Fr. Z's Blog | Formerly entitled: "What Does The Prayer Really Say?" – Clear, straight commentary on Catholic issues, liturgy and life by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf o{]:¬)

Of fish, dragons and pity

Posted on 18 May 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I needed a down day.

I had a half down day yesterday, too. I met with my literary group, going on since 1997 now. We are reading Gerard Manley Hopkins. If anyone is interesting, drop me a line and I will read some. He is REALLY hard, and rewarding.

At the Cathedral of St. Paul in St. Paul, there is a perfect copy of the … you know what it is.

I light candles, by the way.

Mary is beautifully crowned in her chapel in the Cathedral.

I went to confession, bought hosts and other needful stuff, and some specialized groceries, and enjoyed Xiao Long Bao for lunch, since after breakfast that is all I could imagine eating.

Back home I found tulips in abundance and filled three more vases.

Tonight… a trout and broccholetti prepared by moi.

Garlic, onion, white wine. Deglazed with white wine and sambucca, reduced, and whipped with a new version of Crème fraiche, this Philly “cooking cream” product. Seen it? Not quite Crème fraiche… but it worked. Chardonnay. Dessert? No dessert. I don’t have much of a sweet tooth.

I will now catch up on cable news, having pity on my brain I used my blessed DVR to cut out commercials and fluff, of which there is a lot, have a tall glass of something… bourbon? scotch? … in a heavy glass, and a cigar, and go to bed early.

BTW… I saw There Be Dragons today. Have you?

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Just Too Cool, Lighter fare |
43 Comments

QUAERITUR: Selling a rosary and other sacred things

Posted on 17 May 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Several readers have sent similar questions about the selling of sacred things. I will simply answer rather than post excerpts of the questions.

Let’s start with the most sacred of all, the Eucharist. Selling the Eucharist would be a terrible sacrilege. The Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church uses the word “nefas” (“really really really bad”, “intolerable”). The Eucharist is sacred in Itself. If you sell the Eucharist, you incur automatically an excommunication. The lifting of the censure is reserved to the Holy See or a confessor with a faculty from the Holy See.

Selling a relic also has he word “nefas” applied to it in the Code. Relics are sacred things in themselves, because they are the remains of saints or blesseds or, if they are not part of the body, were objects associated with the saint. If they are sold, they remain holy things.

Selling blessed objects is not necessarily a sin. There are various decent reasons why one would sell a blessed object. There are bad reasons as well. Some things, such as statues or things of various age or artistic merit will have great monetary value. Other things have a particular rareness or association which makes them valuable, even though they in themselves are not much to look at.

Selling of sacred offices is also a sin and a crime in the Church’s law, for obvious reasons.

Selling of “smaller things”. When I go to a religious goods store, people will sometimes ask me to bless things such as small statues, rosaries, books, medals, etc. I am happy to do so, but only after they have been purchased. If you sell a sacred thing which was blessed with a constitutive blessing, it loses its blessing and must be reblessed or reconsecrated. If I were to sell my, for example, chalice which was consecrated by the late Card. Mayer, the purchaser would have to have it reconsecrated. The same would go for a rosary. However, there is no question of “reblessing” something like relics of Sts. Nunilo and Alodia rescued from Ebay or a flee market: relics are sacred in themselves. The reliquary, however, would be duly reblessed.

I hope that helps a little.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged blessings, consecrations, nefas, profane, relics, sacred
28 Comments

Must watch and hear. Palestrina.

Posted on 16 May 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Tip of the biretta to NLM for this on Gloria TV. It is a BBC show on Palestrina. Fantastic views of Rome.

Posted in Just Too Cool, The Drill | Tagged BBC, Gloria TV, Palestrina, sacred music
25 Comments

QUAERITUR: difficult to fulfill penance

Posted on 16 May 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

The priest I go to gives me a penance that I have to wait to do because it’s too long to do because of my lunch break, it involves something scheduled at a different time, etc. But before I can do it, I often fall back into mortal sin. So I go to confession with the intention of doing the prior penance once I am in the state of grace. Is this alright? Alternatively, is it okay to do my penance in the state of mortal sin? Should I ever go to confession without having done my prior penance.

