His Excellency Most Reverend William Lori, Bishop of Bridgeport (who has a blog) has a rather chatty but very good piece about Summorum Pontificum.
As usual, my emphases and comments.
One Rite, Two Forms
By THE MOST REVEREND WILLIAM E. LORI, S.T.D., BISHOP OF BRIDGEPORT
Fairfield County Catholic, July 14, 2007Somewhere, buried amid my elementary school report cards, essays, and other childhood memorabilia is the Mass card that was given me when I became an altar server. Its specific purpose was to help train servers on how to respond to the Mass prayers in Latin. Since we were unschooled in Latin, the card offered phonetic pronunciations of the Latin responses. Included on the card were prayers at the foot of the altar as well as responses for the Gospel, the Preface, the blessing, dismissal, and the Last Gospel.
My classmates and I took pride in learning these replies by heart and in achieving clear pronunciation of the Latin words. We were also fascinated by the intricacy of the Mass; under the tutelage of our assistant pastor, we learned to serve the High Mass and the Low Mass with effortless precision. Forty Hours, Confirmations, funerals, and weddings, as well as Holy Week (the rites for Holy Week had already undergone an initial revision) were special challenges which we relished. [What I like about this is that he describes a) that little kids can learn what to do and b) they were proud and happy in doing learning it. In contrast, so many people, not a few prelates included, pewl and whine about that the older form is tooo haaard for grown men to learn. Folks, let’s get this into perspective: if kids can do it, we can do it. If all those not too bright priests for centuries could do it, we can do it.]
Those memories came back to me this past week when I read Pope Benedict’s new documents permitting a more frequent use of the Mass and Sacraments as they were celebrated prior to 1970 – using both the ceremonial forms and the Latin language as found in the Roman Missal issued by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962. The first of Pope Benedict’s documents on this subject is an Apostolic Letter entitled Summorum Pontificum and given Motu Proprio, which means it sets down provisions or norms by the Holy Father’s own proper authority. [Yes, the Pope’s authority. Something many critics of the MP ought to remember.] That said, the Holy Father spent a good deal of time in prayer, reflection, and consultation [yes, it was collegial] with bishops and experts before he issued these new norms.
The second document is a pastoral letter addressed to bishops wherein the Holy Father treats pastoral concerns that his new directives might be expected to raise; this is coupled with words of encouragement to us members of the college of bishops who are his co-workers in proclaiming the truth and love of Christ.
These new norms will go into effect on September 14, 2007, the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. In the coming weeks, I will seek the advice of both clergy and laity [I don’t remember other bishops saying they would consult lay people, even though the MP really seems to focus on the rights of lay people and priests] as we study the norms found in the Holy Father’s Apostolic Letter and how they will apply to our diocese. In the meantime, however, since these directives of the Holy Father are, to some degree, "in the news," I thought it best to offer you a few pastoral reflections and perspectives, based on what the Holy Father has said and written.
First, I want to speak about the enduring value of the extraordinary form of the Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1962. This Missal, though issued relatively recently, recapitulates centuries of liturgical development. In thinking back to my own youthful experience of the liturgy, I am reminded not only of its antiquity but also of the formative role it played in the lives of almost everyone I knew, including my parents. The Mass and the Sacraments in this form nurtured the faith of great saints, Catholic intellectuals, and untold millions of ordinary Catholics. [Thank you, Your Excellency, for not sneering at the old Mass. This expresses the respect the older form deserves.]
One of my prized possessions as a youth was the Saint Andrew Daily Missal which contained Mass prayers in Latin and English, together with explanations of the rite. Following along with this Missal, my classmates and I had a clear understanding of the parts of the Mass together with their significance. [Do you remember my entries on the importance of having a hand missal? Also, this reminds me of the influence the Schott hand missal played in the life of the young Joseph Ratzinger.]
In making this form of the Mass and Sacraments more readily available today, Pope Benedict is not suggesting that the liturgical renewal following the Second Vatican Council was mistaken, nor is he attempting to "roll the clock back," as some may fear. The Mass according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI (the Third Edition of which was issued by Pope John Paul II) will continue to be the ordinary form of the liturgy, whereas the previous form will remain extraordinary.
