For your amusement:


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill, The future and our choices and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. acardnal says:

    Humorous and informative. I have forwarded this one and the previous to others.

  2. benedetta says:

    Turning towards the Lord, I think, would really help us to get together, in our common worship and in service to each other.

  3. Fr_Sotelo says:

    That is indeed humorous.

  4. anilwang says:

    I’m sorry Fr. Z, but Vatican II says that such humour by priests is restricted to the homily and homilies must be limited to topics on standup comedy, sports, pop psychology, movies, current events, social and environmental justice, and how other religions and secular philosophies have a lot to teach us ignorant Catholics.

    I’m afraid you’re not Vatican II.

    Et cum spiritu tuo Concilii Vaticani II :-)

  5. APX says:


    You forgot what’s the latest deal on the shopping network, and touchy-feely guitar-led sing-alongs about how God is with us always like a big hug. *shudder*

  6. Andy Milam says:

    Why does it take Sarah Palin to get us to understand the Church? Did she convert? She can’t possibly be right? Can she?


    Oh it’s a parody! Thanks. Good thing Sarah Palin is never wrong! Why isn’t she running for President again?

  7. trad catholic mom says:

    Larry King and Sarah Palin talking heads?


  8. pfreddys says:

    Yes, but why Sarah Palin and Larry King?

  9. jbas says:

    Well, the OF missal does now say altars should be situated to allow Mass facing the people, “which is desirable wherever possible”. I don’t like that it says that, but it does. At any rate, there is certainly nothing said about the practice in the constitutions or decrees of the Second Vatican Council.

  10. Fr. Thomas Kocik says:

    Ad orientem.

  11. jbas,

    The erroneous translation you cite has been dealt with here almost ad infinitum, and likely ad nauseum. In short, the Congregation for Divine Worship itself has issued (in plain English in response to a dubium written in English) what amounts to a Latin grammar lesson, specifying–with its competence as the responsible dicastery–that what the original Latin said was “desirable whenever possible” was a free-standing altar, which would moreover allow Mass facing the people. It did not say explicitly that Mass facing the people was desirable whenever possible. Only the English translation says this, and the multiple previous threads on this perennial topic contain some weighty speculation as to the motive for the persistence of the mistranslation longer after its definitive correction by the CDW.

  12. Charlotte Allen says:

    It’s too bad that so many Catholic churches, at least in the West (or maybe at least in America) aren’t built so that their altars are positioned at the east. This isn’t true of Eastern churches, which are all constructed so that the sanctuary is at the eastern end of the church, even if this means that they are constructed “backwards” on east-facing lots. What happened in the West, so that “ad orientem” can mean to the north, south, east, or west, depending on which way the lot on which the church was built faces? This architectural shift has led to the present confusion in which “ad orientem” now means “with the priest’s back to the people” in the minds of many Westerners, instead of “in the direction of the rising sun [Christ],” as it once did and still does to Eastern believers.

  13. pseudomodo says:

    Reorient thyself

  14. jbas says:

    I’m afraid the translation I cite is the official English translation, for better or worse. [for worse!] As for the official response, it also says the word “expedit” “…reaffirms that the position toward the assembly seems more convenient inasmuch as it makes communication easier…” [Are you sure about that?] So, the preference refers both to the position of the altar and to the practice of offering the Eucharistic Canon facing the congregation. [No. It doesn’t.] Perhaps the Holy Father will issue a new missal in a few years (God willing his health holds out) that better reflects the traditional Roman practice.
    At any rate, versus populum is not required by the missal or the recent Council. [Right.]

  15. pelerin says:

    Another brilliant film in this series. I feel like thumping the chap when I watch it! In my parish the sanctuary is having a new floor which has necessitated Mass being celebrated Ad Orientem over the last few weeks. This has been wonderful and I hope it has for others too. It seems so powerful with the Priest leading us towards God – I just wish it could be permanent.

  16. CarismaTeaCo says:

    I asked my priest about having ad Orientem at the 6pm with a few of my confirmation students . He said he didn’t want to because ‘Jesus didn’t do it’.. Interesting considering he attends Holy Qurbana every other Sunday said in Malayalam. I believe his native rite celebrates ad Orientem . He was ordained in the Latin rite, tho. Anyway, the other priest just laughed at me and walked away saying he isn’t ‘pre vatican’

  17. jbas: I’m afraid the translation I cite is the official English translation, for better or worse.