I go to gives me a penance that I have to wait to do because it’s too long to do because of my lunch break, it involves something scheduled at a different time, etc. But before I can do it, I often fall back into mortal sin. So I go to confession with the intention of doing the prior penance once I am in the state of grace. Is this alright?Alternatively, is it okay to do my penance in the state of mortal sin? Should I ever go to confession without having done my prior penance.

It seems to me that you should ask your confessor to give you a penance that you can fulfill right away, so that you don’t have to worry about it or get sidetracked in any way.

Doing penance for sins is an obligation we have out of justice. Doing penance is a necessary part of the sacrament of penance. At this point, I would say the next time you make your confession, tell the confessor that you are not sure you adequately performed the penances you were given in the past. Ask for a clear penance you can perform right away.

You can always chose to perform additional penances at other times. A good idea anyway.

Confessors laudably desire to make the sacrament of penance “relevant” in some aspects to the penitents who request it. They like to be able to tailor their counsel to the individual. They like to assign a penance that pertains in some way. However, what is more important by far is that the penitent not, at the end, be confused about what he or she is to do, or whether it can be done in a reasonable period of time. I think that clarity is better than something which is nebulous or even postponed.

If you haven’t done your previous assigned penance, tell the confessor. But you might explain briefly why you didn’t. Don’t dwell on it. Don’t ramble. Don’t add lots of details. Just say it and then ask for a penance you can be sure to do right away.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Brick by Brick | Tagged confession, reconciliation, sacrament of penance
31 Comments

Patristiblogger Project: Augustine on 1 John – Intention

Posted on 16 May 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I have been wondering what to do with the blog and I have decided will soon to return to my Patristic roots, my Patristiblogger roots, for a time. I will tackle St. Augustine’s Homilies on the First Epistle of John. There are ten homilies. We could do one per week.

I thought about the English version to use and decided on the free, online version available at New Advent, by H. Browne, in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 7. The translation has the advantage is sticking closely to the Latin. You can find the Latin text for free online here.

There will be a combination of PODCAzTs and blog posts for discussion. The work on the blog can be both in English and in Latin.

Before anything else, however, we will have to have some preparation.

The first step in a preparation would be to read in your handy New Testament, 1 John. Obvious, no? You can find the older Vulgate with the Douay English side by side here. There are various sites which present the Greek New Testament. There is an interesting inter-linear site here. Another, in pdf, here. Some other resources, including audio in Latin and Greek here. If you want a study version, I rather like the Navarre Bible series. Here is a link for the appropriate volume from amazon.

Reading an older English version of 1 John, such as Douay or the KJV might be a way of getting in English something closer to what Augustine had in Latin for his version. What I’m saying is that Douay or KJV might be more helpful for getting into your ear the feel of the text of 1 John than, say, the Jerusalem Bible.

Augustine will cite the version of the Latin that he had. He obviously didn’t have the Vulgate.

I will add more propaedeutic comments as we rev up the project.

Posted in Patristiblogging | Tagged 1 John, St. Augustine
22 Comments

Robert Mickens on Pope Benedict and Summorum Pontificum. It is to laugh.

Posted on 16 May 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Damian Thompson has rightly shared with us Robert Micken’s little trip to the zoo. Mr. Mickens, Rome correspondent for The Tablet (aka The Bitter Pill aka RU486), has taken exception to Pope Benedict and the provisions of Summorum Pontificum.

I’ll leave it to Damian to explain this.

VIDEO HERE.

Cardinal says Tridentine Mass at St Peter’s despite Robert Mickens’s doubts about legality of Pope’s decree

By Damian Thompson

How’s that for chutzpah? The video above shows Walter Cardinal Brandmüller celebrating Solemn Pontifical Mass in the Extraordinary Form at St Peter’s Basilica in Rome yesterday morning. Yes, that’s right – a Tridentine High Mass on a Sunday morning at the very heart of the Catholic Church, taking place DESPITE a ruling from the Tablet’s Rome correspondent Robert (Bobbie) Mickens that Summorum Pontificum is of “dubious validity”.

Bobbie has noted in the past that Pope Benedict XVI is not a trained liturgist. It may be this fatal lack of training that led Papa Ratzinger to issue Summorum Pontificum, subject of a major conference in Rome last week, and then to compound his error with Friday’s Universae Ecclesiae, which puts pressure on bishops to stop blocking access to the traditional liturgy.

