LENTCAzT 2026 – 08: Ember Wednesday 1st Week in Lent – The Four Preachers

A 5 minute daily podcast to help you in your Lenten discipline.

Today we hear about the Roman Station: St. Mary Major, a review of Ember days, and then about our annual Lenten Retreat’s four preachers.

Yesterday’s podcast HERE

Posted in LENTCAzT, PODCAzT, SESSIUNCULA | Tagged , , ,
Leave a comment

WDTPRS – Collect of Ember Wednesday of Lent (TLM & Novus)

I’m sure you know that only a tiny percent of the orations of the Vetus Ordo made it into the Novus Ordo unmolested.

Well… maybe that isn’t quite the right word in every case.

In some cases the Novus changed the prayer to an even more ancient form. However, ancient isn’t always better. We learn, deepen our understanding over the years. Changes ought to be careful, like the delicate pruning of a bonsai rather than the grasping rip of a stump puller.

The experts of the Consilium were not of the bonsai school in their overall approach.

Here is the Collect for Ember Wednesday in Lent.

VETUS COLLECT (1962RM):
Devotionem populi tui, quaesumus, Domine,
benignus intende:
ut, qui per abstinentiam macerantur in corpore,
per fructum boni operis reficiantur in mente.

This isn’t all that difficult.

Anyone who has been a cook recognizes the basic sense of macero. Macero is “to make soft or tender, to soften by steeping, to soak, steep, macerate”.   When applied to us it is, “to weaken in body or mind, to waste away, enervate”.

WORDY LITERAL RENDERING:
We beg You, O Lord, kindly look upon the
devotion of Your people,
with the result that they who by means of abstinence are being tenderized in respect to the body
may by means of the fruit of good work be refreshed in respect to the mind.

In the Novus Ordo the prayer is somewhat softened.  Are you getting used to that now?

NOVUS COLLECT (2002MR)
:
Devotionem populi tui, quaesumus, Domine,
benignus intende,
ut, qui per abstinentiam temperantur in corpore,
per fructum boni operis reficiantur in mente.

The Novus Ordo redactors sliced out macero and put in tempero, related to temperatioTempero… or….  temperor?  There is a deponent temperor.   Temperantur can be either passive or active.  Tempero is “to observe proper measure; to moderate or restrain one’s self; to forbear, abstain; to be moderate or temperate”. We can also use this word to indicate the mixing of liquids, such as when water is added to wine in a cup, according to ancient usage. Tempero also means, “to forbear, abstain, or refrain from; to spare, be indulgent to any thing”.  Think of the virtue temperance.   Temperor is “to divide or proportion duly, mingle in due proportion”, like in the wine example above.  It is also, “to regulate, order” and “to restrain one’s self, forbear, abstain”.  In our prayer I think we have the deponent with active meaning, something like a middle voice.

WORDY LITERAL RENDERING:
We beg You, O Lord, kindly look upon the
devotion of Your people,
with the result that they who by means of abstinence are restraining themselves in due measure in respect to the body
may by means of the fruit of good work be refreshed in respect to the mind.

Macero… soften.  You would think we want to toughen, not soften.  Right?  This is LENT!  This is BATTLE!  We are FASTING!  GET TOUGH!  Right?  Think of the cooking term maceration.  Soften?  Really?

We macerate things by immersing them in some substance in order to break them down.  This is done with meat, for example to tenderize it, to break down the fibers of muscle so that they will not contract under heat and make the meat tough.  We do the same thing by pounding flesh with a spikey hammer.  Maceratio means tenderize.  Think of softening up an entrenched position of the enemy by hammering it with artillery.

Perhaps while we must toughen up in body though discipline, through discipline we can also mellow and tenderize our hearts in respect to any way in which we have hardened them.  Hard hearts don’t admit graces and don’t circulate joy or anything that is good.

What we are driving at here is “mortification of the flesh” and “renewal of the soul”.    Both, at the same time.

