EARLY HISTORY OF COMMUNITY OF ST. MALACHI  *

Introduction – In this reflection, I will attempt to recall from my memories the Catholic Church as a pre-Vatican II child and adult and to summarize notes made during the periods of development of the Community of St. Malachi, including: the pre-organizational Sunday Community, organizing the Community, and recognition of the Community by Bishop Hickey and the Cleveland Diocese. Journeying down memory lane, it should be noted that the use of the word EARLY in the title is to mark the passage of time and to emphasize that formation is a process that is incomplete and ongoing. There were indeed notable events and intense involvements in the early days that heightened awareness and identified the fact that we were entering into a new era in the evolution and development of the Christian Community. We learned that formation involves both continuity and discontinuity with the past. Although today’s events may not seem as intense or dramatic as the Vatican II era, awareness, growth and change remain the positive characteristics for the Christian Community as the formation continues.

In his book, Jesus and the Eucharist, Tad W. Guzie, S.J. notes that "Christians have too often thought of Christianity, its doctrines and rituals as a whole cloth which appeared almost out of nothing." Fr. Guzie notes too that "If Jesus and the first Christians had not drawn of religious ideas that were in the air at the time, the Christian message would have had a hard time implanting itself anywhere. The mind has no place to put brand new symbols woven out of whole cloth; our minds are fabrics into which threads are woven one next to another. New meanings, new religious insight can be worked into the fabric, but only if there is a thread to which the insights can be tied."

Those who were part of the early formative years of the Community brought the fabric of their individual experiences and personal histories to the table. Together, through shared experiences, trust and acceptance, they began weaving a communal fabric. We are thankful for all those who have gone before, many who are still members of the Community. Those who came forward established their identity and took the risk to search, question, challenge and act for the perceived better good. We are also thankful for those who, nurtured by the Community, will take the risk of leadership in the future.

Before looking at the early formative years of the Community, it may be helpful to recall my experiences of Church and Mass which was part of every Catholic’s life prior to Vatican II. The Church was a Church of legalism and absolutes. Theological concepts, rules, rituals and answers were all documented and published with the authority and certainty of the ONE TRUE CHURCH. Our group identity as Catholics came from the practices we performed. What we did, who we were, set us apart from members of other religions, "Those Protestants". Being Catholic included knowing the answers to the questions of the Baltimore Catechism: not eating meat on Fridays, fasting and abstaining on the days appointed, attending the Latin Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, obeying the Ten Commandments and Laws of the Church, receiving the seven Sacraments. Catholics said the Rosary, made novenas, gained indulgences, attended Marian devotions in May and October, observed First Fridays, etc.

As children, we generally gave up candy and movies during Lent. Although Mass was celebrated daily, Sunday Mass and Mass on Holy Days were common touch points for most parish members. To fulfill your Sunday obligation you were required to be present for the three principal parts of the Mass—Offertory, Consecration and Communion. The Latin Mass brought together the elements of myth, magic and mystery and served to create another world atmosphere removed from daily life. In this special place with the foreign but familiar Latin language, the presence of God was encountered. The Latin Mass with the priest’s back to the people consisted of a somewhat mysterious dialogue between that priest and the altar boys. Vestments, prayers, readings, gestures and movements were authorized by the Roman Missal whose regulations had been left untouched since 1570. The congregation would respond to the different parts of Mass by sitting, standing or kneeling according to the prescribed order of service. Between these physical responses, individuals engaged in personal prayer or reflection, read the English translation of the Daily Missal, said the Rosary, read the parish bulletin, day-dreamed, or entertained any other mental distraction which aided in the passage of time. The priest’s sermon was in English usually based on a negative theme on the fear of God, sin or eternal damnation. After the priest’s Communion, there was usually an obvious heads-down exodus to the parking lot for some, while others went to Communion. If you were around for the Last Gospel—the beautiful theme of Christ the Son of God as the Light of the World—and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us—the prayers after Mass followed at the foot of the altar, intercessions for the conversion of Russia, invocations of the Virgin Mary, God the Father, St. Joseph, the Apostles Peter and Paul, and all the saints including Michael the Archangel who was our defender in battle against the devil. At the time we were identified as the Church Militant and as such, Michael the Archangel represented the heavy artillery