Bobbie was, famously, moved to helpless tears when the cardinals – contrary to his advice – elected Joseph Ratzinger pope. This weekend, however, he was in rather more pugnacious mood, mercilessly exposing the Holy Father’s imperfect understanding of Vatican II on a thread for the Commonweal blog. Over to you, Bobbie:

Letting aside the dubious validity of Summorum Pontificum for a moment (I’m happy to debate that with anyone in another moment), par. 13 of the newly released Instruction says that diocesan bishops are to “monitor liturgical matters” in their sees “always in agreement with the MENS of the Holy Father clearly expressed by the Motu Proprio”.

The mentality/intention/spirit (you choose the best word) of the Holy Father? What of the “mens” of the Council?

The very fact that the Council Fathers, by overwhelming majority, voted to reform the Tridentine Rite certainly means that – regardless of how one today judges the final result of that reform – the bishops realized that the pre-conciliar liturgy (lex orandi) no longer responded to the ecclesiology (lex credendi) that had developed over the preceding century and came to fruition at Vatican Council II.

Thus, to return to the pre-reform Roman Rite does not correspond – indeed, it is a betrayal – of the “mens” of the Council.

Never in the history of the Church were there two forms of the one Roman Rite. There were various Latin and Western liturgies, which in the post-Trent reform were cobbled into the Tridentine Rite. The Mass of Gregory the Great? The Ancient Roman Rite? Not according to the historical facts. It was as post-Reformation or Counter Reformation liturgy. And it certainly has no place in an ecumenical post-Vatican II Church.

So there you have it. Presumably word of Mickens’s ex cathedra ruling failed to reach Cardinal Brandmüller in time, and he went ahead and celebrated the “cobbled-together” Tridentine Rite at the Altar of the Chair. Here’s a picture of the congregation (courtesy of the New Liturgical Movement):

The congregation: unaware of Mickens’s doubts

How could this happen? Quick, send for a trained liturgist!

Posted in Green Inkers | Tagged Damian Thompson, Robert Mickens, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Tablet, Universae Ecclesiae
29 Comments

Card. Burke’s sermon in Houston

Posted on 16 May 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

With my emphases and comments, Cardinal Burke’s recent sermon…

PRO-LIFE PROGRAM, CATHOLIC CHARISMATIC CENTER
MASS FOR CLERGY
MONDAY OF THE THIRD WEEK OF EASTER
CATHOLIC CHARISMATIC CENTER
HOUSTON, TEXAS
MAY 9, 2011

Acts 6:8-15
Ps 119:23-24, 26-27, 29-30
Jn 6:22-29

HOMILY

Praised be Jesus Christ, now and for ever!

The trial, condemnation and execution of Saint Stephen Protomartyr is profoundly instructive for us who pray and work for the restoration of the respect for the inviolable dignity of innocent human life in our culture which sadly has become, in the words of Blessed Pope John Paul II, “a culture of death.” Saint Stephen was seized and brought before the Sanhedrin for speaking the truth about Our Lord’s Resurrection to those who preferred to hear the falsehood which justified a way of life contrary the law of the Lord. His enemies could not refute the truth which he announced, for he spoke in obedience to the Holy Spirit. They, therefore, resorted to a perversion of justice, to a trial based upon false accusations, in order to have him condemned to death. The reading from the Acts of the Apostles, to which we have just listened tells us that even those “who sat in the Sanhedrin … saw that his face was like the face of an angel.”[1]

When the high priest questioned Saint Stephen regarding the truth of the accusations brought against him, he gave an honest and complete account of his faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of all the promises of salvation, given by God the Father to His holy people. But, in the end, as the inspired account tells us, the Sanhedrin “cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together upon him.”[2] They took Saint Stephen out of the city, and there they executed him by stoning. Saint Stephen, for his part, remained faithful to Our Lord to the end, even to the perfect imitation of Our Lord in forgiving those who were putting him to death.[3] Saint Stephen fulfilled, to an heroic degree, the words of Our Lord in the Gospel, who responded to the question about how “to accomplish the works of God” with the instruction: “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.”[4] His martyrdom is a most powerful witness to the truth of the Resurrection, which we celebrate with greatest joy in this Paschaltide.

