Posted on 18 March 2026 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The “Days in Rome” Project – Easter 2026 and beyond – UPDATE – HERE

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
Comments Off on

LENTCAzT 2026 – 36: Wednesday in Passiontide & Annunciation – Good Shepherd in the Mass

Posted on 25 March 2026 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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

We hear about San Marcello, the Roman Station. Fr. Parsch addresses the Good Shepherd. Because it is the Feast of the Annunciation we have a musical tribute to Our Lady’s “Fiat” with a lovely polyphonic “Ave Maria” sung by the choir of St. John Cantius in Chicago.

Yesterday’s podcast – HERE

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

Fr. McTeigue triggered my PTTSD

Posted on 24 March 2026 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

This is what I went through. We older guys have something to say to the young guys about this.

YouTube thumbnailYouTube icon

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
2 Comments

ROME 26/3– Day 01: And so it begins

Posted on 24 March 2026 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The Roman sunrise was at 06:05 and sunset is at 18:29. The Ave Maria is in the 18:45 cycle. It is the 83rd day of the year and my 1st day in Rome, though tomorrow will be the 1st full day.

Welcome Registrant:

Season After Pentecost

CLICK

Please remember me when shopping online and use my affiliate links.  US HERE – UK HERE  WHY?  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.

On the way into town from the airport, a sight or two.  From the moving taxi….

The Temple of Portunus.

Santa Maria in Cosmodin

The side and apse of San Nicola in Carcere.  The part that sticks out laterally is the chapel where the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is venerated, first in Rome, I think, and adorned with new gold from the New World.

No description needed.

Oh well.

Something chessy, but really more.

Anyone?

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
Leave a comment

LENTCAzT 2026 – 35: Tuesday in Passiontide – Christ’s suffering, popular piety

Posted on 24 March 2026 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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

We hear about Santa Maria in Via Lata, the Roman Station. A continuation from yesterday with Fr. Parsch who was drilling into Passiontide, ancient and modern views.

Yesterday’s podcast – HERE

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

Test of app and MY VIEW FOR AWHILE: Rome bound

Posted on 23 March 2026 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

This is a test knish.   Rather, test knish-es.

It worked.   Yay!   The app is functioning again.

Since I am here, I’m write this at JFK in the lounge waiting to board and to be bored (I hope).

I was apprehensive about the security lines today, since yesterday was a zoo with the shut down and the closure of LGA.  The online time estimators of the wait were helpful in making the move to the airport.   I also learned that you can reserve a time slot for the security check.  Interesting.

As it turned out, the waiting line wasn’t bad.  However, I got random flagged.  Then I think the agent arbitrarily picked on my shoes (I’m pre-check, etc.).  They had to go through the scanner separately.   Then the guy at the x-ray flagged by backpack for hand check and re-scan three times.  Even the agent at the end of the line was puzzled.   I was seriously irritating at the end.   Anyway, I made it through.

Lounge.  Behold the blazing internet!

Think of all that I can accomplish.

It isn’t often that you see upload as the faster of the two.

Meanwhile, I spotted this aircraft… the team plane wouldn’t be quite this obvious, would it?

The lounge food isn’t awful.

The airplane in the background won’t be mine, but that’s the gate.

So, I can do some chess puzzles and write a few emails, maybe make a call or two.

And, yes, I know, the polling plugin is still broken.

UPDATE

ONBOARD now to be bored. The last thing you want is an exciting flight.

UPDATE

UPDATE

A new feature

Must try to get some shut eye.

Posted in On the road, SESSIUNCULA, What Fr. Z is up to |
4 Comments

Article at The Catholic Thing about the two forms of the Roman Rite

Posted on 23 March 2026 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

At the wonderful The Catholic Thing you will find an opinion piece by a priest writing under a penname (to avoid the Eye of Sauron as is only correct).  The piece is entitled “The ‘Polar Unity’ of the Two Forms of the Roman Rite”. The writer is “a North American priest who teaches in a seminary, does parish work, and celebrates both forms of the Roman rite”.

The article has strengths and weaknesses.

Here is the precis.

