Fr. Finigan on Universae Ecclesiae

His Hermeneuticalness, P.P. of mighty Blackfen, the Dean of Bexley, Fr. Tim Finigan has a good roundup about Universae Ecclesiae, looking at different blogs which looked at the document.

Also, Fr. Finigan offers this sporting analogy analysis:

Fr Z has been searching for an alternative to the American Rounders [Crickey!  He is a traditionalist!] expression “no hitter.” I admit to having woefully failed to understand this expression. May I therefore offer some cricketing analogies for some of the paragraphs mentioned above?

The PCED were first to bat and their first innings was not too exciting although n.4 was a deliberate edge just outside third slip for four. In to bowl, PCED stamped its authority with n.7, an obvious but dangerous fast delivery on target for middle stump by the fresh bowler, while n.8a added a little seam and n.8b moved a worryingly towards leg stump. n.10.1 was a bouncer that made an orange-sized bruise, while n.13 was the work of a timely spin bowler who made the batsman’s heart beat nervously. In the second innings, nn. 20 and 21 were a series of perfectly executed square cuts to the boundary against a lacklustre medium-pace bowler and n.28 was the devastating punishment of a short ball hooked for six over the head of long leg. n.33 was a cheeky run taken while mid-off was fumbling and n.34 was one of those drives that made the umpire dance to avoid stopping the ball. PCED declared with every chance of bowling out the liberals easily.

There.  I have not the slightest clue what most of that means, but I’m sure that says it all.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Lighter fare, Linking Back, Mail from priests, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, Universae Ecclesiae and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. dmwallace says:

    Perhaps this is why most of the non-English speaking world prefers soccer.

  2. EWTN Rocks says:

    Huh? What is “cricket” any way?

  3. asacjack says:

    ” A people separated by a common language.” Or maybe its Klingon.

  4. Tominellay says:

    …that’s easy for him to say…

  5. joecct77 says:

    Does this help (thanks to Google)??

    The PCED bat priores et primo quoque non innings excitat etsi consilium fuit n.4 duntaxat extrinsecus ore lapsus tertia quattuor. Ut patera sua PCED auctoritate pede n.7, sed aperto in actione periculosam ieiunium medium interuallo truncus bowler recenti, cum n.8a cui paulum et summa worryingly n.8b moveret in stipite crura. bouncer n.10.1 quod erat Orange-fecerunt amplitudo fractura, dum n.13 est opus spin bowler opportune facientem FACTOR ceciderunt cor trepidare. Secundo innings, nn. XX XXI erant et multae perfecte faciat quadratum secat ad terminos contra medium-pace lackluster bowler et pestifera est n.28 poena brevi camur ball sex super caput longum leg. INPUDENS n.33 erat captus dum medius run-off n.34 et erat BALBUS ex iis qui fecit agit choro ne quemquam claudens ball. Omnis praedestinatus PCED Fors liberales Bowling sicco facile.

  6. dominic says:

    I think the joking reference to rounders is that, in England, “rounders” (kind of like a slower & less energetic and aggressive version of your baseball) is mostly played by girls, and very rarely by anyone past school (your high school) age….

  7. EWTN Rocks says:

    That’s hilarious Art – thanks!

  8. joecct77 says:

    Art wins the thread.

  9. Peter in Canberra says:

    Fr Finnigan proves himself an adept (shall we say ‘qualified’?)

    Indeed cricket providea an anology for tradition vs modernity in itself.

    There are two forms of cricket:

    test cricket – (where each team has two innings) and with no limit on the number of balls to be bowled until all the batters are out. This is the traditional form of the game. A draw is a possible outcome – neither team wins nor loses but NB it is not a tie (this is also possible but is a rare result – each team finishes all out with the same number of runs)

    one day cricket – a modern innovation where limits were imposed on the number of overs and there is only one innings per team. A draw is not possible, though a simple numerical tie is possible. There are muliple rule changes to make these forms “more appealing to the mass consumer audience”. The two newer games favour dispensing technique and craft for slogging.

    There is even a newer game – 20/20 – only 20 overs each – yes, the need for even more immediate, relevant and gratifying rule changes.

    The proponents of the one day game, and those who hate cricket altogether accuse the traditonal game of being stuffy, stuck in the past, with rules that are hard to understand. In the traditional game both teams wear sober and dignified white, in the modern game they wear uniforms like pajamas. There are many veins to be mined in this analogy …

    ps Where does that leave rounders? perhaps I will leave that to the post-colonial US commenters >;-o

  10. Rounders is apparently underarm-pitched baseball, except apparently played in a smaller area even than the easement we played on as kids. It makes teeball for elementary school kids look wild and expansive. Yup, I think baseball is being insulted….

  11. rcesq2 says:

    The game of rounders I played as a child living in one of the “colonies” was basically baseball rules, sidearm pitch, using a tennis ball and a cricket bat.

Comments are closed.