The teaching of Church provided us with what we understood as the true and enlightened view of Creation, the Fall of Man (Original Sin), the need for redemption, the life and teaching of Jesus and His followers, the death of Jesus on the cross for our sins, the Resurrection of Jesus, the promise of Eternal Life and the Final Judgment. The answers to our purpose in life and our destiny were woven so neatly together that we did not think to question, only to accept, which we did willingly. We had the comfort and security of the unchanging Church. On occasion, we might have tested this closed system of religious understanding by missing Mass or breaking a rule or two, but confession was available to return us to good standing with God and His Church.

With this complete package as our inherited and internalized religious consciousness, how could change be possible? What was happening to the one true Church? Who was rocking the boat of Peter? For a more complete picture of where most of us were in our religious/liturgical understanding prior to Vatican II, I would suggest obtaining a copy of the St. Joseph Daily Missal from the Catholic Book Publishing Co. of New York, 1950-1955 and Jesus and the Eucharist by Tad Guzie, S.J., Paulist Press, NY, Paramus, N.J, Toronto.

Pope John XXIII, in a letter dated Dec. 25, 1961, called a meeting of the world’s bishops who were united with him in faith and discipline. Pope John said that the 20^th Century was a new day and what the Church desperately needed was to be brought up to date. In response to this need, the Second Vatican Council opened on October 11, 1962. The council fathers said that the goal of their meeting was fourfold: to make Christian life more intense, to adapt the ways men do things to the needs of the times, to work for religious unity of all men, to spread the Gospel. The steering committee of the Council proposed as its first subject for discussion, the Liturgy of the Church. Debate on the Liturgy continued from Oct. 22 to Nov. 13, 1962. On Nov. 14, 1962 a vote of 2,162 to 46 favored the general line taken on the schema (outline) on Liturgy. During the session in the fall of 1963, council fathers voted on the next six chapters of the Constitution on sacred Liturgy while debating other questions. On Dec. 4, 1963 the Constitution was passed by a vote of 2,147 to 4. On that same day, Pope John XXIII declared it to be the law of the church. On Jan. 25, 1964, the Pope said it would come into full force on the first Sunday of Lent in February 1964. It did.

On the first Sunday of Advent 1964, we went to Church for our first official half-English, half-Latin Mass. We began with great difficulty, the shift from Mass as a private devotion to Mass as a communal expression. We were asked to move from being silent spectators to active participants. Obviously, not everyone favored change. We like the comfort of the familiar. One reason we resist change is that we don’t always know why things have been as they are. So why should they change? For many, the timing of the Second Vatican Council could not have been worse. We were living in a world that was changing so rapidly that it seemed only unchanging religious practices could provide us with the security and stability we needed.

The upheaval caused by the Council cannot be understated. For many, changes in the Liturgy which had not changed during our lifetime or the lifetimes of our parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and beyond, caused confusion, doubt and anxiety. As noted in the previous section, our identity as Catholics was strongly tied to the practices we performed. We identified so strongly with the familiar external elements of our Catholic beliefs, that when externals changed, we were in crisis. The fabric of yesterday’s religious understanding was all coming apart at the seams. We began to question if what we had thought of as faith in God was really faithfulness to rites and rituals. It did not take long for the average person in the pew to become exposed to the flood of theological opinions and questions being published. Books and articles both for and against the changes in the Church were all around us. Some explanations calmed our fears, while others fueled the fires of confusion and frustrations. For me, these words by Eugene Kennedy (at the time both an active priest and psychologist) served to clarify, reassure and motivate, The heart of the Christian life is neither in rules or rituals nor in the magic remaking of a difficult world. The Christian especially faces the inexorable truth that says persons find life only when they are realistic enough to let themselves lose it in seeking to love others. For many, both laity and religious, Vatican II and its after-events continued to be a source of frustration and anger. For others, Vatican II opened the way to not just doing things in a new way, but more importantly, thinking and being in a new way.