The writer argues that Benedict XVI’s distinction between the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form should be understood not merely juridically or pastorally, but theologically, as a “polar unity” within the one Roman Rite.  Its core claim is that the two forms are not rival rites, but complementary expressions of one lex orandi, consistent with Benedict’s broader “hermeneutic of reform in continuity.” To defend this claim, the writer uses Hans Urs von Balthasar’s distinction between the Marian and Petrine dimensions of the Church: Marian meaning contemplative, receptive, bridal and the Petrine meaning apostolic, juridical, governing.  He proposes that the Extraordinary Form tends to embody the Marian accent of the Church: silence, adoration, ritual density, transcendence, and the primacy of divine action.  He says the Ordinary Form tends to embody the Petrine accent: intelligibility, proclamation, pastoral accessibility, missionary outreach, and audible participation by the faithful.  Both forms contain both dimensions, but each gives one accent greater visibility.  On this reading, Benedict’s aim in allowing both forms was to preserve the Church from reductionism, that is, the Roman Rite should not be flattened into either pure sacral reserve or pure pastoral functionality. The writer says the two forms could “mutually enrich” one another in that the Ordinary Form could recover sacrality and silence while the Extraordinary Form could benefit from more scripture readings and pastoral attentiveness. He says that liturgical authority remains Petrine, but authority should serve liturgical memory and mystery rather than erase them. His conclusion is that the coexistence of the two forms symbolizes the Church’s refusal to eliminate fruitful tension. Contemplation and mission, silence and proclamation, gift and governance belong together in Catholic worship.

He ignores the miserable effects of Francis and his mandarins and doesn’t mention Traditionis custodes, a kind of damnatio memoriae. They don’t really exist in the article except in between the lines, that is, Francis made things so bad that something must be done.   That might be a weakness in the article… or a strength, depending on the level of disdain one has for and opinion of the validity of the 2021 legislation.

The article is thoughtful and plainly animated by a desire for peace. That is welcome. Its weakness is that it depends more on a speculative framework than on demonstrated liturgical reasoning.

Its central move is to interpret the two forms of the Roman Rite through, as mentioned above, a Balthasarian polarity, assigning one a Marian/contemplative accent and the other a Petrine/pastoral one. Such categories might spur some reflections, yet they can also be so broad that they explain almost anything.  I think the writer would have to establish from the texts, rubrics, history, and theological content of the orations of the two missals that one is predominately Marian and the other Petrine. He asserts it, but does not demonstrate it. I grant that he wasn’t offering a monograph: TCT has a word limit of about 1000, after all.  The writer also admits that both rites have both dimensions to some extent.

The article succeeds as a meditation and as an appeal for charity. It is less persuasive for understanding the two missals through this two-fold lens.

The piece tends to idealize both forms by describing them according to their best intentions rather than their actual historical performance. The Ordinary Form is presented as envisioned by Sacrosanctum Concilium and celebrated “according to the mind of the Church,” which is fair enough.  However, that shields the argument from the practical objections that usually emerge in post-Conciliar liturgical debates, such as the massive failure of the Novus Ordo to support all the sectors of the Church’s life as demographics and other indicators plainly show. The result is that the article risks being true at the level of aspiration while sidestepping the empirical questions.

From my point of view, when the Novus Ordo is celebrated more according to the Roman liturgical tradition, the better it is.  Of course that begs the question: Why not just use the Vetus Ordo, if that is the case.  The writer is trying to get at the “why” with his Balthasarian categories.  Moreover, I think the “mutual enrichment” of the people in the pews tends to go mostly in one direction.  Once people get the Novus Ordo in a more traditional celebration, they then will migrate over to the Vetus Ordo, just as the young graduate from lesser to more complicated and nourishing food.

This is a good contribution to those who are well-informed and able to discuss these matters thoughtfully.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests, The Drill, The future and our choices |
13 Comments

ROME 26/3– Day 00: Brooklyn and blog

Posted on 23 March 2026 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I’ve been somewhat crippled in regard to posting. Since the migration of the blog, some things have either been very slow (the entire admin area) or not working at all, like the app on my phone that allows me to upload photos and to post while on the go. Yesterday I found that the poll plugin doesn’t work. So, we are trying to figure out what’s what.