Far from rejecting the renewed liturgy, the Holy Father is making an important point: the ordinary form of the liturgy (that of Pope Paul VI) is in continuity with the older usage; thus there are two forms (ordinary and extraordinary) in the one Roman Rite. This is not just a technical point. It means that you and I stand in communion, in a continuity of faith and prayer, with those who have gone before us. We are one with those who for centuries worshipped in liturgical forms which in the West gradually took shape until they were more or less standardized by Pope Pius V following the conclusion of the Council of Trent in 1563. [Nicely done.]
Perhaps, in the strenuous efforts to reform the liturgy following the Second Vatican Council, there was insufficient appreciation of the important role which these venerable liturgical forms continued to play in the spiritual lives of many, not only those in advancing years but also a surprising number of young people. [I don’t think it is surprising. His Excellency describes the effect it had on him when he was young. Why would young people today not be interetsed?] Perhaps it took a few decades of experience for this to be clearly seen; ["Don’t it always seem to go / that you don’t know what you’ve got ’till it’s gone…"] this has been observed in the two parishes in the diocese were the older usage is celebrated. So with a mix of gentleness and firmness, the Holy Father is encouraging us to embrace all things Catholic in a spirit that seeks the unity and common of the Church. [Again, nice.]
Various other pastoral concerns have been voiced. Some have wondered aloud whether this undercuts the authority of the local bishop to regulate the liturgy. I truly do not believe that it does. [At last, a measured voice.] The role of the local bishop is not to "invent" the liturgy but rather to ensure that it be faithfully and prayerfully celebrated in accord with the teaching and discipline of the Church. Echoing the thought of Saint Paul, we bishops, together with our priests, are "stewards" of the liturgy, not its owners. [Sorry, that loud THUNK you heard was me falling off my chair.]
An ancient adage tells us that "the law of praying is the law of believing." This means, among other things, that the liturgy is to reflect in beauty and simplicity the faith of the Church. The first job of a bishop is to teach the faith – primarily through the preaching and instruction which he delivers or that which is delivered on his behalf by pastors and parish priests. For the vast majority of Catholics, however, this occurs within the liturgy. The Holy Father has provided the bishops of the world with an opportunity to teach about the nature and role of the liturgy in the lives of all the faithful. [Excellent.]
Some have also wondered if these new directives will bring about unity with those who have effectively left the Church following the Second Vatican Council, not only over liturgical reforms but also over aspects of conciliar teaching. They worry that efforts to re-unite these dissident groups might produce a greater disunity among the vast majority of Catholics who seem relatively satisfied with the liturgy as it was restored and renewed following the Council.
In weighing such concerns, we should recognize the pope’s global perspective on this question; [RIGHT. The Pope is the Pope of the whole church. A lot of the criticism of the MP has been very parochial.] it is estimated that, worldwide, some 400,000 individuals, including nearly 500 priests, are involved in such groups, the largest being the Society of Saint Pius X founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
No one imagines that the Motu Proprio will bring about automatic reunification with such groups, for the issues go beyond the liturgy. However, it may help many to find their way back to full communion with the Church. This is a worthy pastoral goal which all of us should reflect on with serenity and open-heartedness. We should also be attentive to the wise provisions that the Holy Father has put in place so as not disrupt the ordinary flow of parish life.
Concerns were also voiced in the media about the effect the Motu Proprio might have on Roman Catholic-Jewish relations. Prior to the Missal of 1962, the Good Friday Liturgy contained prayers which, lamentably, were indeed anti-Semitic. "Are we returning to such forms?" it was asked.
As just indicated, such references were already removed in the Missal of 1962; furthermore the older usage cannot be used at all during the Triduum, that is, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday. [Ummmm…. no, Your Excellency. Where there is a parish for the older us, where the Novus Ordo is not celebrated, the older form of the Triduum is used.] Thus the Motu Proprio should have no effect, one way or the other, on Roman Catholic-Jewish relationships. Rather, the Church’s commitment to dialogue and cooperation with the Jewish community will continue unabated.
To read the text of the Apostolic Letter, the Pope’s letter to bishops, and a useful Q&A on the subject, click here. I urge you to read these documents for yourself. Again, after appropriate consultation, I will offer guidance on the implementation of the Motu Proprio that will be faithful to its spirit and its letter.