    Indeed. And that’s the problem, that the official English translation is incorrect, as so many official English translations in recent decades have been. This is neither rocket science nor a matter of opinion, the meaning of a Vatican document being what the responsible dicastery says it is.

  18. Elizabeth D says:

    CarismaTeaCo, I have seen it said that the norm of a formal dinner table at the time of Jesus was that people sat on the floor on one side of the table only, so that servants could access the other side. Thus, a configuration like da Vinci’s “Last Supper” with all facing the same direction. And, if one considers the Mass as a sacrifice, the prefiguration of the Temple sacrifice was surely offered facing toward the “Holy of Holies” and not toward the people.

  19. CarismaTeaCo says:

    Elizabeth, those are interesting points.
    Too bad I felt like a market researcher probing for yes or no answers as they walked away the day I asked them.

    That’s society of St Paul priests at our Parish.
    Spanish liberal priests

  20. Mitchell NY says:

    Oh how I wish this one would go “viral” and be viewed by millions and millions. Very straighforward.

  21. eulogos says:

    I have trouble with this series of videos because the woman looks as if she is wearing very ill fitting dentures. It is uncomfortable to watch. Also, I don’t really like the insults, even if the guy does deserve them.
    Susan Peterson

  22. MyBrokenFiat says:

    Eulogos / Susan Peterson – I felt the same way about the insults. Not very patient or Christian-like if you ask me.

    Otherwise, right on.

  23. Novum Eboracense says:

    Make no mistake about it, the pushback from the forces of ignorance will be framed in these terms.

  24. Tradster says:

    Also agreed about the unnecessary and uncharitable insults. If the man was hurling them at the woman no one would find them humorous. Otherwise, I’m enjoying this and the earlier one, and looking forward to more.

  25. Tom Ryan says:

    Why do some people insist on the pronunciation Aw-GUS-tin but not Con-STAN-tin as opposed to Aw-gus-TEEN and Con-stan-TEEN?

  26. ScholaLady says:

    I like the dance move Larry does when he says “Vatican 2.”

  27. Phillip says:

    “Just how does it build community to have the priest opposing the people with the altar as a clerical barrier in between them?”

    Huh. That’s a good point. I never thought of that. I’ll remember that next time I hear that the EF is “elitist.”

  28. Peggy R says:

    I am not the first to think Larry King v Sarah Palin.

  29. AnAmericanMother says:

    Larry King and Sarah Palin are simply cartoon templates that happened to be handy. You can find these all over YouTube with debates over everything from foreign policy to car care.
    I guess it’s just my debate/legal training, but I don’t see this as very effective. Aside from the insults (a huge no-no, unless it’s the kind of sly passing jab that leaves the recipient wondering “Did she just . . .?”) the female character is just talking past the male and not engaging him. She never pins him down on anything, never asks him to define his terms, never establishes a starting point.
    Issues of tone and delivery don’t come in here because it’s text-to-voice and sounds like the “Darth Vader” recordings on the trains at Hartsfield airport. But I’ve always found the ‘earnest inquirer’ approach most effective (I’m too old to do the ‘innocent child’ anymore, but that’s the very best cross exam technique if you can pull it off. Get the witness talking down to you in a patronizing way and you immediately have the jury on your side.)

  30. Supertradmum says:

    Have to agree with AnAmericanMom. Maybe this is a generational thing, but I do not find the video engaging or humorous. But, I am not a fan of Larry King and despite living in Alaska for some time and being conservative, I am not a great Sarah Palin as commentator or politican fan.

  31. teomatteo says:

    I liked it. I think though that the ‘pea brain’ comment should have been.. something like “legumen cerebrum”…

  32. Joe in Canada says:

    I agree with the comments regarding the insults, etc.
    Also, as a working priest, while I don’t approve of answering serious requests with a sneer and walking away, when the very thing itself is mispelt (ad orientam) I wonder if the person making the request has really done any research into the issue or is just repeating talking points he or she picked up somewhere. It doesn’t make the request invalid, but it tempers my enthusiasm to go out on a limb for them.

