Wherein Fr. Z provides a health update and feverish ranting on a range of unrelated topics

Posted on 21 April 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Forward Unto Dawn

Thanks to those of you who wrote with expressions of prayers for my health. An update is in order.

I have been battling bronchitis. This has been a problem ever after all those years in Rome, I’m afraid. I suspect I contracted this bout last Sunday when a sick altar boy coughed all over me me a couple times during the Novus Ordo Mass I took as the second Mass of the day.

The moral of the story: Don’t celebrate the Novus Ordo? Don’t binate? Well… maybe not.

This morning I managed to “prevent the dawn” (see photo, above) and drag myself out of bed to drive across town for a Missa cantata. The incense made me anxious, but I managed not to die. I gasped out a sermon and managed to sing the orations and readings, etc., by using as little power as possible and by keeping them pitched well high, lest vibration in my chest set off the coughing. I had given it a try the day before and found that it worked.

I did something quite un-rubrical at Mass and I don’t care. I purified my hands with hand-sanitizer before distributing Holy Communion. So there! No other cleric was around to help with Communion.

The rest of the day has been dedicated to wrapping up in a blanket, watching baseball (GO TWINS – who bested the hated White Sox) and dozing, when not coughing my body into contortions. No cigar tonight, I think.

Netflix provided me with a disk of the new musical version of Les Misèrables. I detested the musical when I saw it on Broadway, fresh and new. To this day I can’t summon to mind a tune from the show, which is the problem with most of the musicals these days. BAH! Trash! All trash! Andrew Lloyd Webber? You can have him. BAH! Several people have persuaded, perhaps it’ll turn out to have been inveigled, me to watch this movie/musical version of “Les Miz”. We shall see. Color me skeptical.

Relevant to nothing that I have heretofore mentioned, I was sent the new book by Russell Shaw American Church: The Remarkable Rise, Meteoric Fall, and Uncertain Future of Catholicism in America. I am just into it, but he is arguing that we Catholics have given up something essential: our subculture. We are in serious trouble as a Church and as Catholics right now in the USA. We don’t need a book to tell us that, perhaps, but Shaw is digging at the roots of this pernicious bed of weeds in which we have gotten ourselves tangled.

“You’ll be what we are now, a rather amorphous group, a label for convenience’s sake: ‘the Catholic Church in the U.S.’, but a splintered group in which a very large number of the putative members are not really Catholic in any meaningful sense at all.”

This dovetails with some of the dystopian stuff I have been reading lately, even though the collapse of our Catholic identity hasn’t taken place with the eye-blink speed of a possible CME/EMP event (read: our Catholic collapse started before Vatican II). Our Catholic TEOTWAWKI has actually been underway for a long time.

I wonder: is it too late? Has it gone to far? Our Lord didn’t promise that the Church would prevail against Hell in these USA, did he! In fine, you should give this book some of your time.

For my present case of the marthambles, I have been adequately physiked. There hasn’t been any need for either blue pill or black draught. Why would there be? So far, I have endured expectorating virtues of the modern equivalent of the “everlasting antimony pill” (read: Musinex – which sounds like a slime-draught, but isn’t). My antibiotic course starts tomorrow. Or is it Tuesday? I’d rather have Shanghai soup dumplings as a remedy, but you can’t have everything in life. When good, xiao long bao are restorative and roborative, as Dr. Maturin would put it.

Another thing I can’t have tomorrow is participation in my reading group. Having tackled Dante, Milton, Eliot, Hopkins, Metaphysical Poets, and most recently Yeats, it is time for some of Shakespeare’s Sonnets, which I know well. I wouldn’t inflict myself – doubtfully but possibly still contagious – on the group for all the world.

So, please… continue the prayers.

If you don’t want to pray for me, send ammo or money instead! I am happy to take all three.

o{];¬)

Posted in O'Brian Tags, Preserved Killick, What Fr. Z is up to | Tagged TEOTWAWKI
81 Comments

Great new resource for your new Gregorian chant schola! Wherein Fr. Z also comments on pace.

