BLOG RENEWAL: PODCAzT problems – SOLVED

Some people have written today, I don’t know why today especially, that there are problems with some of my older PODCAzTs.

I checked.  It looks like #47 and older aren’t loading because they were on a different server.  With the change over of the blog to new software and a new server, some things got left behind.

I will try to get this solved ASAP.

UPDATE: SOLVED.

I just tried this one:  012 07-03-30 Fulgentius of Ruspe and tools of ancient Rhetoric

It’s pretty good!

UPDATE: MORE PROBLEMS SOLVED

A reader informed me that one of the PODCAzTs was not playing.  It is now repaired.

081 09-03-13 Benedict XVI’s Letter on SSPX excomms; your voicemail

UPDATE: MORE PROBLEMS FOUND!

If you find that one doesn’t play, use the contact form above and let me know which one it is.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
8 Comments

Fr. Z rants about the Corrected Translation.

For those of you who missed it, I direct your attention to an important post at The Chant Cafe (whose motto is “Double Shots of Plainsong – No Foam”).  I am sure the cafe serves Mystic Monk Coffee, too!

Jeffrey Tucker did everyone a great service by posting video/audio tutorials demonstrating how the new, corrected translation can be sung.

What is interesting about this, is that no one has done this before.  This means that people can get, for the first time, an idea of how the Novus Ordo can be sung in English.

This will obviously annoy liberals, enemies of the new, corrected translation.  They are busily vilifying the new Roman Missal.  The last thing they want is for people to hear the translation and like it.  Why would they be incessantly running down the new, corrected translation?  Probably pride and fear.  They can’t stand not having their way and they know that a new clarity of Catholic teaching that will resound in the prayers will require that they too be consistent with the teaching, in living or in the case of clerics also in preaching.   For some who are older, this huge step demonstrates that their old ideas from the 60’s-80’s are being swept away.

“But Father! But Father!”, some of you hard-core trads are saying.   “I don’t care about the new missal or new translation or new Mass.  We want only the old Mass!  Why are you propping up something we don’t like?”

First, I want Holy Church to be successful in her mission.
Soap Box
Second, if you think this blog is only about the TLM, you haven’t been paying attention.  Take off the blinders and pull the earplugs.  There is a big picture to consider.

The Novus Ordo is a major tool of Holy Church’s mission right now.  Who knows what may happen in 50 years.  Could the tool be better?  Sure.  Would I prefer a different tool? Of course!

What I prefer doesn’t matter.

We work with the tools we have and we do what we can.  I will remind some of you who may have forgotten that my conversion to Catholicism was sparked by an experience of the Novus Ordo celebrated in exactly the sort of continuity described by Benedict XVI.  I respect what it can accomplish when it is celebrated with fidelity and with continuity.

This is the real world, folks, not traddie fantasy camp.  Every Mass, Novus Ordo, TLM, should be offered with the best we have.   The corrected translation is a huge improvement for the Novus Ordo.   The majority of Catholics who go to Mass are going to hear something vastly improved. I believe that, in this new translation, Christ’s voice will ring more truly.  People will respond.  What’s bad about that?  It may lead many of them to want more (read: the TLM).

The Novus Ordo is the experience of the vast majority of Catholics right now.  I may prefer the older, traditional form of Mass, but I know that when there are improvements to any liturgical worship we all benefit.  Rising tides raise all boats.

To use another metaphor, I prefer a nice steak and cabernet to baby-food goo in a jar.  Just because I don’t like goo, that doesn’t mean that the goo isn’t exactly what babies need to grow up and start preferring steak and cabernet.  No parent forces little Bundle-Of-Joy to have a porterhouse when what she really needs is milk and goo.

To extend this a bit, you can’t set a T-bone in front of a guy who has a broken jaw that is wired shut, or who doesn’t have the strength to raise his hands.   The faithful have been catholicly crippled for decades now, systematically starved.  They are undernourished and atrophied.  We are going to have to stick the steak in a blender for them so they can take it through a straw, or else cut it up for them and feed with with a spoon until they recover.  But they need better stuff through a straw than what they have been getting.  The new stuff out of the blender hasn’t had all the nutrients removed.  That’s what the lame-duck ICEL translation did: it extracted the nutrients.