The liturgical renewal called for by the Second Vatican Council provided the circumstance and the setting for the beginnings of the Community of St. Malachi. Concern by Fr. Paul Hritz for the renewal of individuals and thus the renewal of the Roman Catholic Church provided the opportunity for our coming together at the 11 a.m. Sunday Liturgy at St. Malachi Church. This coming together of the assembly of Christians is the fundamental reality of the Christian Community as expressed in the Acts of the Apostles, "They gathered together." From the first Sunday of December 1967 until the summer of 1971, when initiatives to organize and seek official recognition of the Community began, the word of the 11 a.m. Liturgy at St. Malachi’s spread rapidly throughout Cleveland and its suburbs. From the beginning, the Liturgy was a positive and beautiful expression of Fr. Hritz’s pastoral teaching ministry. As such the celebration remained true in format and content to the authorized Roman Catholic rite. Lay involvement began. Members of the parish and visitors were recruited to read, present the Offertory gifts, and provide musical accompaniment. Through his teaching homilies, Fr. Hritz explained the changes in the Church and commented on our changing society. Since most of us still had one foot in our geographic parish, the contrast in teaching and participation between Sunday at St. Malachi’s and Sunday at the home parish was the difference between night and day. Whether through fear or frustration, introduction to change at the typical long established parish was less a shared experience and more mandate, however reluctant, that we do this because Rome has spoken. Within the St. Malachi setting, Fr. Hritz’s words opened us to listen to other voices and to read books and articles as we searched individually for understanding and meaning. For many the fire of inquiry had been ignited. We were introduced to new music, which we practiced before Liturgy. We were asked by Fr. Hritz to introduce ourselves to those around us. This built some level of comfort for those of us who were taught No talking in Church! To expand the social dimension of the Sunday experience there was a very well attended post liturgy coffee hour in the school hall. Faces became familiar and our comfort level and sense of belonging increased. In spite of active participation in a shared experience week after week, most individuals remained virtually anonymous. For many the Sunday experience was a near perfect fit for their busy life style and other commitments. For others there was a deep concern for the future. What happens if Fr. Hritz is transferred? Why should we be bound by the Diocese to a geographic location? What is our responsibility to each other and the Church? How would our children be taken care of in the Sacramental system? What should our leadership response be to the Documents of the Second Vatican Council?

Gradually it was becoming increasingly clear that some action was required and that a new day was about to dawn.

When in June 1972 a small group of persons took the initiative to establish their identities and provide opportunity for others of us who celebrated together at the 11 a.m. Sunday Liturgy to do the same, formal organization of the Community of St. Malachi began. Home meetings and discussions would become a way of life. A temporary steering committee was in place by July. Also, a basic operating structure, patterned after the only known but as yet unrefined new model, the Parish Council, was adopted. By the first week of August, we had drafted A Declaration of Position and Intent, which was sent to Bishop Clarence Issenmann along with 200 signatures of those supportive of the non-territorial parish concept. The final paragraph of our petition to the Bishop requested his approval to establish St. Malachi as a non-territorial parish for an experimental period of two years. An informational survey was prepared to determine how many people desired to be involved in the non-territorial parish and to what extent they would choose to participate. Of the 90 survey sheets submitted, 55 adults expressed a willingness to commit to total involvement in the non-territorial parish. In addition, 35 adults expressed a desire to continue to share in the Sunday liturgical experience. With the newly formed operating structure in place, visibility increased and various committees became active. The Liturgy Committee prepared song sheets, signed up readers and selected individuals or families to present the Offertory gifts. Musical support was expanded. The Social Action Committee began outreach programs. Shoes, boots and school supply funds for children attending Urban Community School, along with interaction with neighborhood residents were part of this outreach. Eventually the Community would also take responsibility for the Monday Night Meal, held then at St. John Episcopal Church. The Thomas Merton Community had started the meal. In the meantime, Bishop Issenmann had turned over our letter to Auxiliary Bishop William Cosgrove. He met with us openly and honestly in August 1971 and encouraged us to continue to develop our liturgical, educational and social action programs while diocesan authorities researched Canon Law for clarification of the non-territorial parish concept.

