PODCAzT 45: Augustine on pastors; my Motu Proprio sermon in England; chapel veils

It has been almost a month since the last PODCAzT.  My travels and time restrictions have kept me busy.  But today we listen to St. Augustine of Hippo talk about shepherds in union with Christ.

Also, I have provided a sound recording of my sermon on 14 September about the Exaltation of the Cross and about the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.  It was delivered in Blackfen, Kent, in England at a Solemn Mass at Our Lady of the Rosary Church where Fr. Finigan of the blog The Hermeneutic of Continuity is pastor.

A reader of WDTPRS sent in a voicemail question about whether it is necessary for women to wear chapel veils at Mass with the so-called "Tridentine" Missal, the Missale Romanum of 1962.

044 07-08-27 St. Monica dies, Augustine weeps; Pope Benedict greets American seminarians
043 07-08-23 Benedict XVI on Mass “toward the Lord” and a prayer by St. Augustine
042 07-08-10 St. Augustine on St. Lawrence and how to be a Christian
041 07-08-09 Ratzinger on liturgical silence; silent Eucharist Prayer
040 07-08-02 Eusebius of Vercelli in exile; my column in on detractors of Summorum Pontificum
039 07-07-27 St. Augustine on Christ the Mediator; “for all” or “for many”?
038 07-07-25 Ratzinger on “active participation”; The Sabine Farm; Merry del Val’s music
037 07-07-18 The position of the altar and the priest’s “back to the people”

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Patristiblogging, PODCAzT, SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. John H. says:

    Fr. Z,

    Does the 1983 CCC’s absence of the precept concerning women being veiled in Mass abrogate the previous precept? I would think the absence of it being mentioned in the law would not contradict the Bibilical positive precept given through the words of St. Paul to women. Are we not bound to the words of St. Paul regardless of Canon Law’s silence? If canon law has no mention of murder, theft, usury, etc, are we to allow these crimes because it is not explicit in a law that was never meant to cover all precepts obligitory to men?

  2. JS Wilson says:

    Father Zed:
    Thank you for taking the time to produce these podcasts. It make my commute to work a “Holy Hour” so to
    speak. It has been a real Lenten experience waiting for a new Podcast!

    Keep up the good work- Next stop for Fr. Z- EWTN????

  3. John H: The bottom line is this: Before the 1983 Code of Canon Law, women were obliged to wear head coverings. Since the 1983 Code, they are not. That’s is. It’s really easy. I think they should, but the Church’s law no longer imposes the obligation.

  4. Timothy James says:

    WooHoo! New Podcazt! Now I have something to listen to on my bus-rides this week. Thanks Fr. Z!

  5. Allan Potts says:

    Just came home from a “Traditional Latin Mass” whith a Latin choir. It was not a high mass but a Cantata (Sp). Almost every woman had a covering of some type on their heads. The salt of the earth was there, and one wretched sinner, ME. The priest that said this private mass is now getting some grief about it. It’s a shame those “in command” cannot take the Holy Father’s Apostolic letter in the spirit in which it was issued. They seem to want to block, stop, and impede, the celebration of this wonderful form of the mass, and reticule those who love it.

  6. Andrew says:

    John H:

    Where have you seen a “precept concerning women being veiled at Mass?”

  7. rk says:

    I can’t download the podcast. My feed (Itunes) doesn’t have the new one.

  8. John H. says:


    The liturgy is in a general sense, the prayer of the Church. Thus, any liturgical event would fall under the prayer spoken of by St. Paul in I Cor. 11.

    Fr. Z,

    I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but I think the original question still remains. Does the Biblical precept still apply? I understand the Church has no precept in this regard in the ’83 code, but the Church cannot modify Holy Writ. I understand you think it should be observed, but must it be observed according to the clear sense of Scripture?

  9. Father Christopher says:

    Father Z.,

    I very much appreciate your podcasts. I am curious, however, in light of your interest in the Extraordinary Use, why you comment on the Patristic reading from the Liturgy of the Hours, rather than highlighting the treasures of the Old Breviary.

  10. Father Christopher: In the PODCAzTs I use the Office of Readings as a point of reference for the Patristic readings for several readings. First, most lay people interested in reciting the office use the Liturgia Horarum and not the older Breviarium Romanum.  Therefore, they can follow in their books.  Also, the texts cited in the newer book are taken usually from better editions of the Fathers than are found in the older breviary.  Moreover, the reading in the Office of Readings is a substantive chunk of text not broken up, so it is easier to use.  Also, I am not presently using the Breviarium Romanum every day, so it is more convenient for me.  I hope that helps.

  11. John H: I don’t mean to beat a dead horse,…

    That is sort of what is going on, however.  I leave it to women to determine whether or not the wise and Spirit filled words of St. Paul to the Corinthians in the 1st c. apply to them.  They can determine for themselves if they want to use this time honored custom, which is both attractive and a good example for others of the sacred space they enter.  I leave it to women to adopt, or not, this beautiful and symbolic gesture of respect to all present and to the sacred space and moment.   At the same time as I leave all these things to women to determine, I will also not neglect to let them know that in the new Code of Canon Law, the Lawgiver, at the time Pope John Paul II, made the determination that there was no longer a legal, canonical obligation to wear a chapel veil or other headcovering. 

  12. JS Wilson: If I could figure out a way to make it work and get more tech support, I think a radio or other sort of call in show might be better for me than TV.

  13. rk: I am able to get it through iTunes.

  14. I made a little slip of the tongue in the PODCAzT when I said that Summorum Pontificum gives permission for the older liturgical books to be used.  That is in effect true, but it is not precise.  The MP really states that the older books are still in useIt doesn’t really give permission, in the sense of allowing something which would otherwise be forbidden.  It is a subtle distinction, but a real one, at least juridically.

  15. Timothy James says:

    lol I applaud the use of the international-friendly “Fr. Zed”… as opposed to the American usage “Fr. Zee”… I always argued with Americans that they invented the Zee pronunciation just so that the Alphabet song would rhyme… Don’t know if I was right or not but it always got a good reaction out of them as they patriotically defended their beloved “Zee.”

  16. techno_aesthete says:

    First, most lay people interested in reciting the office use the Liturgia Horarum and not the older Breviarium Romanum.

    Oh, when is Baronius Press going to finally publish the Breviarium Romanum?

  17. Maureen says:

    Why wait for some small press? Download a PDF file of the thing off books.google.com, print it off, and go!

    And yes, it’s there. The 1799 one from the NYC Public Library seems to have 3 out of 4 volumes: one from the
    one from the 1st Sunday of Advent to the 1st Sunday of “Quadragesima”, one from then to the Saturday after Pentecost, and one from the 1st Sunday in September to the First Sunday of Advent.

    There’s also an 1861 breviary, and a whole bunch of breviaries from French dioceses. Don’t know what the difference is there. Presumably you don’t want the Anglican breviary, but they’ve got one of those, too.

Comments are closed.