How refreshing! Thank you, Bishop Lori.
Loading ...
What a wonderful, refreshing contrast!
..The second loud thunk was me falling out of my chair laughing out loud, at work, at the thought of you falling out of your chair! Thank you for sharing this incredible letter from the Bishop to his flock…such true wisdom and love for his people.
Thank you for all that you do!
in +JMJ
Tom Seeker
Regarding “too hard” – I never heard anyone complain that the rubrics were too hard who approved of the rite and valued it. I think the idea that they are too hard (which also perhaps underlied the simplification of the ritual calendar in the 1950s) is the thought that hard work “for form” is not pleasing to God. It is the same attitude which devalues art music at Mass, or even carefully rehearsed sacred music. There is a grain of truth in it, namely recognizing that pure form, “this people honours me with the lips”, actually is displeasing to God. But exaggerated, there comes the idea that God does not want beautiful and careful praise. Soon after, comes the idea that worship is more for us (teaching, learning, fellowship, mutual encouragement) than for God.
I like to think of the theatre, sometimes, as a liturgical metaphor. At the theatre, there’s a producer, a director, there are actors, and there’s an audience. In liturgy, there’s God, the angels and saints, the clergy, the choir, and the people. But who is who? :-) Gotta get that right!
Definitely an uplifting message! We’ve been seeing so many negative responses to the MP and even to the authority of the Holy Father here in the U.S., that it’s becoming rather discouraging. Sitting here in Birmingham, where our retired Bishop hasn’t mentioned the MP at all so far,(and we’ve waited over 2 years for a new bishop), I am growing impatient and discouraged.
I also don’t know what we ordinary parishioners are suppose to do, to get the ball rolling on proving that there is indeed a ‘stable’ group that wants the TLM here. My pastor hasn’t mentioned the MP as best I can tell, although he did expound at length about the Tuesday document that ‘offended’ some Protestants.
And our diocesan weekly paper, ‘One Voice’, only used a ‘canned’ article about the MP that wasn’t generated locally and seemed only slightly better than the AP newswire version. I get the feeling the powers that be in our diocese may be trying to ignore the MP and hope it goes away. But I’m hoping my first impression is wrong. Time will tell. But reading of good responses elsewhere is a great help!
As much as we see this error continued by those who should know better, one hopes that there will be clarification about public celebration of the Extraordinary Usage during the Triduum!
I am beginning to worry that the idea that the Missal of Bl. John XXIII is going to be widely considered “banned” during the Triduum. We need a clarification from Ecclesia Dei soon on this to prevent this interpretation!
It was refreshing to hear this coming from a diocese in New England. I am primarily concerned with the northern part(ME,NH,MA). Charles A.,you were correct.
Lori, Lori!/‘Tis a glory!
Chris: I am beginning to worry that the idea that the Missal of Bl. John XXIII is going to be widely considered “banned†during the Triduum. We need a clarification from Ecclesia Dei soon on this to prevent this interpretation!
I wonder what might be said that is clearer than what Summorum Pontificum already says in the only article that mentions the Triduum:
Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum.
Thus, private Masses — those “celebrated without the people”, though according to Article 4 the faithful may attend them — whether 1962 or 1970, may not be celebrated during the Triduum. So Article 2 merely includes for the 1962 Mass what is already true for the 1970 Mass — no private Masses during the Triduum, when only the single public parish Mass may be celebrated.
Since the motu proprio nowhere makes any reference to public (that is, publicly scheduled and announced) Masses during the Triduum, why would anyone think that not a public Mass during the Triduum could not be a 1962 Mass (in a 1962 personal parish, for instance)?. What’s to “interpret”? Or are we using the word “interpret” in the churchspeak sense of “obfuscate”.
The Bishop’s letter was edifying and heartwarming. Thank you, Father for your astute comments. Everyone should make copies of this letter (with Father’s comments of course). Pass these copies out to priests and laity far and wide!!
Andrea Brown
I’m always amazed at the people who can’t comprehend how a young child could possibly learn latin and follow it at mass, then tell you how well their kid is doing in Spanish class.
About children learning Latin at such a young age, does anybody recall the triviuum curriculum that once was?
