Sunday Morning Scene; Part One. Contrasts

Last Sunday I came in and sat at the back of the church, as I always do.  I was way back, with only about two rows behind me in the church itself.

When Catholics come into Mass the first thing they do, after finding a pew, is kneel and pray.  Indeed, the degree to which Catholics stand and kneel is confusing to a lot of American protestants, although not so much to Episcopalians and Lutherans, whose churches are closely based on the Catholic Church.  Members of the various Protestant denominations common in the US out side of the "mainline" Protestant churches tend to focus on that and not grasp why Catholics are doing what they're doing.  What they often don't get is that Catholics fully accept that the words of Christ that he was transforming bread and wine into his actual flesh and blood.*  Indeed, a lot of Christ's Jewish followers couldn't accept that either, and left him immediately after the Last Supper.  Outside of a few Protestant faiths, quite a few Protestant faiths that ironically claim to fully believe the Bible, sure don't believe that.**As consuming the flesh and blood of God is a serious matter, Catholics kneel in prayer before the Mass even begins.  And they again kneel and stand in respect elsewhere.***

After kneeling in prayer, I sat down, or rather back, and realized that somebody had come in behind me.  I scooted over slightly as I didn't want to be in their way as they prayed.  I still was seated pretty close to the aisle, however.  By that time a young couple with a very young and very cute toddler had taken up the other half of the  pew, but there was still plenty of room on my side.

Shortly before Mass, a couple came in, a young man and a young woman.  The young man asked me "can we sit here?" and I immediately scooted over.  You could tell right away simply by looking at him that he was from a ranch.  He was wearin ghte  type of blue jeans that younger ranchers wear, and had that tall think look that is so common with them.  He also had the easy familiarity that most ranch people do.  He and the young kneeled and prayed, and then he put the kneeler up, due to his tall stature.

The couple knew all the songs that were sung and sang them audibly, which I rarely do.  Again, they had the easy familiarity that rural people tend to have.  When the Rite of Peace came, in which Catholics say "Peace be with you" to each other and shake hands, he shoulder hugged the girl and shook my hand. She then reached over with a broad smile and shook mine as well.

Turning around to the pew behind me, I recognized the couple there whom I've known for decades.  They've always been devout Catholics, but they've become increasingly traditional as time has gone on.  Three decades ago they looked pretty much like anyone else in the pews.  But that's evolved to the point where he's always in jacket and tie at Mass, which is fine, and she wears a mantilla, which is also fine.  Still, their whole family tends to be quite noticeable due to their appearance, which is interesting.

This time, the woman in that couple remained kneeling during the Rite of Peace, and in prayer.  I noticed a couple two rows up did the same thing.

That's new.

And that makes it impossible to offer your hand.

I've never been big on shaking hands, but the Rite of Peace has been in the Mass forever.  It was first describe in writing by St. Justin Martyr in 155.  The sign of peace, shaking hands, was introduced in 1970 and was actually borrowed from the Eastern Rite, so its been there for over fifty years now.  I don't recall it ever not being there.  Not too many other people do either.

Right after that occurs, Catholics go up to Mass, going from a kneeling position to standing to do so.  Receiving Communion changed sometime in the 70s as well, and I do recall that, barely.  What I recall is that we received on the tongue, and we received the Eucharist only.  Around that time people started receiving in the hand, and you could receive the Precious Blood as well.  I changed to the hand around that time, and I presume but don't know we were asked to.  It was the way that very early Christians received.  I've never adjusted to the receiving the Precious Blood and as I"m now 61 years old, I'm obviously not going to.  You don't have to receive both species.

Prior to the 1970 something, there was always an alter rail.  I can remember the alter rails existing, but I can't recall how we received Communion with them.  I know that itw as different from how we now do it.  It switched to a receiving line at some point, and I think it was before the alter rails came out.  

Around a decade or more ago, some people took to kneeling to receive Communion. That is fine, and a sign of piety, but it is startling if you are not reach for it.  There are certain people who always do,a nd if you know that, you can be prepared for it.  If it suddenly happens and you aren't ready for it, you have to be careful not to trip.  The young father in front of me did kneel, which I should have known he would as he was there the week prior, and did then.  Still, it startled me.  No accidents occurred however.

When I returned to my pew, the order of the couple was reversed which is common.  She sata next to me this time.  You kneel again until the Priest returns to his seat, at which time everyone sits.  The young man put th e kneeler up again.  The young girl slapped him on the thigh in the way that only people who are very familiar with each other do. She obviously wanted it down.  