  33. Mark of the Vine says:

    Perhaps I should send this video, with portuguese subtitles, to my diocese’s vicar general. Yesterday I had a meeting with him, as he seems intent on not allowing my fiancée and I to be married according to the EF. He implied that ad Orientem is offensive and disrespectful (note: he was ordained still in the old rite).

  34. mrose says:

    Mark of the Vine,

    What does the vicar general have to do with you entering Holy Matrimony in the Traditional Rite? According to Summorum, all you need is a willing pastor and a priest so capable of celebrating.

    I am not intending to be presumptuous or nosy in the least, just encouraging you to not let pests pester where they are unneeded!

  35. Scott W. says:

    Don’t particularly care for the dialoging video either and in general except for the “Your Waiter Hates you” series.

  36. Rachel K says:

    I think the lady’s skirt is a bit too short for decency!

  37. Mark of the Vine says:

    @mrose: I had asked a priest of a particular church for his permission to invite a priest who knows how to celebrate the EF. The priest said he didn’t have the authority and put this in the curia’s hands, who have turned it into a request for marriage according to the EF. I’ve been at this for nearly 6 months, and the wedding is 6 months away. Hopefully I will have an answer from the bishop next week.

  38. BV says:

    I am picturing this video with Rocky Balboa vs. Clubber Lang (the Mr. T character from Rocky III) in the argument. “I pity the fool whose not Vatican II!!!”

  39. Luke Whittaker says:

    While it is difficult for me to stop laughing because of this wonderfully funny video my heart and prayers go out to those of my brothers and sisters who have misplaced their faith and struggle to find Christ again because of it. Awake north wind, come, wind of the south! Breath over the flowery garden of our hearts to spread its sweet smell around. Let the Beloved Christ come into his garden that we may drink deeply of the love that he offers to each one of us (Song 4:16-5:3 Jerusalem Bible). May we all yield to his presence in total self-surrender so that his grace may become sufficient for us.

  40. CarismaTeaCo says:

    ‘when the very thing itself is mispelt (ad orientam)’

    I can’t find that spelling

    ‘…is just repeating talking points he or she picked up somewhere’

    That’s probably what the priests thought

    ‘tempers my enthusiasm to go out on a limb for them’

    How/why would a priest offering Mass Ad Orientem be going out on a limb for anyONE? You go out on a limb by ‘facing the people’ IMO

    Thanks anyway

  41. I thank Fr. Z for his posting of this animation.

    Of all of the things in it, I like best the punchline: that we don’t have to accept all of the ‘tacky crap’ that was done in the name of Vatican II.

    For my part, anyone who appeals to the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II, but who does not cite the teachings of that excellent council by quoting them, does not deserve a hearing.

  42. @ Mark of the Vine

    If that is something you really want then maybe you should contact a traditional priest outside of your diocese. If you do that let the priest know there is no need to inform your diocese that it will be done in the EO. Maybe let the the diocese cool down and forget your name for a month or two and they might just shuffle any needed arraangements though without noticing who is asking. It really shouldn’t be a problem these days and I know of couples who have had to do that. If you sit down and talk to most traditional priests theyare pretty understanding and willing to help. Might have to pay a fee for use of the church (since you are not a parishoner) and the chior, etc.

  43. American Mother you are correct best way of debate is to have your opponent define their terms and hold them to it. Whenever I used to debate in college I used to always define their terms and then step by step work out the logical end and get them to agree to each step. About the second or last step they would finally realize they feel into a trap and would try to squirm out of it. So long as all the loopholes had previously closed (with their agreement) it wasn’t possible. That and they agreed to all but the last steps which were the inevitable conclusion to the previously agreed to steps. Actually most of them revolved around how if each person is the sole arbiter of morality that leads to justification of murder. In other words the very popular pseudo philosphy of Relativity. It is really a stupid thing to believe in.The surprising thing is that so many people who are relatively intelligent or at least think themselves so believe in it. I suppose the main thing isn’t that they believeit is true but rather that it is convenient. That and they usually do not grasp logic so fail to see that they are being led to a conclusion they were not yet fully ready to accept yet.

    Very soon however I think many people will be able to accept the conclusion of “relativity”. namely that if the person is the arbiter of morality then the stronger can force their will upon the weaker and in the end then even murder of the weaker is acceptable if the stronger has no compunction. It is very convenient so long as they fool themselves into thinking they are stronger than all others (including God).

Comments are closed.