Even some Lutheran and Anglican elementary schools I know have their 2nd and 3rd graders learning Latin at such a young age.
Whatever happened to us Catholics?
Latin is our language, the Official Language of Our Church!
If a parish has only one Mass on Sunday, does the pastor need the Bishop’s permission for it to be the 1962 Mass?
Fr. X: Not if the parish is set up for the older forms of liturgy. Also, nothing prohibits adding a Mass, provided that the priest has permission, for pastoral reasons, to binate.
Yes – like Bp. Lori – in 1950s Ireland as 10-year olds we learned the responses – taught in school by the Headmaster. No phonetics back then. He just broke the words down by syllable (“Ad De-um qui lae-ti-fi-cat…”) and we learned them that way. While we used “Mass Cards” initially, by dint of constant repetition (serving Mass daily…) we soon knew them by heart.
Altar boys were organized in ‘batches’ of eight boys with one designated the ‘prefect’ – responsible for order, further training and task assignment.
Tasks included: moving the Missal from the ‘Epistle’ side to the ‘Gospel’ side and back again for the Last Gospel; ringing the bell; custody of the priest’s biretta; bringing the cruets to the altar; raising the chasuble at the Consecration; placing the Communion cloth over the Communion Rails; holding the patens during distribution of Holy Communion, etc. etc.
…and getting a Saint Andrew Daily Missal when we got older.
Ah, memories…!
Father…was that a lyric from Counting Crows I just read?
Too hard?
Folks, mediaeval peasants learned this stuff!
-J.
Are exactly three steps up to the altar required for the 1962 Mass?
No one seems to mind (or perhaps no one is comfortable pointing out) that His Excellency believes that the pre-1962 Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews is anti-Semitic?
I’m amazed that people who think children can’t learn Latin forget that they routinely learn the hundreds of odd names and statistics of meaningless things like Pokemon and Yu-Gi-OH! monster cards.
They also may not realize that Latin clubs are on the rise in high schools because teens who learn Latin increase their SAT or ACT scores considerably. I met a young woman who graduate from college recetnly, who minored in classical languages. She told me that there are hundreds of new jobs opening up for Latin instructors….so she’s applied for a job as a Latin teacher instead getting a job in whatever field her major was (I’m not even sure she mentioned it!)
Maybe that’s the tactic to take: Celebrate the Latin Mass, increase your kids’ SATs!
Might get a lot of the ‘academic types’ to shut up about the dangers of the MP….(who am I kidding?)
Thy Kingdom Come!
dcs:
If by “anti-Semitic”, he is referring to the simple fact of praying for the conversion of the Jews, then I would definitely disagree with his assessment. I also don’t believe that the adjective “perfidious” in the pre-1962 prayer was originally intended to be anti-Semitic in the modern sense. I think it meant something like “wrongly believing”, and was meant to specify which Jews we were praying for: namely, the ones who didn’t believe in Christ. However, it would seem that Bl. John XXIII felt that in our day, such a reference could be perceived as an anti-Semitic stereotype, though that was not the intent of the prayer.
Fr. X – I am certainly no authority, but I have seen the extraordinary form of the Mass celebrated at altars with 0 steps, 2 steps, 3 steps, and more than 3 steps. So I guess it doesn’t really matter, but it looks better in a High Mass if there are enough steps for the priest, deacon and subdeacon to all be on different levels.
Bo- You must be very young! Yes, Counting Crows- but a cover of Joni Mitchell’s lyrics/song “Paved Paradise” from way back when.
Father Z., Thank you for sharing this encouraging letter. I am teaching/learning Latin with my home schooled, ten year old daughter. She loves it.
Shana SFO makes a very valid point in regard to kids learning stuff they mightn’t necessarily understand at first. For example here in Ireland all kids from the time of starting primary school (I think that’s grade school in the US?) at age of 4 or 5 MUST start to learn Irish and this continues right up to leaving school. Also it’s not the easiest of languages – it still has declensions like Latin & Greek, though fewer, and the spelling is difficult although probably no more than English for a learner. But it’s compulsory as a matter of national policy. And most kids manage it no problem, even though regrettably few go on to speak it fluently, national policy or no. So this big bogeyman of Latin as a “strange dead/elitist/difficult (choose cliche as appropriate) language that people can’t possibly learn…” doesn’t really wash in this country anyway.