Posted on 21 April 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Some people on the traditional side of things are demoralized because Pope Francis has a markedly different liturgical style from that of Benedict XVI. Some might wonder if it is worth trying to promote the provisions of Summorum Pontificum and try to get going celebrations of Holy Mass with the 1962 Missale Romanum.

I respond that Pope Benedict gave us juridical provisions, a great example, a pat on the head, and direction to follow. It is up to you.

You need to be willing to be patient and to work hard and to make some sacrifices. You have to initiate projects and gather people and be persuasive. You have to learn to do things and be self-starters.

For example, you can get a Gregorian chant schola cantorum going. Gregorian chant is not quantum physics or olympic level biathlon. Get some people together, open up the books, and start singing.

Here is useful tool for project.

I received an email announcing that Corpus Christi Watershed, the people who put out the spectacular Saint Edmund Campion Missal and Hymnal for the Traditional Latin Mass (HERE), now have available online the entire Extraordinary Form Graduale Romanum for Sundays.

You will find there, well-organized, the musical notation, videos of the notation with proper chants for every Sunday sung as the notation scrolls down and as English translation is displayed, the organist part (which I dislike – I intensely dislike chant with organ), and many of Sundays have mp3s that can be downloaded.

The creator wrote: “Now that the Sundays are complete, I will start adding the 1962 Holy Days, such as the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Feast of St. Joseph, etc.”

This will be a great resource for people who want to start a schola cantorum.

I skipped around a bit and found recordings of the Monks at Trior were featured heavily. You can’t go wrong imitating their style. The rest seem to be strongly under the influence of what we might call a middle-period Solesmes style. For example, in the videos I dipped into I don’t hear any “repercussion” (this is somewhat beyond what beginners need to get into). Also, some Sundays provide more than one example of the chant being sung. Pentecost, has three different recordings of the Introit.

It is good to have those examples. They both help the timid or less experienced and they help the neophyte avoid two mistakes which are deadly to chant… prayerful chant.

We need to apply the Goldilocks principle when singing chant. The pace of our chanting must be neither too slow nor too fast. It has to be – everybody together please – just right.

Chant is prayer. It is the Church’s preferred sacred music. The texts are sacred. This means that they must be sung as texts and sung as if they were sacred.

If you sing the chant too slowly, you lose the sense of the chant, you lose the meaning because the chant, the text, becomes less and less understandable. Yes, you have to understand what the text is saying. You don’t have to be a Latin scholar to know that (though that helps a lot). People in the pews have books they can follow, that is true. But singing the chant too slowly risks breaking the integrity of the text’s meaning. Try listening to an audio book at a really slow rate of reading. As you turn the pace down, it eventually becomes incomprehensible.

If you sing chant too quickly, you tend to retain the meaning of the text, but you put its sacral character at risk. The texts are sacred. They deserve respect and time. They must not be rushed. They must be savored. Chant that is rushed has a nervous, jittery quality to it. It lacks the essential quality: it isn’t prayerful. The pace of a Mass must not be lugubrious. Every Mass and every element of Mass must retain a sense of progress, of moving forward towards a goal. When you tear through a chant, you might be making progress, but you lose the essential sacral sense. Every word of the chants are the voice of the Church singing with Christ’s own voice. Christ is the true Actor during Mass. He borrows us, the baptized, and uses our gestures and song.

Here is an experiment. I found on the Watershed site the famous Introit for today’s Mass: Iubilate. I used a program to slow it down and speed it up. I think you will find that the chant has quite a different sense depending on the pace. Keep in mind that not all chants are sung exactly the same way. Much depends on the text, the season, the moment of the Mass itself. An Introit and a Gradual and a Sequence are different kinds of chants. My point here is to demonstrate what a change in pace will do to any chant.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

If you are wondering, yes, I have heard chant sung that slowly and that quickly.