Also, I had a couple of registrations which seemed a little dodgy, so I deleted them.  I take that “bio” section seriously.

Anyway, I’m in Brooklyn for the moment. I leave for Rome tonight, if we can get through TSA check lines.  We’ve had some good pub food and great chinese. (I have to email myself the photos and process them rather than just post from the phone.)

Brooklyn… Lent… knisch.

On Friday we explored the non-meat options starting with shrimp shumai.

There was a fishy stew with garlic and cabbage.

Crunchy cucumbers.

For the pub selection, the shot of my burger didn’t turn out well, but one of my companions had… but wait… first, there was this before we went in… A little Latin and an episcopal galero on an apartment building.

More Latin inside with the arrival of the Belgian…

Delirium Tremens… with elephants.  I dunno.

Back to the plot…

The onion rings were great, too.

Back to chinese on a meaty Sunday evening.  “Soup dumplings”.

Cumin Lamb

Eggplant, potatoes and pepper (we won’t get this on again… I’ve had better elsewhere)

Shrimp with mayonnaise.  There are crispy sweet walnuts and, underneath, chunks of pineapple.

Beef and vegetables.

Not too bad.

CLICK

Please remember me when shopping online and use my affiliate links.  US HERE – UK HERE  WHY?  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.

Meanwhile… in Écône…

And…

Help monks… drink good stuff.

Chess puzzles will return.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
2 Comments

LENTCAzT 2026 – 34: Monday in Passiontide – Ancient v. Modern Views

Posted on 23 March 2026 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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

We hear about San Crisogono, the Roman Station. Fr. Parsch drill into Passiontide, ancient and modern views.

Yesterday’s podcast – HERE

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

Your Sunday Sermon Notes – Passion Sunday, 5th in/of Lent 2026 – POLL about veils

Posted on 22 March 2026 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Too many people today are without good, strong preaching, to the detriment of all. Share the good stuff.

Was there a GOOD point made in the sermon you heard at your Mass of obligation for this Passion Sunday the 5th in Lent and in the Novus Ordo 5th Sunday of Lent?

Tell us about attendance especially for the Traditional Latin Mass.

Any local changes or (hopefully good) news?

A taste of what I offered at 1 Peter 5 this week:

[…]

In this time, the Lord presses His hearers with the question: “Which of you shall convince me of sin?” He whom Hebrews presents as the sinless High Priest stands before men who are themselves bound by sin and enraged at truth. They accuse Him of having a devil. He answers with majestic calm and then utters the word that detonates the scene, “before Abraham came to be, I am” (John 8:58), that is, the claim of divine identity itself, sounding in Greek as ??? ????, “I am”, and reverberating with the dread majesty of the divine Name. They understand what He is claiming. They take up stones. Then comes the line which the Roman liturgical tradition seized and unfolded with genius: “Iesus autem abscondit se …but Jesus hid Himself” (John 8:59).

That brief verse has governed the Church’s custom for more than a millennium. Because “Iesus autem abscondit se”, crosses and sacred images are veiled from this day. Passiontide imposes a further deprivation upon sight itself. What the eye loves is hidden. What the heart loves must be sought in faith. Former centuries often knew the cross above all under the sign of triumph. Early crosses were frequently a crux gemmata, a jeweled cross, radiant with victory. The Church’s meditation on the Passion deepened, and so her rites deepened with it. Purple veils came to cover crucifixes, statues, and pietà scenes. The hidden Christ of the Gospel is echoed in the hidden Christ of the sanctuary. The saints are hidden with Him, as the members with their Head. The eye is made to hunger. The heart is prompted by loss.

[…]

Because in the Gospel today we read that Jesus “hid himself” we have the tradition of veiling statues and images in our churches.   This is part of her liturgical death until the Vigil of Easter.

Here’s a poll. [UPDATE… It seems that the migration has impacted the functionality of the Poll plugin.  It allowed one vote and then stopped.  The dems would love it.  I’ll report the problem.  Meanwhile, post what you saw.]