Some of you who prefer the Novus Ordo may be about to have a sputtering nutty and start flinging comments about how insulting I am about the Novus Ordo, how condescending I am about the average people in the pew, blah blah blah.  No.   First, I’m not talking to you.  That should be obvious. Second, it is the liberals who are condescending and offensive.  They are the ones who have kept people down.  In fighting the new translation they are doing a grave disservice.  I believe people are hungry for more.  I trust that they will get it so long as they are not poisoned against it in advance.  The Novus Ordo can do a great deal for them.

Sure, I think the TLM could eventually do more, but… I live in the real world.

We have to get people into church with worship that is improved, with a more meaningful translation, with better music, with greater dignity, with solid preaching.  Once they are in… or back… there is a greater likelihood that they will ask for more.

Some people will be attracted into Church through the traditional forms.  That is why we need more and more and more of the traditional forms!

Others will be attracted by the Novus Ordo.  GREAT!  Get them in the doors.

Thus endeth my rant.

Again, for those of you who missed it, I direct your attention to an important post at The Chant Cafe.
Jeffrey Tucker did everyone a great service by posting video/audio tutorials demonstrating how the new, corrected translation can be sung.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Brick by Brick, Linking Back, Wherein Fr. Z Rants |
49 Comments

Google Translate adds Latin translation tool

From The Daily Telegraph:

Google launches Latin translation tool

Google Translate, a service that can instantly translate entire web pages or chunks of text in to another language, has added Latin to its list.

Google Translate supports more than 50 languages, including minority languages such as Welsh and Haitian Creole, and the addition of Latin is sure to please scholars and traditionalists.

In a blog post, written entirely in Latin, Jakob Uszkoreit, a senior engineer at Google, said that Latin was far from a “dead language”.

“There are many Latin language learners,” he wrote. “Over 100,000 American students take the National Latin Exam every year and many more learn Latin all of the world. And there is a wealth of information originally written in it.”

He said that while Google recognised that the Latin translation tool would rarely be used to decipher emails or captions on YouTube videos, it would enable web users to read many of the crucially important philosophical and scientific texts originally written in this language.

“There are tens of thousands of scanned books written in Latin on Google Books, and many more contain Latin quotes and proverbs,” he wrote.

Google expects translations to and from Latin to be among the most accurate offered by its Google Translate tool.

“Unlike any of the other languages Google Translate supports, Latin offers a unique advantage: most of the text that will ever be written in Latin has already been written, and a comparatively large part of it has been translated in to other languages.

“We use these translations, found in books and on the web, to train our system.”

Google has also added a Latin text-to-speech function, too, to help people with their pronunciation.

We shall see.  Color me skeptical.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged ,
35 Comments

St. Jerome’s final resting place

I have posted this is years past, but I worked so hard on it when I originally wrote it that I want to get as much mileage out of it as I can.  Besides, there are new readers here all the time!

Some time ago, there was a discussion on one of our splendid Catholic blogs making mention of the burial place of St. Jerome perhaps in the Major Basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome. This is an interesting story and I dug into it a little. This is what I found.

St. Jerome's final resting placeWe read in J.N.D. Kelly’s work Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (Duckworth, 1975, p. 333 – emphasis mine) :

Apocryphal lives extolling [Jerome’s] sanctity, even his miracles, were quick to appear, and in the eighth century he was to be acclaimed, along with Ambrose, Augustine, and Gregory the Great, as one of the four Doctors of the Church.[2] In the middle ages his works were eagerly copied, read, and pillaged; while towards the end of the thirteenth century the clergy of Santa Maria Maggiore, at Rome, were to persuade the public, perhaps themselves too, that his remains had been transported from Bethlehem to Italy, and could be venerated close to certain presumed fragments of the Saviour’s crib.[3]

Note 2: This was formally ratified by Pope Boniface VIII on 20 Sept. 1295: see Corpus iuris canonici II, 1059 (ed. E. Freidburg, Leipzig, 1879-81). The original number four (the list was later to be greatly expanded) was chosen so that the Doctors could match the Evangelists.