If you pay attention to the meaning of the text, the moment of the Mass, the season, and the “feeling” of the actual Mass as it is being celebrated, with time you develop a good sense of the proper pace. There is no exact formula for arriving at exactly the right pace each time. Personal experience will be a guide, as well as the advice of the experienced.

In any event, Fr Z kudos to Watershed for creating this great new resource.

Novus Ordo… TLM… start making phone calls and get that new schola going!

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged Corpus Christi Watershed, Gregorian chant, Iubilate, sacred music, St. Edmund Campion Missal and Hymnal
23 Comments

Third Sunday After Easter – by John Keble

Posted on 20 April 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Third Sunday After Easter
John Keble (a leading figure in the Oxford Movement, but who did not swim the Tiber)

[A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come; but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.–St. John xvi. 21.]

Well may I guess and feel
Why Autumn should be sad;
But vernal airs should sorrow heal,
Spring should be gay and glad:
Yet as along this violet bank I rove,
The languid sweetness seems to choke my breath,
I sit me down beside the hazel grove,
And sigh, and half could wish my weariness were death.

Like a bright veering cloud
Grey blossoms twinkle there,
Warbles around a busy crowd
Of larks in purest air.
Shame on the heart that dreams of blessings gone,
Or wakes the spectral forms of woe and crime,
When nature sings of joy and hope alone,
Reading her cheerful lesson in her own sweet time.

Nor let the proud heart say,
In her self-torturing hour,
The travail pangs must have their way,
The aching brow must lower.
To us long since the glorious Child is born
Our throes should be forgot, or only seem
Like a sad vision told for joy at morn,
For joy that we have waked and found it but a dream.

Mysterious to all thought
A mother’s prime of bliss,
When to her eager lips is brought
Her infant’s thrilling kiss.
O never shall it set, the sacred light
Which dawns that moment on her tender gaze,
In the eternal distance blending bright
Her darling’s hope and hers, for love and joy and praise.

No need for her to weep
Like Thracian wives of yore,
Save when in rapture still and deep
Her thankful heart runs o’er.
They mourned to trust their treasure on the main,
Sure of the storm, unknowing of their guide:
Welcome to her the peril and the pain,
For well she knows the bonus where they may safely hide.

She joys that one is born
Into a world forgiven,
Her Father’s household to adorn,
And dwell with her in Heaven.
So have I seen, in Spring’s bewitching hour,
When the glad Earth is offering all her best,
Some gentle maid bend o’er a cherished flower,
And wish it worthier on a Parent’s heart to rest.

Posted in Poetry | Tagged John Keble, Poetry
5 Comments

Writing to Fr. Z – an observation

Posted on 20 April 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Today I was answering some questions from my inbox.

A couple of my answers were kicked back to me with a permanent delivery failure.

I can only answer a fraction of the questions that come in and sometimes the questions are serious. It grieves me when they don’t go through.

Some Q&A I can’t/won’t put on the blog in public view. If I write back to an incorrect email… that’s a problem.

Please, if you write, double-check your email address.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes |
Comments Off

Schism at NSR?

Posted on 19 April 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Something curious is happening at the National Schismatic Reporter (aka Fishwrap).

Our pal Michael Sean Winters wrote about the Holy See’s hostile takeover of the LCWR in light of the keynote address to the LCWR given by Sr. Laurie Brinks. Sr. Laurie, it was reported, spoke about “moving beyond the Church”. As it turns out, Winters has interesting things to say about that and you can read them there. Effectively, he says that Brinks was misquoted and he has a point! Winters defends Brinks on that charge, but he takes her apart on something more serious.