Like Saint Stephen, we, too, often experience resistance, even hostile resistance, to our proclamation of the truth of the Resurrection, especially as it is expressed in the Gospel of Life. The resistance may not be physically violent, as it was in the case of Saint Stephen, but it is nevertheless resistance. Our witness is often enough ignored or held to be an expression of extremism. We meet with indifference, or we are chided for a lack of dialogue with our culture and tolerance of a diversity of viewpoint.

In his homily during the Mass for the Election of the Roman Pontiff, celebrated before the conclave in which he was elected to the See of Peter, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger spoke of how “the thought of many Christians” has been tossed about, in our time, by various ideological currents,” observing that we are witnesses to the “human deception and the trickery that strives to entice people into error,” about which Saint Paul wrote in his Letter to the Ephesians.[5] He noted that, in our time, those who live according to “a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church” are viewed as extremists, while relativism, that is “letting oneself be ‘tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine’,” is extolled.[6] In his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, Blessed Pope John Paul II also observed:

Too often it happens that believers, even those who take an active part in the life of the Church, end up by separating their Christian faith from its ethical requirements concerning life, and thus fall into moral subjectivism and certain objectionable ways of acting.[7] [People who not only partake of the life of the Church, your Joe Bagofdoughnuts, but also very public Catholics, for example those who are in political life, politicians who support abortion legislation or who are in a state of public impropriety and nevertheless receive Communion in a public act, often with the approval or tacit approval of their shepherds.]

Before this not uncommon phenomenon which thoroughly compromises the witness of the Church and her service to the world and its salvation, [the stakes are high] Blessed Pope John Paul II reminded us of our responsibility to confront the situation, with these words:

With great openness and courage, we need to question how widespread is the culture of life today among individual Christians, families, groups and communities in our Dioceses. With equal clarity and determination we must identify the steps we are called to take in order to serve life in all its truth.[8] [And so he seems to be moving from theory to practice.]

Each of us, in accord with his or her vocation in life and particular gifts [He is getting concrete.] received from Our Lord must be alert to whatever is compromising the proclamation and living of the Gospel of Life in our homes and parishes and other institutions, and must be ready to do our part to establish a strong and steadfast culture of life, beginning in the home and extending to the wider community. [How?]

Each of us is called to have the courage of Saint Stephen in announcing the truth of the inviolable dignity of innocent human life, created in the image of God and redeemed by the Most Precious Blood of God the Son Incarnate, and in making whatever sacrifices are necessary to protect and foster human life. Each of us is called to recognize Christ in every brother and sister, and especially in the least, the tiniest, the most defenseless who have no one else to defend and protect them. In doing so, we well find the deepest happiness in this life and the fullness of happiness in the life which is to come. When we are ignored, belittled or resisted because of our courageous fidelity to the Gospel of Life, we should pray, as we prayed, with the words of the Psalmist, in response to the First Reading:

Though princes meet and talk against me,
your servant meditates on your statutes.
Yes, your decrees are my delight;
They are my counselors.[9]

[Pray, and vote.]

Those who would resist our testimony to the truth of the Gospel of Life should see on our faces the joy and peace of those who follow the law of the Lord. [This is not a small point. Often when I speak to people who have strife in their families over issues of the Faith, I will at some point offer the suggestion that they should show to their loved ones who are fallen away or of a different or no faith, that they are joyful in the Faith, that being a Catholic brings joy. Joy is attractive. Gloom is not. Persistent joy is alluring.]

In facing the many and difficult challenges of living the Gospel of Life in our time, let us, in a particular way, call upon the help of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Mother of God who came to our continent to manifest the mercy and love of God toward all of His children, especially those experiencing any threat to their lives. [Think of the terror of some of the places in the Americas in the centuries before Our Lady appeared in Mexico.] She has assured us that she is with us in the Church as our heavenly Mother. She says to us today, as she said to Saint Juan Diego who felt the challenge of his mission as her messenger:

Am I not here, I, who am your Mother? Are you not under my shadow and protection? Am I not the source of our joy? Are you not in the hollow of my mantle, in the crossing of my arms? Do you need anything more? Let nothing else worry you, disturb you.[10]

Let us never fail to call daily upon the help of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mother of America and Star of the New Evangelization. [New Evangelization.] She will not fail to be at our side as our mother and model of the Christian life. She who is the first and the best of the disciples of her Divine Son is our never-failing intercessor.