Note 3: The story of their alleged translation, in response to a visionary appearance of Jerome himself, is set out by J. Stilting in Acta Sanctorum XLVI, Sept. VIII, 636 (Antwerp, 1762); it is reprinted in PL 22, 237-40. Stilting also provides a discussion of its date, veracity, etc. on pp. 635-49.

In the Acta Sanctorum for 30 September, under the entry for St. Jerome, we find the following section with its articles:

LXV. Corpus Sancti ex Palestina Romam translatum, depositumque in basilica s. Mariae Majoris. The body of the saint was brought to Rome from Palestine, and put in the Basilica of St. Mary Major.
LXVI. Inquiritur tempus quo Sancti corpus Romam delatum. An investigation is made into the time when the body of the saint was brought back to Rome.
LXVII. Corpus Sancti depositum prope aediculam Praesepis, conditum deinde ibidem altare, sub quo positum, ubi mansit usque ad pontificatum Sixti V, quando dicitur clanculum ablatum & absconditum. The body of the saint was placed near to the small chamber of the Crib, established then right at the same altar, under which it was placed, where it remained until the pontificate of Sixtus V, when it is said to have been secretly taken away and hidden.
LXVIII. Corpus Sancti clanculum ablatum & absconditum dicitur, ne transferretur alio a St. Jerome's final resting placeSixto V: deinde frequenter frustra quaesitum. The body of the saint is said to have been secretly taken away and hidden lest it were to be transferred to another place by Sixtus V: aftward it is frequently sought in vain.
LXIX. An reliquae, sub altari principe S. Mariae Majoris inventae, videantur illae ipsae, quae ut corpus S. Hieronymi ad illam basilicam fuerunt translatae. When the relics found under the main altar of St. Mary Major which had been transferred to that Basilica seem to be the very same as the body of St. Jerome.
LXX. Admodum verisimile & probabile inventas esse S. Hieronymi. Clearly the [relics] found are most like and probably of Saint Jerome.
LXXI. Respondetur ad objectionem ex reliquiis Nepesinis: reliquiae, quae verisimiliter sunt S. Hieronymi sub mensa principis altaris depositae. An objection is answered about the relics at Nepi: relics placed under the main altar which more than likely are those of St. Jerome.
LXXII. Reliquiae Sancti in pluribus civitatibus Italiae, Galliae, Germaniae, Belgii, & aliis provinciis. The relics of the saint in more cities in Italy, France, Germany, Belgium and other provinces.
LXXIII. Cultus S. Hieronymi: festivitates eius & Officia. The veneration of St. Jerome: his feasts and offices.

Here is the page where these articles begin. If you want to have a fuller experience of the joys (the chore) of reading the Acta Sanctorum for any length of time click here for a larger image.

St. Jerome's final resting place

Posted in Classic Posts, Saints: Stories & Symbols | Tagged ,
4 Comments

QUAERITUR: crossing stole and using maniple in Novus Ordo

ManipleFrom a priest reader:

I try to bring into the Novus Ordo as many elements from the old rite as I can, where permitted.

My question is:  is it licit for a priest celebrating Mass according to the new rite to cross his stole, as in the old rite?  Similarly, is it valid to wear a maniple while celebrate Mass according to the new rite?

It is the immemorial custom that priests cross their stoles, right over left, when using the chasuble and the cope at Mass.  Priests in the West have been crossing their stoles since the 7th century, though it became widespread later in the medieval period.  Bishops and abbots don’t do this.  The symbolism of forming a cross over your heart is obvious.

For the Novus Ordo the GIRM 340 states:

340. Stola defertur a sacerdote circa collum et ante pectus pendens; a diacono vero ab umero sinistro per transversum super pectus ducitur ad partem dexteram corporis, ibique retinetur.

This paragraph says that the priest’s stole hangs in front of the chest from around the neck while the deacon’s crosses the chest from the shoulder.  It doesn’t say anything about whether the priest’s stole hangs straight down on either side.  A crossed priest’s stole still hangs down in front.

You can cross the priest’s stole for the Novus Ordo.

As a matter of fact, I highly recommend that you do so, especially when wearing the pianeta, the Roman chasuble.  The crossed stole serves also to “fill in” part of the square opening in front.  That is a practical reason, an aesthetic reason, but a good reason nonetheless.