Winters does some surprising things. For example, he gives support to more traditional sisters and goes after the LCWR for marginalizing them. HERE

Perhaps alert to the danger, [Brink] next paragraph includes some condescending remarks about more traditional religious communities, writing that “these groups are recognizing the changing atmosphere in the institutional Church, the reneging on the promises of Vatican II….They are taking seriously Pope John Paul II’s call to pursue holiness above all else.” I know some women in traditional religious communities and I do not think they would characterize their apostolate as “reneging on the promises of Vatican II.” They most certainly would agree that a central theme of Vatican II was the universal call to holiness and that, yes, they pursue such holiness above all else. Isn’t that a good thing? Or are these more traditional women mere dupes of a pre-modern worldview?

And then, even as he repeats how wonderful the LCWR is, he blasts them for giving their podium to Brinks:

When Sr. Brink does consider the “moving beyond Jesus” direction, the condescension disappears. These women who have abandoned their tradition are “courageous” and – here comes the post-modernism – “who’s to say that the movement beyond Christ is not, in reality, a movement into the very heart of God?” Well, as Sr. Brink learned, within the Catholic communion, it is the CDF that says the movement beyond Christ is not a movement to the very heart of God. It is a shame, a damned shame, that the leadership of the LCWR gave a lectern to this post-modern nonsense.

Clearly he has a beef with post-Modernism, which he sees as an enemy. There are other enemies as well, but this is a start.

Here is the money-quote from Winters:

It is true that Brinks did not advocate moving beyond Jesus. It is also true that the speech, in its entirety, is not only the kind of theological talk that is likely to catch the attention of the CDF, it is the kind of theological talk that deserves to catch the attention of the CDF.

Winters doesn’t give full endorsement to the CDF here, but he doesn’t think that what the CDF is doing is only about power or politics.

Moving on, a nanosecond after Winters posts his partial defense of what the CDF did… and that this is about doctrine, the editors of the Fishwrap issue something that seems to throw Winters under the nun-bus. It’s a long and boring editorial too! HERE

For example:

The takeover of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the result of an extended “doctrinal assessment,” knowledgeable Catholics understand has much less to do with core beliefs than with episcopal obedience. Our women religious are among those who understand this firsthand. We have all come to see too many of our prelates feel uncomfortable around women. The result is they stay away from them.

And the editorial’s money-quote:

Our women are the most theologically educated in the history of the church. The differences between their thinking and our bishops’ thinking has less to do with faith and doctrine than church structure, and more to do with applications of church teachings and mission.

The very point Tom Fox and the editorial staff are defending, is precisely what Michael Sean Winters rightly took apart.

Basically the NSR says that the CDF is involved in a powerplay of men against women.

This is about doctrine and not politics or male-power games.

Winters sees that and I, for one, agree with him.

Posted in Liberals, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, What are they REALLY saying?, Women Religious | Tagged CDF, Fishwrap, LCWR, magisterium of nuns, Michael Sean Winters, National Schismatic Reporter, NSR
33 Comments

8th Anniversary of the Election of Benedict XVI

Posted on 19 April 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Today is the anniversary of the election of Benedict XVI as Supreme Pontiff.

Remember how people buzzed about the fact that the newly-elected Benedict obviously was wearing a black long-sleeved sweater under his new white cassock rather than double-cuffs and cufflinks?

Bzzzzz… bzzzzz… bzzzzz…

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Where were you? What were your thoughts at the time?

I was in Rome, on an uncomfortable chair, with an earpiece in my ear and extremely bright lights in my eyes in front of cameras for Fox News, covering the conclave with Chris Wallace and Greg Burke.

When the Cardinal Deacon said “Josephum”, I almost wrenched Burke’s arm out of its socket.

Here is a photo of the TV screen someone shot and sent me at the time… it is really unflattering (my hairline is receding, but hasn’t been quite that routed yet… not that that matters much), but… the smile was accurate.

