal formulae, specifically baptizing in the name of the “Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.” But…let’s do another post on that.