The rubrics of the Novus Ordo are silent about the maniple.  Again, it is the custom of well over over a thousand years that the maniple is used in the Roman Rite.  It is a Roman vestment that goes back to the 6th c.

It was never abolished.

Whereas it was once obligatory for Mass, it no longer is (cf. 1967 Tres abhinc annos, 25.).

One of the consultors of the Office of Pontifical Ceremonies, Fr. Mauro Gagliardi, said during an interview with ZENIT that:

“The maniple is an article of liturgical dress used in the celebration of the extraordinary form of the Holy Mass of the Roman Rite. It fell into disuse in the years of the post-conciliar reform, even though it was never abrogated.”

I think Gagliardi is right.  For the Novus Ordo, put it one, leave it off as it pleases you to do so.

My practice is that if there is a maniple available, with the set, I’ll put it on.  If there isn’t a maniple, I don’t worry about it one way or another.  Maniples aren’t magic (though some people think they are… perhaps because they have attached so much significance to them because of the liturgical iconoclasm after the Council).

I think that these are very good elements – crossing the stole, using the maniple –  to bring into the Novus Ordo.  They could represent something of the “gravitational pull” that the expanding use of the traditional form of the Roman Rite will have on our general liturgical worship.

This is not a matter of maniples for maniples’ sake.  These detail contribute something to the priest’s self-awareness in his role in the sacred action.  They point his attention to his identity.  Some might say that he shouldn’t need pointers of this kind.  I respond, “Don’t they?”  Wedding rings don’t change your married state but they are signs to yourself and others about who you are.  We all, not being angels, benefit from reminders.  These details also send signals to the congregation that what is happening is not mundane.  Something special is happening.  They are all part of the ars celebrandi.

Tie One On

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Mail from priests, Our Catholic Identity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged , , ,
11 Comments

RATS IN THE RECTORY: The mugs

Over at the blog Southern Orders I see that Fr. McDonald and Fr. Justin received their new WDTPRS coffee mugs.  These are Say The Black (Translation Edition) mugs.

coffee mugs

Posted in Linking Back, Mail from priests | Tagged , , ,
Comments Off on RATS IN THE RECTORY: The mugs

Consistory…. when?

One of these days Pope Benedict will announce a consistory and the names of those whom he intends to make cardinals.

There remains speculation that a consistory might be called for the Solemnity of Christ the King in November.   If that is the case, time is getting short.

The present legislation foresees 120 voting cardinals.  That number fluctuates according to the workings of the biological solution and the will of the Roman Pontiff.

There are at present quite a few important curial positions and sees around the world which usually have cardinals… but don’t.

At the time of this writing, I believe there are 103 voting cardinals (men who have not turned 80 years old).  By the end of November two more cardinals will hit 80 (Tumi, Pujats), bringing the number of voting cardinals down to 101.  By the end of next February, four more (Panafieu, Vidal, García-Gasco, Ruini – sadly) – 97.  By the end of April two more (Keeler, Sebastiani) – 95.  So, an American and two Italians will have dropped from the list, leaving 10 Americans and 15 Italians as electors.

I am guessing that the USA would pick up 3, including Dolan (NY), Burke (Curia), and probably Wuerl (D.C. although there still as two living retired cardinals), and I doubt that Detroit and Baltimore will remain cardinalatial sees.  That would give the USA 13.  The Italians will probably pick up 8 including Romeo (Palermo), Bettori (Florence), Amato (Curia), De Paolis (Curia), Baldelli (Curia), Ravasi (Curia), Vegliò, (Curia), Monterisi (Curia).  Italy – 23, which strikes me a few too many.  Spain could get 3 (Toledo, Valencia, Sevilla).  Spain will have lost one.  Spain – 8.

Of course important sees such as Westminster, Rio, Toronto, Warsaw, Munich will get cardinals.  A few others.  Hong Kong?  Colombo?  There will surely be a sprinkling of hats for men over 80, probably old theologians.

So an announcement … Sunday at the Angelus?  Next Wednesday’s General Audience?  Postponed until after next Easter?  Guesses?