Posted in Benedict XVI, Linking Back | Tagged Benedict XVI
38 Comments

The unadorned, laceless, black clogs of the fisherman

Posted on 18 April 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Some time ago I wrote:

Imagine being 76 with a flare up of sciatica and, on your election as Pope, being told, “Here, Your Holiness, change into these new shoes and then stand a long time while we greet you and then walk around and show yourself in public for the first time.” I’d say that’s an argument for the sedia. Francis, however, probably thought, “I’ll stick with my old shoes, thanks very much.”

Now I read this on CNA:

Pope phones Argentine shoemaker for shoe repairs

Vatican City, Apr 18, 2013 / 01:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Pope Francis, who has quickly become known for his austere style, will continue using his simple black shoes and has called his shoemaker from his hometown of Buenos Aires, Argentina to repair them.

For 40 years, 81 year-old Carlos Samaria has provided shoes from his store on the outskirts of the Argentine capital for Pope Francis, who was known before his election to the papacy as Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio.

“Hello Samaria, it’s Bergoglio,” the phone conversation began.

“But who is this?” the shoemaker responded with surprise.

“Samaria, it’s Francis, the Pope!” the Holy Father replied.

According to Vatican Radio’s Brazilian program, [And who know what that means for the actual wording in English here…] the Holy Father told Samaria, “No red shoes, make them black like usual.”

Samaria said the shoes Pope Francis wears “are simple and made of black leather, with a smooth toe and no decorations.

“If you were to grab one of the Pope’s shoes it would feel like a clog, without any adornment but with laces,” the shoemaker explained.

“He doesn’t want new shows, only that I fix his old ones,” Samaria said.

However, he added that he is planning to “make a new but simple pair to be ready for him when he says I can visit, in May.”

Again, it doesn’t strike me as strange that a 76 year old with pain walking would stick with shoes that he knows.

On the other hand, he is now Bishop of Rome, not Buenos Aires. Italians… well… they know nothing about shoes, do they. I could walk you to several cobblers, as a matter of fact.

Posted in Francis, Lighter fare, Linking Back | Tagged Pope Francis, sciatica, shoes
65 Comments

MSM attacks Archbishop Vigneron with the help of liberal Catholic collaborators

Posted on 18 April 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Some days ago Archbp. Alan Vigneron of Detroit stirred the anthill (which is what bishops are supposed to do when it comes to faith and morals). He reaffirmed that Catholics who actively, publicly promote unnatural, same-sex “marriage” are acting in contradiction to the Catholic Faith they otherwise claim to support. Therefore, being in interior conflict with the Faith and being in open, public conflict with the Faith, they should not receive Holy Communion. Archbp. Vigneron did not say that, from that time onward, Communion would be denied to public supporters of immoral things. He likened their choice to receive as perjury.

It seems to me that Vigneron simply asked them to be honest with themselves and the Church they profess they belong to. He asked them to act like adults rather than self-centered children. (My words, not his.) For more see HERE and HERE

Over at Catholic Vote Stephen Kokx looks at how the mainstream media has weighed in, with the collaboration of liberal Catholcis. The MSM, using liberal Catholics in support, tries to turn people against the Church and portray Archbp. Vigneron and all who agree with him as a knuckle-dragging “gay”bashers. They drag the issue away from the spiritual and doctrinal into the ditch of the political.

Let’s have a look with my emphases and comments.

DETROIT ARCHBISHOP TRIES TO SAVE SOULS; MAINSTREAM MEDIA NOT HAPPY.

Since when do outlets like Slate, Huffington Post, CNN, Esquire, and USA Today care about who receives Holy Communion? They rarely, if ever, concern themselves with the inner-workings of Jewish or Muslim worship services. [Because hating Catholics is the last acceptable prejudice.] Well, since Detroit Archbishop Allen Vigneron said Catholics who support redefining marriage should not receive Holy Communion, a number of secular news outlets have seen to it to let their readers know just how unpopular some Catholics think his decision is.