Or at least it shouldn’t but of course we still get the libs, of whom we have many, trotting it out at every opportunity as one of their default comments.
I grew up in the Diocese of Bridgeport, have been a Vincentian for 37 years, and a priest for thirty. I had the exact same experiences as Bishop Lori as an altar server. My experiences as a child do not guide my life today. I did learn from them, but as a man I reflect on other teachings and experience. I shall obey the provisions of “Summorum Pontificum,” and I shall follow the instructions of my bishop and the pastor of the Church where I am parochial vicar. However, I am convinced that “actuosa participatio” is better fulfilled in the rite promulgated by Paul VI, because the dialogue between the celebrant and all the faithful present assures the interiority and the exteriority that the term “actuosa” seems to require. The Missal of Bl. John XXIII, while permitting dialogue between priest and people, does not require it; moreover, it does not allow the people’s saying with the celebrant the “Our Father,” which St. Augustine refers to as the people’s Eucharistic Prayer. Where I work today, our people speak 31 different languages in their homes, and we celebrate the Eucharist in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Our Montagnard population (the Vietnamese of the highlands) like the Latin responses because, among themselves, they speak 13 languages, many of which are unwritten; and they prefer not to celebrate in Vietnamese. Our Vietnamese have no desire to return to Latin; nor do our Hispanics. Among our Africans (from Nigeria, Cameroun, Ivory Coast, Sudan, Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, Burkina Faso, Ghana, and Congo), those who had Irish missionaries talk about using Latin, while the others do not. I note, however, that the “Missa Luba” from the Congo, very popular to listen to in the early 1960’s when I was a child, has been abandoned by Africans (some few African Americans sing it). I suspect these are so because the participation in Latin does not make the “actuosa” of participation happen for them. One cannot doubt that the liturgical reform is a case of prudential judgment, as is the decision of the Holy Father embodied in “Summorum Pontificum.” I think, however, that the participation of the people is a theological proposition, and that the changes that “Sacrosanctum Concilium” propose reflect that theological change, which we first read of in the Motu Proprio “Tra le sollecitudini,” and further developed in the encyclical “Mediator Dei.” Is it wise to return to a practice which does not sufficiently emobody this theology?
On a disciplinary level, Pope Paul VI, in promulgating the sacramental rituals, stated what the matter and the form of each sacrament is. Does the permission to use the Missal of Bl. Pope John XXIII and the last version of the Roman Ritual mean, for example, that there are two forms for the consecration of the bread and wine, two forms of absolution, etc.? Especially in the sacrament of Orders, the forms have changed–in the deaconate, the imposition of hands took place during the prayer of consecration, not before, and I was present at an ordination of a deacon celebrated by Silvio Cardinal Oddi in 1981 where he tried to mix the old and the new. This needs clarification. Again, I will obey, and although I don’t take the extreme step of my beloved confrere Msgr. Luca Brandolini, CM, in labeling June 7 the saddest day of my life, I am somewhat concerned about the efficaciousness of the move for the reasons I’ve stated here. While my experience as a child is similar to that of Bishop Lori, what I have learned as an adult leads me to some hesitancy in making a loving embrace of “Summorum Pontificum.”
The Missal of Bl. John XXIII, while permitting dialogue between priest and people, does not require it; moreover, it does not allow the people’s saying with the celebrant the “Our Father,†which St. Augustine refers to as the people’s Eucharistic Prayer.
The Missal of 1962 does, in fact, allow for the people’s recitation of the Paternoster along with the priest during a Low Mass — without going so far as to be a “dialogue Mass.”
In fact, if memory serves (and I’m old enough that it can), it allows for more than that, even at a High Mass. But there were a number of rubrical revisions and emendations in the period of 1958 to 1962, such that I’d have to look them up to be absolutely sure.
[Fr. X:] If a parish has only one Mass on Sunday, does the pastor need the Bishop’s permission for it to be the 1962 Mass?
[Fr. Z:] Not if the parish is set up for the older forms of liturgy. Also, nothing prohibits adding a Mass, provided that the priest has permission, for pastoral reasons, to binate.