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
49 Comments

BLOG RENEWAL: Full Text in RSS Feed

I have activated the Full Text option for the RSS feed.

Enjoy the full text along a nice WDTPRS mug of hot Mystic Monk Coffee!

WDTPRS MUG

Posted in Just Too Cool |
16 Comments

WDTPRS POLL: What direction do you prefer for the altar?

We have had a few entries lately about the position of the altar.  Let’s have a quick poll.

Please pick the best answer and share your reasons in the combox, below.

I believe non-registered reader may be able to vote.

If I had a choice, all things being equal, I would...

View Results

Loading ...
Posted in POLLS | Tagged , , , ,
34 Comments

QUAERITUR: Can phrase on USCCB website be used against “ad orientem” worship?

From a seminarian:

I … have recently had some discussions with others in the house about implementing ad orientem style of the Mass. I think that the rubrics are very clear in assuming that the Mass is said ad orientem, regardless of whether we like or not (however, I love it!). We see this in sections of the rubrics, “versus ad populum.” I believe you recently put an article up about this. [He probably means this.]

However, the response was GIRM 299, “The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.” [That is the errant phrase!]

This is from the USCCB website. I know that the key phrase “which is desirable whenever possible” offers some ambiguity, but it clearly sets up a basis in official Church documents which can be stretched to oppose the ad orientem style. Could I get your thoughts on this? I would like to see the implementation of ad orientem worship back in the Mass, but I am not sure how to respond to the GIRM statements. Thanks for your thoughts and God bless. Know of my prayers for you and your readers.

Thank you for the prayers.

Can that phrase, found on the USCCB website (and elsewhere) be used to prevent ad orientem worship?

No.  Not if you are honest.

When we quote official Church documents, we must at a certain point refer to the Latin text.  This is absolutely the case with GIRM 299.

The USCCB website uses an incorrect translation.  This isn’t just WDTPRS’s opinion.  It is the clear statement of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, which responded to a dubium on this very matter (Prot. No 2036/00/L).  The CDWDS actually went so far as to explain the Latin grammar.  I find it astonishing that, to this date, the USCCB has not corrected their texts.  What makes this worse is that the document Built of Living Stones – which quotes the errant translation of 299 was issued after the CDWDS response.  I fear the unhappy translator fell into the schoolboy trap of merely sticking to the Latin word order.  I can’t imagine that they did this … on purpose!

I have written about GIRM 299 several times.

Briefly, here is the skinny.

This is what GIRM 299 really says:

Altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit.

The main altar should be built separated from the wall, which is useful wherever it is possible, so that it can be easily walked around and a celebration toward the people can be carried out.

The quod refers back to the first clause, the placement of the altar, and not to the ut clause.

Before the USCCB put out their document Built of Living Stones, with the incorrect translation you cited, the Congregation for Divine Worship responded to a question about this very paragraph and actually explained the Latin grammar.

Here is the meat of the CDWDS’s response about that which, I repeat, was made before the USCCB issued Built of Living Stones.

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in n. 299 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani constitutes a norm according to which the position of the priest versus absidem [facing the apse] is to be excluded. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, after mature reflection and in light of liturgical precedents, responds:

Negatively, and in accordance with the following explanation.

The explanation includes different elements which must be taken into account. First, the word expedit does not constitute a strict obligation but a suggestion that refers to the construction of the altar a pariete sejunctum (detached from the wall).  It does not require, for example, that existing altars be pulled away from the wall. The phrase ubi possibile sit (where it is possible) refers to, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc.

The paragraph is talking about the construction of a new altar.  New construction is to ensure that, wherever it is physically possible and it is a good thing to do, the altar is separated far enough from the wall that a person can walk around it, for example, to incense it or use if for Mass versus populum.  That does not mean a) that existing altars must be changed or, b) that free standing altar must be used versus populum.

I believe the response of the CDWDS was in Communicationes of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.  You should be able to find it quickly in your seminary library.

One of the consequences of this, by the way, there is no obligation to set up a table in front of a main altar that is ad orientem.  As a matter of fact, it would be a bad idea to do so, because of the important of having but one altar in the sanctuary.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, The Drill |
17 Comments