As a sign of support, Bishop Cosgrove offered to register Community Baptisms at St. Henry’s parish, where he was pastor. Bishop Cosgrove remained a special friend and visible supporter of the Community as we progressed. Unifying educational and liturgical experiences outside of Sunday were shared. Group meetings were held in private homes in different areas of Greater Cleveland to become acquainted and to share needs, concerns and ideas. Personal relationships began to be formed and to grow.

Some came because of frustration experienced at the parish level when lay involvement in the implementation of Vatican II met with rejection by pastors and fellow parishioners. Others came because of changing lifestyles and the need to continue to identify with the Roman Catholic Church but in a more personal, less restrictive atmosphere than parish as they continued their search for self-identity and meaning. Some came out of curiosity and the need for new experiences. Some came because a friend said, Come, see! Others came because the celebration offered a re-entry point into the Church without having to provide credentials recognized and require by the parish. Some came because they were in search of knowledge to help them understand and clarify the meaning of the changes in the Church and society. Others came in search of life-giving relationships with others. Regardless of motivation, concept of God or view of the Church, what was important is that we did come because we wanted to and we were thankful for each other’s presence. 

On January 1, 1972, another letter was sent to Bishop Issenmann along with copies of The St. Malachi News. These six early newsletters were to inform the Bishop of our activities and involvements. Once again, we requested the bishop to approve establishing the Community of St. Malachi as a non-territorial parish. Formation and growth continued without official recognition. On April 18, 1972, the Charter of the Community of St. Malachi was unanimously adopted by Community members. In our frequent coming together outside of Sunday, much effort was expended in attempting to define just what community really is. The first Community weekend shared at Blessed Sacrament Seminary produced the revelation that organization is not community. The organization or structure performs the functions necessary to support the continuity and is basically task-oriented but must be balanced with personal relationships. The structure exists for and should flow from the life of the Community. We noted that because of size and pains of growth, organizational busy-work has been a necessary, but sometimes restricting force. Instead of persons being able to relate to persons in a human way, we have sometimes related to the function performed by the person and do not enter into personal dialogue vital to life and human growth.

Functional relationships seemed to characterize our automated, industrialized society. Expecting the Community to be more may be the impossible dream. Many thought not and expressed that in some ways we represented a counter culture. In a culture that strives for and values privacy, independence, and self-sufficiency, we were saying that there is a need for other people and a value in coming together in our mutual search for meaning.

We concluded that the Community would and should remain undefined since it has to do with levels of personal relationships. Just as with any relationship, we cannot present a list of our attributes and credentials and expect another person to accept us readily. It takes time to build trust, concern, love and commitment to others. Community is not an end but must remain a hopeful, open-ended sign of the possibilities of human life, human love, and human growth. To attempt to define the sign completely is to limit or destroy its deepest known possibilities.

In the spring of 1973, in anticipation of our coming together to elect a new steering committee, the following was published:

The voices of many Community members were heard at the meeting. Expressions of both appreciation for what is, as well as concern for what might be if the Community received formal recognition from the bishop, filled the air. Concerns over the costs and ability to maintain buildings were discussed. The bottom line issue that emerged was that of freedom and responsibility.

On the one hand, when you have your own thing going and it’s warm, friendly and supportive, who needs anything else? On the other hand, the much larger community needed to reinforce, to challenge, to comfort and even make life miserable on occasion. Thanks to the experience, maturity and commitment of many members of the Community—the responsibility to and for each other and for the larger Catholic Christian community made continuing to pursue formal recognition the Community’s commitment.

Later in 1973, Fr. Hritz became pastor of St. Malachi Parish. After Bishop James Hickey was installed Bishop of Cleveland in October 1974 he met with the Community and came away with a positive impression. In March of 1975,the Community of St. Malachi became a personal parish of the Diocese of Cleveland for an experimental period of three years. Many threads of experience have been woven into the communal fabric for the past 25 years. The fabric has absorbed tears of joy and sadness. New beginnings and transitions have also left their marks. Unraveling of some of our inherited religious understandings and reweaving have also been part of the communal experience.

What has transpired for each individual as they shared in the life of the Community and celebrated weekly at the 11 a.m. Liturgy is probably as varied as the diverse life styles and needs of those assembled. As was noted in 1971, what was important is that we did come because we wanted to and we were thankful for each other’s presence.

Formation Continues!