I think macero is much more interesting a choice.  Macerantur catches the ear right away, whereas temperantur…  meh… not so much.

NEW ICEL VERSION:
Look kindly, Lord, we pray,
on the devotion of your people,
that those who by self-denial are restrained in body
may by the fruit of good works be renewed in mind
.

More about that tempero.  As surely you do, I immediately think of Horace’s Ode 1, 20:

In Ode 1.20 the poet talks about his countryside villa (his “Sabine Farm”… *sigh*), his wine and a great shout that echoed out over Rome for his patron Maecenas who made a first appearance in public after an illness:

Vile potabis modicis Sabinum
cantharis, Graeca quod ego ipse testa
conditum levi, datus in theatro
cum tibi plausus,

care Maecenas eques, ut paterni
fluminis ripae simul et iocosa
redderet laudes tibi Vaticani
montis imago.

Caecubum et prelo domitam Caleno
tu bibes uvam; mea nec Falernae
temperant vites neque Formiani
pocula colles.

The parts below in parenthesis I added to make this clearer to those who don’t know much about Horace.

(When you, Maecenas, visit me in the country at my farm)
You will quaff from simple drinking cups
the lowly Sabine which I laid down with the
Greek style seal, in the year when the applause
was given to you in the theater,

dear knight Maecenas, so loud that
the Vatican hill together with the banks of
the fatherly river Tiber sent the praises
back to you (so loud they echoed off the Vatican hill back to the Theater of Pompey).

(At your home) you will be drinking Caecuban and the grape
crushed in the Caleniean press; my vines (when you visit my Sabine farm house in the country)
and not Falernian vines nor Formian hills
temper my cups.

It could be that tempero here is a reference to how the ancients used to drink their wine mixed with water.  To drink unmixed merum was a scandal and sign of immoderate … everything.  Mark Anthony was one such, and Cicero sharply pointed it out.  In the Ode, however, I think the very has the force of “mellow” or “season” and the object is the cups.    What is brilliant is that Horace made us think of both at the same time.

A long time ago, one of my Latin profs told me that as I got older I would appreciate Horace more and more.

I suppose with many more seasons behind me now, I have mellowed a little, mixed as I have been in respect to years and tears.

Our prayers this week are giving us different virtues to think about: devotio, moderatio, temperatio. There is a frequent juxtaposition of mens and corpus or caro, rationabilia and corporalia in Lenten prayers.

We are both.  Both must be subject to discipline during Lent.

 

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, WDTPRS |
Leave a comment

Daily Rome Shot 1558

WELCOME REGISTRANT:

LindaAnn

Please remember me when shopping online and use my affiliate links.  US HEREWHY?  This helps to pay for health insurance (massively hiked for this new year of surprises), utilities, groceries, etc..  At no extra cost, you provide help for which I am grateful.

Today’s Wordle: 3

Germany. They’re really going to fill those pews! The SSPX has to learn.

But don’t worry, DDF says she’s not as important as we thought.

White to move and mate in 4. HERE

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
1 Comment

Daily Rome Shot 1557

Today’s Wordle 5

There is some trouble with the blog’s software right now.  We will be doing some maintenance later in the week.  I can’t easily get to the comment queue without the query timing out.  I have to use my phone instead, which is pesky.

Please remember me when shopping online and use my affiliate links.  US HEREWHY?  This helps to pay for health insurance (massively hiked for this new year of surprises), utilities, groceries, etc..  At no extra cost, you provide help for which I am grateful.

Black to move and mate in 4.  HERE

Hey Fathers!  How about a clerical Guayabera shirt?

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
2 Comments

Brief summation of Bp. Schneider’s appeal to Pope Leo about the SSPX

Bishop Athanasius Schneider sent a letter to Pope Leo making an appeal to him about the announcement of the SSPX that they will consecrate bishops. It is at Diane Montagna’s Substack.