Our Risen Lord, seated in glory at the right hand of the Father and, at the same time, alive and active for us in the Church, now comes to meet us in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. He comes to make present anew the outpouring of His life for us on Calvary. He comes to unite our hearts with His glorious pierced Heart, so that we, with Him, may pour our lives in pure and selfless love of one another. With Mary Immaculate, under her title of Our Lady of Guadalupe, let us place our hearts completely into the Sacred Heart of Jesus, as did Saint Stephen, so that they make be purified and strengthened for our mission in the world, above all, the mission of proclaiming and living the Gospel of Life. Let us sustain the life of the Holy Spirit within our hearts through communion with Our Lord Jesus Christ, through the incomparable food which is indeed the Bread of Heaven, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, given to us for the salvation of the world.

Heart of Jesus, our life and resurrection, have mercy on us.
Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mother of America and Star of the New Evangelization, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, Husband of Mary and Guardian of the Redeemer, pray for us.

Raymond Leo Cardinal BURKE
Archbishop Emeritus of Saint Louis
Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura

[1] Acts 6:15.

[2] Acts 7:57.

[3] Cf. Acts 7:60.

[4] Jn 6:29.

[5] Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, “Mass for the Election of the Roman Pontiff: Monday, 18 April: Homily by the Cardinal who became Pope.” L’Osservatore Romano Weekly Edition in English, 20 April 2005, p. 3. Cf. Eph 4:14.

[6] Ibid., p. 3

[7] Ioannes Paulus PP. II, Litterae Encyclicae Humanae Vitae, 25 March 1995, no. 95.

[8] Ibid., n. 95

[9] Ps 119 [118]:23-24.

[10] Nican Mopohua, nn. 119-120; Handbook on Guadalupe, p. 200.

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras, The Drill | Tagged Card. Burke, Houston
3 Comments

What the Ordinary Form brings to the Extraordinary Form: the question of Mutual Enrichment

Posted on 15 May 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Since Universae Ecclesiae has been issued the subject of the “mutual enrichment” of the older and newer, the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms of the Roman Rite has reemerged.

For going on two decades now, I have been saying that – in the mind of Papa Ratzinger – were a more organic, long-term, process of liturgical growth and renewal and revision to be rekindled, there would eventually emerge a tertium quid, a form of the Roman Rite which would reflect the reforms mandated by the Second Vatican Council and the Roman Rite as received from the Church’s experiences of prayer over the centuries. That didn’t happen with the Novus Ordo, because it was an artificial product assembled on a desk. But the two forms, older and newer, used side-by-side, would create a gravitational pull upon each other.

I think that many years ago, Papa Ratzinger assumed that the newer, Ordinary Form, would have logical priority and that some influence of the older form would enter into producing the tertium quid. Now, however, I am not so sure. I sense a shift in the Force, as it were. I suspect the Holy Father thinks that it may be the other way around now. But, only time will tell.

There will certainly be an influence of the one upon the other, a mutual enrichment, a gravitational pull. And that influence will grow enormously as the “Biological Solution” shifts the demographics of the clergy. Younger men, without the baggage of the “spirit of the Council”, younger men, far more interested in the hermeneutic of continuity desired by Pope Benedict to be applied to all things Conciliar and post-Conciliar, are interested also in the Extraordinary Form. And if they are not eager to use it themselves, they are at least open to it. As more young priests – future bishops – begin to exercise ministry in the Church in every sphere of her life, many things will change.

But, back to the issue of mutual enrichment.

The Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form are clearly – according to the mind of the Supreme Pontiff – meant to be “one alongside the other” (UE 6). They will influence one another. It stands to reason.

I think that the Extraordinary Form will dramatically reshape the Ordinary Form, especially in respect to ars celebrandi, but perhaps also in the reintroduction of elements lost in the reform. It certainly will affect how priests see themselves and carry our their role.

However, I also believe that the Ordinary Form will influence, indeed has influenced how priests say the Extraordinary Form.

First, there was the near total loss of the Extraordinary Form which has made those who desired it be all the more careful and attentive and reverent. In human affairs familiarity can breed contempt… or at least neglect. In the words of Joni Mitchell, “Don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what you got till it’s gone. They paved paradise and put up a parkin’ lot.” The observance of the Extraordinary Form benefited from the oppression.