I noticed at that time that she was wearing cowboy boots, and they're the type of cowboy boots that reach cattlemen wear.  It's hard to explain, but if you've worked cattle, you can tell in an instant a pair of cowboy boots that have actually been worn by somebody working cattle.  Here's were the real deal.  For that matter, he was wearing a sort of soft low boot that is super common amongst ranchers and cowboys who aren't working.  My wife has a pair as well.

On the way out of the Church after Mass, they were in front of me.  She was dressed nicely but casually and again in a way that made it clear she was from a ranch and still worked cattle.  The same was true of him.

What of all of this?

Well, I don't know.  It's an observation of people.  But its interesting to me that the young couple, who were not married (they got into separate pickup trucks when they left) knew all the hymns, and the form of the Mass perfectly, and were very obviously practicing Catholics, and perfectly natural, whereas there are other people who are adopting forms of dress and behavior that make them stand out in a way you can't help but notice.

Footnotes

* John, Chapter 6

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; 39 and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Jesus answered them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread[c] which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um.

The Words of Eternal Life

Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

**Quite a few Protestants have a "sola Scripture" position in which they claim to believe the scripture alone, something made difficult intellectually as nowhere in Scripture does it say what is scripture, and the Biblical Canon was put together by the Catholic Church.  For that matter, the chapters included in  some Eastern Orthodox Biles includes text the Catholic Bible does not, and the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible has more books in it than any other Bible.

Anyhow, if you believe Scripture, you have to accept the Catholic position on the Eucharist, which almost no Sola Scriptura church will.

***St. Paul warned that those receiving in a state of mortal sin were becoming ill due to the Eucharist, and some had died.

Mondays

 There is nothing so dispiriting as coming into your "good" office job after a weekend of working cattle.

Some Labor Day Reflections.

Yesterday, I made some observations on Denver, and today I'm doing the same on Labor Day, 2024.

Of course, it's immediately notable that I'm making these the day after Labor Day, which was a day I didn't get off.  I worked a full day. 

I was the only one in the office.

Labor Day dates back to the mid 1800s as an alternative to the more radical observance that takes place in many countries on May 1.  Still, nonetheless, early on, and for a long time, there was a fair amount of radicalism associated with it during that period when American labor organizations were on the rise. The day itself being a widely recognized day off is due to organized strikes on the day that started occurring during the 1930s, to the day as sort of a "last day of summer holiday" is fairly new.

Even now, when people think of it, they often think of the day in terms of the sort of burly industrial workers illustrated by Leyendecker and Rockwell in the 20s through the 40s.  Otherwise, they sort of blandly associate it with celebrating work in general, which gets to the nature of work in general, something we sort of touched on yesterday with this entry;

Deep Breath

A Labor Day homily.

Sadly, I'm working on Labor Day.

Early on, Labor Day was something that acknowledged a sort of worthy heavy work.  There are, in spite of what people may think, plenty of Americans that still are engaged in that sort of employment, although its s shadow of the number that once did.  Wyoming has a lot of people who do, because of the extractive industries, which are in trouble.  Ironically, therefore, its notable that Wyoming is an epicenter of anti union feelings, when generally those engaged in heavy labor are pro union. There's no good explanation for that.

When Labor Day became a big deal it pitted organized labor against capital, with it being acknowledged by both sides that if things went too far one way or another, it would likely result in a massive labor reaction that would veer towards socialism, or worse, communism.  Real communism has never been a society wide strong movement in the United States, in spite of the current stupid commentary by those on the political far right side of the aisle accusing anyone they don't like, and any program they don't like, of being communistic.  But radical economics did hae influence inside of unions, and communists were a factor in some of them, which was well known. As nobody really wanted what that might mean, compromise gave us the post war economic world of the 50s and 60s, which were sort of a golden age for American economics.

One of the unfortunate byproducts of the Cold War era, however, was the exportation of jobs overseas, which brought us the economic regime we have today, in part.  The advance of technology brought us the other part.  Today we find the American economy is massively dominated by capital in a way it hasn't been for a century, and its not a good thing at all.  The will to do anything about it, or even understand it, seems to be wholly lacking.  As a result of that, while an increasing number of Americans slave away at meaningless jobs in cubicles, and the former shopkeeper class now works at Walmart, we have the absolutely bizarre spectacle of two Titans of Capital, Donald Trump and Elon Musk, spewing out populist rhetoric.  Populism, of course, always gets co-opted, but the working and middle class falling for rhetoric from the extremely wealthy is not only bizarre, its' downright dumb.