In my opinion, the letter is a bit too long, at 3200 words. When you write something to someone who is incredibly busy you want to maximize the chance that he will read the whole thing. But, hey.  At the end, however, there is a short and direct appeal which is quite compelling.

To help you with the letter, and at least get the main points out there, here is a precis.


Bishop Schneider argues that the intense global reaction to this announcement exposes a long-standing ecclesial wound. The debate often devolves to juridical positivism, treating papal consent for episcopal consecration as if it were a matter of divine law and equating disobedience automatically with schism. In doing so, critics overlook both patristic precedent and the Church’s historical canonical practice.

Schneider challenges what he calls “quasi-dogmas”, namely, the claim that papal authorization for episcopal consecration is required by divine right and that consecration without it constitutes schism per se. In the first millennium bishops were typically elected and consecrated locally, with no formal papal mandate required. Even the 1917 Code of Canon Law punished episcopal consecration against papal will with suspension, not excommunication, indicating that the Church did not consider such acts inherently schismatic.

He distinguishes between the dogma of papal primacy and historically contingent modes of exercising hierarchical communion. Acceptance of the Pope, adherence to definitive magisterial teaching, and sacramental validity pertain to divine law; concrete disciplinary mechanisms do not. He cites St. Athanasius’ resistance to Pope Liberius amid Arian crisis and Cardinal Iosif Slipyj’s unauthorized consecrations during Vatican Ostpolitik as historical precedents demonstrating that extraordinary circumstances may justify irregular actions without constituting schism.

Schneider uses the metaphor of a burning house to describe the current ecclesial crisis. Doctrinal and liturgical ambiguities following Vatican II constitute a smoldering fire. Those who resist certain reforms, particularly in liturgy, are treated as disobedient firefighters even while attempting to preserve the Church’s patrimony.  Either the fire chief is denying the seriousness of the fire or the fire chief wants large parts of the house burn so that it can be rebuilt according to a new design.

The crisis surrounding the SSPX reveals deeper tensions tied to ambiguous conciliar formulations (ecclesial cancer) and subsequent theological developments.  He cites commentary arguing that Vatican II’s pastoral tone and lack of doctrinal precision generated confusion. The issue, he suggests, is ambiguity rather than formal heresy. The SSPX, in his assessment, seeks clarification and continuity with the Church’s perennial teaching. He portrays the Society as motivated by love for the Church, the papacy, and souls, not by schismatic intent. Quotations from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre are offered to demonstrate fidelity to papal primacy and sorrow over conflict with Rome.

The Holy See has shown generosity toward the Communist Party of China, allowing them to select candidates for bishops, yet the SSPX are treated as second-class citizens.

Schneider questions why the Tridentine and Vatican II Professio fidei, once universally sufficient as a profession of Catholic faith, is no longer accepted as adequate for ecclesial communion in the SSPX’s case. If Vatican II did not issue definitive dogmatic definitions, and if the faith of the Church remains unchanged, he asks why adherence to the prior profession should be considered insufficient. He contrasts Rome’s ecumenical language regarding shared faith with non-Catholic Christians with its stricter stance toward the SSPX.

He urges provisional pastoral measures, including granting the Apostolic Mandate for episcopal consecrations, to stabilize the Society’s sacramental life and facilitate calm doctrinal dialogue. Such measures, he argues, would not compromise doctrine but would reflect pastoral charity. Citing Benedict XVI, he warns that historical failures to pursue reconciliation have hardened divisions.

Schneider concludes by directly imploring Pope Leo XIV to act as a true bridge-builder. Granting the mandate would integrate two generations of faithful attached to the SSPX, prevent unnecessary rupture, and demonstrate magnanimity consistent with the Petrine office. The appeal frames the moment as providential: a decision for generosity and unity could heal a sixty-year wound without loss to the Church’s doctrinal integrity.