The shift in focus in the Ordinary Form from the priest at the altar, to the priest and the congregation, has more than likely been a great help as well. I think that priests today are far more aware in their ars celebrandi that there are actually people out there, which drives them to be more careful and reverent and, in their words and actions, project themselves beyond the altar rail, not in a solipsistic way, but in a genuine desire as mediator to communicate what God desires to give through the sacred actions and words of the sacred mysteries.

Another point surfaced in the combox under another entry here, which I will get to.

As far as the ars celebrandi is concerned, for years, in the dark times when merely to want the older form as a seminarian meant certain expulsion from mainstream seminaries, I heard relentless criticisms of the old Mass because of the way priests used to say it. That was pretty awkward, of course. If priests do stupid things on their own, that is their fault. In some ways elements of the rite can invite those choices, of course. But it is the priest who says Mass, not the book which says Mass.

A common way to denigrate the older form of Mass was the sneering comment that priests would be scrupulous in how they, for example, said the words of consecration or made some gestures. Some priests were terribly scrupulous. Because of training and their own desire not to commit sins, they took seriously the old teaching that defects of celebration were mortal sins. When that was coupled with a scrupulous character and also the Jansenism that came from some seminaries, especially those with an Irish background under the influence of the French who had a terribly rigid approach to many dimensions of human life and the material world, the result for liturgy was not always optimal.

To make my point at last, perhaps the intervening years – which were unquestionably stained by the horrors of illicit and often deeply stupid experimentation and liturgical abuses and really bad taste – served to break the grip of some schools of approach, some of the perhaps Jansentic rigidity of scrupulous rubricism against which, I fear, much of the discontinuity crowd reacted so strongly as they threw off their shackles after the Council and went nuts, taking us along with them into the liturgical hole we have to climb out of now on the ladder of Summorum Pontificum.

I return to my point about the combox comment now. Fr. Augustine Thompson, OP, left an interesting comment. He picked up on my my point that the Ordinary Form will also exert a gravitational pull on the way the Extraordinary Form. Heresy to some traditionalists… but the truth. Priests are men of their own times, not just of ages past.

Fr. Thompson observes:

Having been ordained over 25 years, and having celebrated Mass on every unimpeded day (e.g. Good Friday) but one, I have celebrated the old rite (Dominican) at least a 1000 times and the new rite (Roman) many more times. And there are things that celebrants, especially new celebrants of the old rite can learn from the new.

In particular, I have noticed that new celebrants of the Dominican Rite often try to rigidly correlate the gestures (e.g. at the Per Ipsum) with the words because the rubrics insert “make cross,” “pick up host,” etc. into the middle of sentences. The sense of freedom that comes from the new rite (where the gestures made are generally those that come naturally to the priest), gives a sense of personal ownership of the motions. When I urge new celebrants to just know what gestures to make and make them naturally as they read the words, they discover that the whole action is more graceful (and the gestures end up in the right place). Now I learned fluidity of motion from constant practice — and only finally accomplished it when I stopped scrupulous attempts to rigidly follow the rubrics — and then I realized that, had I allowed myself the sense of freedom of the new rite from the beginning, this might have come faster.

Admittedly, the goal is to celebrate fluidly and elegantly, and to do so as the rubrics indicate. But a “novus ordo” sense of freedom had help a new old rite celebrant to do this more naturally.

I am sure that there are other examples of times when my celebration of the new rite helped me with the old. (And vice versa.)

Discuss in a thoughtful way, having first reread what you may wish to share, and then asking yourself: “Does this contribute anything useful”?

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Brick by Brick, Linking Back, Mail from priests, Our Catholic Identity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill, The future and our choices, Universae Ecclesiae, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged Biological Solution, gravitational pull, hermeneutic of continuity, mutual enrichment, tertium quid, UE 6, Universae Ecclesiae
79 Comments

Help on the issue of PODCAzTs and the “feed”

Posted on 15 May 2011 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

While I was making the LENTCAzTs people wrote asking me to make a separate “feed” for them, or that they were not appearing in iTunes. They did for me, btw.

I use Podpress for my audio projects. I guess I don’t know how to use it very well.

If any readers out there are familiar with Podpress and how the iTunes feeds work and could lend a hand, it would be appreciated.