Indeed, in the modern American economy, having your own is increasingly difficult.  Entire former occupations that were once local have been totally taken over by large corporations while agriculture has fallen to the rich in terms of land ownership, making entry into either field impossible.  Fewer and fewer "my own" occupations exist, and those that do are under siege.  

One of those is the law, of course.  Lawyers, because of the nature of their work, still tend to own their practices, as to medical professionals of all types. The latter are falling into large corporate entities, however, and the move towards taking down state borders in the practice is causing the consolidation of certain types of practice in the former.

Not that "having your own" in the professions is necessarily a sort of Garden of Eden either, however.

Recently, interestingly, there's been a big movement in which young people are returning to the trades.  That strikes me as a good thing, and perhaps the trades are finally getting the due they deserve.  Ever since World War Two there's been the concept that absolutely everyone had to achieve white collar employment, which demeaned blue collar employment, and which put a lot of people in occupations and jobs they didn't care for.  I suspect the small farm movement reflects that too.

Indeed, on my first day of practicing law as a lawyer over thirty years ago the long time office manager, who must have been having sort of a bad day, made a comment like "you might just end up wishing you had become a farmer".  I remember thinking to myself even then that if that had been an option, that's exactly what I would have become.  It wasn't, and it never has been for me, in the full time occupation sort of way.

Oh well.

And so we lost the garden to labor in, but we can make things better than they are.  And we could do that by taking a much more distributist approach to things.  Which seems nowhere near close to happening, a populist uprising notwithstanding.

i nolunt

Radical refusal to consent.

More specifically, radical refusal to consent to the spirit of the times.  It's part of what I admire in them, but it didn't strike me until recently.

John Pondoro Taylor, in his memoirs, recalled having seen Maasai walking through Nairobi as if it simply wasn't there, as they had always done, dressed in their traditional fashion, and carrying spears.  On their way from one place to another, refusing to consent that the development of the city meant anything in real terms.

I was recently waiting in the Church for the confession line to form.  One of the Mantilla Girls walked in.  I've seen this one once or twice before, but not at this Church.  She not only wears the mantilla, and is very pretty, but she carries herself with pride.

They don't all do that.  Some of the younger women who wear chapel veils do so very naturally.  Some sort of timidly, or uncomfortably.  With at least one, and I could be massively off the mark, it's almost sort of an affectation.  But here, you see something quite different.

Or so it seems.

I don't know her.  I could be wrong.  But it's clear she isn't timid and it's not an affectation.  

It is, it seems to me, a radical rejection of the modern secular world in favor of existential nature.

For those who believe in the modern world, in modernism, or the spirit of the times, or who are hostile to religion, that may seem like a shocking statement.  But the essence of our modern lives (or post-modern, if you insist) is a radical rejection of nature, most particularly our own natures.  Wearing a chapel veil indicates that the person deeply believes in a set of beliefs that are enormously grounded in nature.  The wearer is a woman, in radical alignment with biology in every sense, and accepting everything that means, including what the modern world, left and right, detest.  I nolunt.  She's accepting of the derision, and ironically, or in actuality not ironically, probably vastly happier than those who have accommodated modernity.

Moreover, those who think they're reaching out for a radical inclusion of the natural, who don't take the same approach, never can quite reach authenticity.  There can always be a slight feeling that something isn't authentic, and there isn't.  Reserving an element of modernity defeats it.

Related Thread:

We like everything to be all natural. . . . except for us.

Labels: Agrarianism, Agriculture, An hoc pertinet ad naturam?, Commentary, Daily Living, Food, Friday Farming, Medicine, Men, nature, The roles of men and women, transgenderism, trends, Women

One way to tell the difference between a democracy and a repressive regime is coups.

In repressive regimes, the coup plotters lose their lives, maybe even being blown out of the sky.

In democratic countries, the would be caudillo runs around like a giant irritating spoiled child spreading lies, claiming the whole thing never happened.

Something, maybe, for Russia fanboys like Tucker Carlson to remember.

8F and its just November 17. . .

granted, it's often cold here in November.

But 8F is really cold. And it'll get colder still tonight.