Here is the last part of the letter to Pope Leo:

With sincere concern for the unity of the Church and the spiritual good of so many souls, I appeal with reverent and fraternal charity to our Holy Father Pope Leo XIV:

Most Holy Father, grant the Apostolic Mandate for the episcopal consecrations of the SSPX. You are also the father of your numerous sons and daughters—two generations of the faithful who have, for now, been cared for by the SSPX, who love the Pope, and who wish to be true sons and daughters of the Roman Church. Therefore, stand aside from the partisanship of others and, with a great paternal and truly Augustinian spirit, demonstrate that you are building bridges, as you promised to do before the whole world when you gave your first blessing after your election. Do not go down in the history of the Church as one who failed to build this bridge—a bridge that could be constructed at this truly Providential moment with generous will—and who instead allowed a truly unnecessary and painful further division within the Church, while at the same time synodal processes that boast of the greatest possible pastoral breadth and ecclesial inclusivity were taking place. As your Holiness recently stressed: “Let us commit ourselves to further developing ecumenical synodal practices and to sharing with one another who we are, what we do and what we teach (cf. Francis, For a Synodal Church, 24 November 2024)” (Homily of Pope Leo XIVEcumenical Vespers for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, January 25, 2026).

Most Holy Father, if you grant the Apostolic Mandate for the episcopal consecrations of the SSPX, the Church in our day will lose nothing. You will be a true bridge-builder, and even more, an exemplary bridge-builder, for you are the Supreme Pontiff, Summus Pontifex.

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

24 February 2026

Posted in Leo XIV, SSPX, The future and our choices | Tagged ,
6 Comments

LENTCAzT 2026 – 07: Tuesday 1st Week in Lent – Against the wicked

A 5 minute daily podcast to help you in your Lenten discipline.

St. Jerome used to say Mass at the Roman Station today. We hear something Christ told St. Catherine of Siena in the Dialogues. Then, a blunt prayer to illuminate the wicked in the Church, to expose the horrors they are working. Fr. Troadec describes praying in faith filled simplicity. Lastly, on his feast day, we hear the Collect for St. Matthias.

Whew.

$£€ – Yesterday’s podcast HERE

Posted in LENTCAzT, PODCAzT | Tagged , , ,
1 Comment

Daily Rome Shot 1556

Welcome Registrant:

Phil_NL2

Please remember me when shopping online and use my affiliate links.  US HEREWHY?  This helps to pay for health insurance (massively hiked for this new year of surprises), utilities, groceries, etc..  At no extra cost, you provide help for which I am grateful.

I really like this photo.

But somehow the SSPX is a problem….?

Black move and mate in 4. HERE

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
10 Comments

LENTCAzT 2026 – 06: Monday 1st Week in Lent – Bonds

A 5 minute daily podcast to help you in your Lenten discipline.

We hear today about chains, bonds, uniting and separating. Pius Parsch chimes in on what the Church wants us to learn today.


$£€ – Yesterday’s podcast HERE

Posted in LENTCAzT, PODCAzT | Tagged , , ,
1 Comment

From “The Private Diary of Bishop F. Atticus McButterpants” – 26-02-18 – Ashes

Febuary 18th, 2026

Dear Diary,

It’s Ash Wednesday. I hate Ash Wednesday for the obvious reasons.  Today I hate it more than I have ever hated it.

It started in the afternoon with a text from Msgr Tommy: “LOL…. Get ready!  INCOMING!”   I had no idea what he was trying to say, that he was maybe coming to visit?

A few minutes later in comes the VG with a nasty smile.   “Remember how I told you that you’ve gotta get rid of all those damn altar rails?”  My heart sank.  Ever since that blockhead stirred things up over in Tennisee or wherever, some of the guys have been on my case about rails.  Now I get letters begging me not to tear out rails.  Every place I go people ask about the damn rails!  Some of them cry.  Now this.  Old Henry O’Sullivan out in Briar Glen put ashes on TONGUES if they knelt at the rail like they do at communion and automatically put their tongues out.  I could kill him.   The VG said that kids were crying, parents furious, one old lady jerked away and fell down.