Anyone can vote.  To comment, and I hope you will, you have to be registered and approved.

Choose your best answer.

For this 1st Sunday of the Passion (5th Sunday of Lent) - 2026 - I saw in church that:

  • all statues and images that could be were covered or veiled. (0%, 0 Votes)
  • no statues or images were covered or veiled. (0%, 0 Votes)
  • some statues or images were covered or veiled. (0%, 0 Votes)
  • nothing is veiled yet, but for sure it will be next week. (0%, 0 Votes)
  • ... my parish has no images or statues. (0%, 0 Votes)
  • ...let me see the results. (0%, 0 Votes)

Total Voters: 1

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
24 Comments

ASK FATHER: John 8:55

Posted on 22 March 2026 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Question re Passion Sunday gospel Latin

Message:
Would you please translate this passage from Sunday’s gospel with all
the nuances of plurals and verb tenses translated into English – even
clunky English? I am curious why Jesus seems to be addressing a group
and then seems to narrow to the singular ‘mendax.’

et non cognovistis eum: ego autem novi eum. Et si dixero quia non scio
eum, ero similis vobis, mendax. Sed scio eum, et sermonem ejus servo.

Even a private answer later would be appreciated. I realize it is an
extraordinarily busy season for you.

The Gospel for Passion Sunday in the Vetus Ordo is from John 8:46-59.

This pericope (a cutting of Scripture for liturgical use) comes at the end of an increasingly hostile dispute between Jesus and certain Jews in the Temple precincts during the days of the Feast of Tabernacles. The broader setting runs from John 7 into John 8. Jesus has gone up to Jerusalem, taught publicly, and provoked division. Some hear Him gladly, some are puzzled, and others harden into open opposition. Since Laetare Sunday the Church, focusing on clashes between Jesus and the authorities in John, is setting the liturgical stage for the Passion. The immediate context, earlier in John 8, after the towering golden lamps in the Temple are extinguished, Jesus says, “I am the light of the world”. He disputes with the Pharisees. Then, in 8:31-47, He addresses Jews who had at least outwardly “believed” in Him. He tells them that true disciples abide in His word, and that the truth will make them free. They answer defensively by appealing to their descent from Abraham. Jesus then distinguishes between physical descent from Abraham and spiritual sonship. If they were truly Abraham’s children, they would do the works of Abraham, above all receiving God’s messenger. Instead, they seek to kill Him. The argument sharpens into the severe language about their not hearing God because they are not “of God.” Finally, when the Jews object that Jesus is not yet 50 years old and therefore He could not have seen Abraham, Jesus says: “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58), which is a divinity claim. They take up stones to kill Him there in the Temple precincts where it was legal for them to do so under the Romans.

As for that passage, John 8:55, the RSV says:

55 But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar (mendax) like you; but I do know him and I keep his word.

That phrase “If I said…” is a compression of “if I were to say (but I am not saying it…)”.

Since the subject is ego that mendax is singular.

The KJV spells out the conditional a bit more clearly.

55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

Or, “if I were to say X, then I would be a liar (but I haven’t said X and, therefore, I am not a liar”.   The protasis is “if I were to say X” and the apodosis is “I shall/would be a liar”. The Greek has Christ say in the protosis, “εἴπω… eipo”, which is a 1st person singular 2nd aorist active subjunctive. This is followed in the apodosis by ἔσομαι … esomai, which is a 1st person singular future indicative.   It is a kind of hypothetical future supposition.

It is also an example of the use of reductio ad absurdum, since it is unthinkable that Christ would say something false.

Theologically, John 8:55 shows that the knowledge of God is Christological: the Father cannot be rightly known apart from the Son. Morally, it shows that truth requires confession even when confession provokes hostility. Spiritually, it warns against the illusion that religious speech by itself amounts to communion with God. Christ is not only exposing His opponents, but he is revealing the pattern of holiness. A holy person does not invent a private idea of God, nor adjust the truth for safety. He receives, keeps, and confesses outwardly what God has given. Christ does this perfectly because He is the Son by nature. We, however, only do it by grace and only when we remain in Him.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box |
2 Comments