I don’t see where the motu proprio precludes substituting the extraordinary form of the Mass for the ordinary form even on a Sunday in a parish that only has one Mass. Of course we await the authentic interpretation of
Art 5 § 2: “dominicis autem et festis una etiam celebratio huiusmodi fieri potest“.
Whether the 1962 Missal could be used all the time, predominantly, or occasionally in place of the 1970/2002 Missal in a parish which is not explicitly erected by the bishop or otherwise specially authorized for that purpose goes directly to the question of what the ordinary and extraordinary distinction of expressions/forms/uses (Art. 1) means in practice. It should be very interesting to follow this development.
[Henry Edwards:] Since the motu proprio nowhere makes any reference to public (that is, publicly scheduled and announced) Masses during the Triduum, why would anyone think that not a public Mass during the Triduum could not be a 1962 Mass (in a 1962 personal parish, for instance)?
Indeed, Art 5 § 2 explicitly allows an usus antiquior Mass not only on Sundays, but also on “feasts”, and the days of the Sacred Triduum are the highest feasts.
In a non-1962-Missal-dedicated parish, the following scenarios might be possible:
1) The 1962 Missal and Divine Office is used instead of the 1970+ Missal and Divine Office for some or all of the liturgies during the Sacred Triduum.
2) The 1962 Missal and Divine Office is used in addition to the 1970+ Missal and Divine Office for some or all of the liturgies during the Sacred Triduum.
The first scenario raises the same ordinary vs. extraordinary questions as for Sundays.
The second scenario raises the question of whether the solemn Holy Thursday Mass, Good Friday afternoon service, Easter Vigil and canonical hours could be done twice in the same place, once in either form. Certainly this has been done in some places which enjoyed the (soon to be former) indult. While most pastors practically have their hands full celebrating the liturgies of the Sacred Triduum once, is this juridically or liturgically forbidden?
A 2005 BCL FAQ states the opinion that bishops can permit the evening Holy Thursday Mass and the afternoon Good Friday service to be celebrated twice under certain conditions (see nn. 2 and 4; there is no mention of the Easter Vigil and no citation of sources).
In 1988, the Congregation for Divine Worship affirmed that a pastor with two or more parishes could repeat the celebrations of the Paschal Triduum (Paschalis sollemnitatis, n. 43). A 1957 SRC source is cited for this. (This circular letter on the preparation and celebration of the paschal feasts begins with the words “Paschalis sollemnitatis“, but for some reason it is often cited as “Paschale Solemnitatis“. The English translation is worse than most, beginning with the very first line.)
I would appreciate hearing of any other sources or opinions on the matter of multiple Triduum liturgies in the same place.
Father Stone said: However, I am convinced that “actuosa participatio†is better fulfilled in the rite promulgated by Paul VI, because the dialogue between the celebrant and all the faithful present assures the interiority and the exteriority that the term “actuosa†seems to require.
Well, as I recall, it was Pope St. Pius X who came up with the term “actuosa participatio.†Know what he was calling for? Not dialogue, but greater participation of the lay faithful in Latin Gregorian chant during Mass.
Does the permission to use the Missal of Bl. Pope John XXIII and the last version of the Roman Ritual mean, for example, that there are two forms for the consecration of the bread and wine, two forms of absolution, etc.?
I hope so, since there is a priest stationed at my home “Novus ordo” parish who always uses the older form (“May Our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you and by His authority I absolve you, etc.” — but without the removal of interdicts and excommunications) of absolution rather than the new (“God, the Father of mercies through the death and Resurrection of His Son, etc.”)! ;-)
Ditto for me, the experience of the bishop when he was a boy! I learned the Latin responses, and all the servers “moves” in the Tridentine Mass when I was 8 years old back in 1956. It may not be true that even a caveman can do it, but it is pure nonsense to say that most people or priests can’t manage the Mass of John XXIII. I loved to serve the old Mass, and was very much drawn into the Sacred Mysteries by it. Now, soon, I will be able to celebrate this Mass as a priest for the first time, for which I am very grateful. I am amazed at how much I remember after all these years – not just what the servers did but what the priest did as well as far as rubrics go.
So, practice, practice, practice! Oremus et adoremus!