Tommy called later and fill me in.  Henry was going along the rail saying the thing and if someone was there with their tongue out – lots of them do that there at St. Ambrose still which is okay – like I care –  he says one after another the “unto dust” thing and then suddenly “stupid” and drops a pile of ashes on their tongue.  Actually, it’s kind funny.

I’m going to have to do something, which is the last thing I want to do.

I called Fr. Henry and told him he better come in and see me tomorrow.  That sure puts cramp in my day.  He’s about 200 years old and could retire, but I don’t have the warm bodies to fill the places that are opening.

Consolation: supper at Razzo’s for “Meat Thursday”.   HA!

 

 

Posted in Diary of Bp. McButterpants | Tagged
3 Comments

ASK FATHER: Why are Sunday “of Lent” in the Novus Ordo and “in Lent” in the TLM?

From a priest reader

QUAERITUR:

I noticed that in the Traditional Latin Mass calendar we have Sundays IN Lent and in the Novus Ordo we have Sundays OF Lent.  What’s going on?

In the 1962 Missale Romanum today is called Dominica I in Quadragesima, the 1st Sunday in Lent.

In the post-Conciliar Missal today is called Dominica I Quadragesimae, the 1st Sunday of Lent.

The distinction rests on a small grammatical shift. The older title uses the preposition in with the ablative, expressing location within a span of time. The Sunday falls “in Lent,” that is, within the sacred forty days. The newer title employs the genitive, “of Lent,” which conveys belonging or constitutive identity. The Sunday is not thought of as being within the season. Rather, the Sunday belongs to Lent as an integral part.

The earlier Roman usage reflects the classical style of the liturgical calendar. Other seasons were described similarly: Sundays in Adventu or in Septuagesima (that is, within the 7th decade or 10-day period – before Easter … i.e., the 61st to 70th days). The formulation emphasizes temporal placement. This accords with the traditional discipline in which every Sunday, even during Lent, retained a certain distinct character as a “mini Easter”. For example, it was not a fasting day. The phrase “in Lent” subtly preserves that Sunday stands within the penitential season without being entirely absorbed into its ascetical rigor in the same way as the Lenten weekdays.

I believe the post-Conciliar reform sees the liturgical year as having strong structural cohesion. The seasons are conceived as unified theological arcs, each with an internal progression.  Yes, surely the pre-Conciliar vision did too, but perhaps more and more once the Liturgical Movement got under way.  The genitive construction, “of Lent,” underscores that the Sundays themselves articulate and advance the season’s spiritual trajectory.

This brings in another issue: the number of days of Lent.

We sing “Forty days and forty nights”, right?    This is a more theological and typological way than a mathematical of describing the length of Lent because of the biblical associations of the number “40” (years in the wilderness, days of Moses on Mt. Sinai, Elijah’s days of journey to Mt. Horeb, Christ’s fasting).

Lent starts in Ash Wednesday.  If you count the days to the Easter Vigil inclusively you get 46.  Romans count inclusively, which is why dates calculated before the Kalends of a month need an extra day to make sense.    This is why in Latin nudius tertius or “three days ago” actually means “the day before yesterday”, which to us in English seems like only two days ago.   We count exclusively.  Not the Roman way.

So, 46 days from Ash Wednesday to Easter Vigil.  Now subtract the 6 for the six Sundays: 40.  In the traditional Roman discipline of Lent, Sunday was not a fast day.  Hence there were 40 days to the Lenten fast.

In the post-Conciliar, Novus Ordo calendar Lent ends before the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday, when the Paschal Triduum begins (three day period… Thursday, Friday, Saturday… um… Sunday, that’s four…. but be inclusive).  That’s 44 days.  If we take out the Sundays it get us to 38 Lenten fast days, since Good Friday and Holy Saturday are within the Triduum (not part of Lent).

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged
4 Comments