Here’s what Archbishop Vigneron said that’s got everybody up in arms:

For a Catholic to receive holy Communion and still deny the revelation Christ entrusted to the church is to try to say two contradictory things at once: ‘I believe the church offers the saving truth of Jesus, and I reject what the church teaches.’ In effect, they would contradict themselves. This sort of behavior would result in publicly renouncing one’s integrity and logically bring shame for a double-dealing that is not unlike perjury.

Some Catholics respond to a situation like this by arguing Holy Communion should not be used as a political weapon. If a politician who promotes principles antithetical to Church teaching presents themselves for Communion, they should not be denied, because ultimately it is God who will decide if that politicians’ actions are right or wrong. Not the priest.

This argument is wrong on a number of fronts. Archbishop Vigneron oversees the Archdiocese of Detroit, home to 1.3 million Catholics. That’s 1.3 million souls he is responsible for getting into heaven. It’s a responsibility I would not want to have at this point in my life. As the Book of James reminds us, “not many of you should become teachers… for you will be judged more strictly.” [I am glad he brought in this point about cura animarum… the care of souls.]

As such, Archbishop Vigneron is responsible for doing everything he can to make sure those 1.3 million Catholics are not in danger of losing their souls to eternal damnation. He will be judged more strictly for his actions than the rest of us. Therefore, he is responsible for making sure, among other things, that the deposit of faith is upheld. He is also responsible for making sure those 1.3 million Catholics are able to go to confession on a regular basis, that they are able to attend Mass as frequently as possible, and that they are in a state of grace while attending Mass so they can worthily receive Holy Communion, lest they further compound their sins and offend God even more.

Outlets like Esquire and the Huffington Post are trying to turn this into a political issue by arguing Catholics can support redefining marriage if their conscience tells them, and that this is nothing more than a conservative Archbishop trying to punish liberal Catholics. [When liberals play the “political” card when they advocate dissent, they are helping the Church’s enemies. Some, like Sr. Simone Campbell, do so pretty openly, as she did HERE.]

Nothing could be further from the truth.

[… The analysis continues with Ed Peters, the canonist… ]

Be that as it may, the Detroit Free Press made Peters seem like he was but one of a handful of supporters of Archbishop Vigneron’s statement. The Free Press quotes Fr. Thomas Reese of Georgetown University as saying “Most American bishops do not favor denying either politicians or voters Communion [Notice how he conflates “politicians” (who are public figures) with “voters” (who usually are not).] because of their positions on controversial issues.” Fr. Reese added that only about “30 or so bishops have said that pro-choice or pro-gay-marriage Catholics should not present themselves for Communion.” [A good example of governing the Church by polling and what the majority think. Never mind right or wrong.]

Again, by citing Fr. Reese, the Free Press is attempting to undermine Archbishop Vigneron and Peters’ arguments. But as Peters points out on his blog, Fr. Reese’s statement is misleading: “Reese is commenting on how bishops act whereas I am commenting on how canon law expects bishops and others to act. Reese’s claim about bishops’ (in)action, even if true, would not make my views (actually, the 1983 Code’s views, resting on settled Church teaching) wrong, it would simply mark them as ignored.” [Exactly.]

Interestingly enough, CNN also makes it seem like Peters – who[m] Esquire calls a “nuisance” and claims is merely relying on his own opinions and not Canon Law – is on the wrong side of history. At the end of the CNN article, readers are conveniently reminded that “a majority of Catholics, according to polling, disagree with [Peters’] view of Communion.” To which I would respond, thank God we don’t decide what is right and wrong in the Catholic Church based on polling data. [“politics” and “polling”]

In an effort to make Peters and Archbishop Vigneron appear even more off base, Slate interviewed the reliably left-leaning Michael Sean Winters. “The principal threat to our Catholic teaching about traditional marriage is not gay marriage,” Winters argued. “The principal threat [to our Catholic teaching about traditional marriage] is divorce.

[…]