LENTCAzT 2026 – 10: Ember Friday 1st Week in Lent – “Ego te absolvo” is your sure guarantee!

A 5 minute daily podcast to help you in your Lenten discipline.

Today we learn about the Station of all four Ember Fridays. Pius Parsch on the happiness of a clear conscience.

The Benedictines of Gower Abbey sing to us.  [US HERE – UK HERE]

They also have this, Tenebrae at Ephesus

US HERE – UK HERE

These are the RESPONSORIES of Tenebrae for all three days of the Triduum.  They are, arguably, the most beautiful chants of the entire liturgical year.

Yesterday’s podcast – HERE

Posted in LENTCAzT, PODCAzT | Tagged , , ,
Leave a comment

Two items worthy of your precious time

I bring to your attention two pieces worthy of your precious time.

First, at Crisis there is an essay by Fr. John Perricone

Why Every Catholic Is a Traditional Catholic (Or Should Be)

Perricone argues that the contemporary Catholic Church faces a crisis of language, culture, and doctrine because a radical ideological project has systematically corrupted the meaning of fundamental terms, most dangerously, “Tradition.”

Drawing on George Orwell’s critique of political language, he asserts that when words are manipulated away from their historical meanings, human cognition and communal coherence unravel, opening the door to cultural and ecclesial chaos. This manipulation is going on in the Church. The term “Tradition”, once understood as the unbroken transmission of the Apostolic faith and practice, has been redefined by modern theologians and ecclesiastical actors in ways that detach it from the faith’s perennial content and forms. Perricone contends that the assault on “Tradition” is both intellectual and symbolic, since the Church’s liturgical, artistic, linguistic, and devotional expressions historically embody and transmit Tradition’s truths. To undermine these symbols (especially sacred liturgical worship) is to undermine Tradition itself. He maintains that true Catholic fidelity consists in embracing the sacred deposit of faith and the practices that have conveyed it throughout the ages, holding fast to the doctrines, liturgy, and devotions that have shaped Catholic life and identity. In this sense, Perricone insists, every Catholic who genuinely adheres to the infallible teachings and ancient forms of the faith is, by definition, a Traditional Catholic, because to be otherwise is to abandon authentic Catholic Tradition and, ultimately, to cease being truly Catholic.

This describes well why I sometimes use catholic for, for example, some infamous Jesuits and certain writers at the Fishwrap, et alibi.

Next there is a piece at Imprimis/Hillsdale

Recovering the Lost Art of Diplomacy

The writer, A. Wess Mitchell, argues that diplomacy is a central instrument of strategic statecraft, essential for great powers to survive and gain advantage amid competition. True diplomacy is defined not by formalities or idealistic international governance but by concrete outcomes, primarily constraining the power of adversaries and reducing threats that cannot be resolved by force alone. After the Cold War, the United States allowed traditional diplomacy to atrophy, favoring military technology, economic sanctions, and global-institution idealism; this reflected erroneous assumptions on both the left (that institutions can transcend conflict) and the right (that military preponderance alone secures security). The contemporary international environment, marked by renewed great-power competition over territory, influence, and resources, demands a revival of classical diplomacy’s core function: matching national means to ends through negotiation, coalition building, and balance of power. Effective diplomacy, Mitchell contends, increases strategic flexibility, limits hostile accumulation of power, and helps avoid wars beyond a nation’s capacity. Rediscovery of these skills, he insists, is vital to national strategy in an era of renewed geopolitical rivalry.

Great military history references, too!

It would be interesting to use the article as a lens to view the present conflict between the SSPX and the Holy See, seemingly a clash between an inflexible reading of the Deposit of Faith (with little desire to consider positively things written after 1962) versus rigid canonical positivism along with ecclesiastical amnesia (the devaluation of anything that happened before 1963).

Using Mitchell’s piece as a lens, the present standoff between the SSPX and the Holy See is a failure of ecclesial diplomacy on both sides. Diplomacy, Mitchell argues, succeeds when adversaries constrain each other’s worst impulses and negotiate outcomes that avoid destructive rupture. It fails when principles are elevated above the art of sustainable coexistence.

The SSPX has publicly reaffirmed its intention to proceed with unauthorized episcopal consecrations on 1 July 2026 despite Vatican warnings that such acts would constitute a decisive rupture of ecclesial communion and incur automatic excommunication under canon law. This is where rigid canonical positivism comes in.  The Holy could choose not to impose censures, which would be the best way forward.  But that’s unlikely with this crew in Rome.  From the Society’s perspective, the consecrations are framed as necessary to ensure continuation of traditional ministry in what it deems a post-Conciliar crisis of doctrine and liturgical identity. Its superior general rejected Vatican proposals for renewed doctrinal dialogue that made suspension of the consecrations a condition of talks.

I find that approach to be too narrow.

Talking with the Holy See costs nothing and could, in fact, gain what they want.  Not guaranteed, of course.  But nothing ventured nothing gained.  The Holy See, after all, proposed a structured theological dialogue aimed at identifying minimum conditions for full regularization.   I won’t say “full communion” because that’s a nonsensical term.   Finding common ground in the minimum conditions is what has been going on in the Church for two millennia of Councils called to discuss matters of grave importance.

There is a kind of zero-sum defense on one side and, on the other, institutional inflexibility with a strong dash of ecclesiastical amnesia if not downright negationism.

 

Posted in SSPX, The Coming Storm, The Drill |
Leave a comment

26 February – Blog Maintenance & Migration Day

Today we are moving the blog and updating.

Correction: On Thursday we were testing a migration.  It all went well.  Now we will do the real migration.

Things may run slowly here.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
2 Comments

LENTCAzT 2026 – 09: Thursday 1st Week in Lent – Law and Order

A 5 minute daily podcast to help you in your Lenten discipline.

Today we hear about St. Lawrence, his churches in Rome and his martyrdom. Why did the Lord at first refuse a miracle to the Canaanite woman?

Yesterday’s podcast HERE

Posted in LENTCAzT, PODCAzT | Tagged , , ,
1 Comment

WDTPRS – Collect of Ember Wednesday of Lent (TLM & Novus)

I’m sure you know that only a tiny percent of the orations of the Vetus Ordo made it into the Novus Ordo unmolested.

Well… maybe that isn’t quite the right word in every case.

In some cases the Novus changed the prayer to an even more ancient form. However, ancient isn’t always better. We learn, deepen our understanding over the years. Changes ought to be careful, like the delicate pruning of a bonsai rather than the grasping rip of a stump puller.

The experts of the Consilium were not of the bonsai school in their overall approach.

Here is the Collect for Ember Wednesday in Lent.

VETUS COLLECT (1962RM):
Devotionem populi tui, quaesumus, Domine,
benignus intende:
ut, qui per abstinentiam macerantur in corpore,
per fructum boni operis reficiantur in mente.

This isn’t all that difficult.

Anyone who has been a cook recognizes the basic sense of macero. Macero is “to make soft or tender, to soften by steeping, to soak, steep, macerate”.   When applied to us it is, “to weaken in body or mind, to waste away, enervate”.

WORDY LITERAL RENDERING:
We beg You, O Lord, kindly look upon the
devotion of Your people,
with the result that they who by means of abstinence are being tenderized in respect to the body
may by means of the fruit of good work be refreshed in respect to the mind.

In the Novus Ordo the prayer is somewhat softened.  Are you getting used to that now?

NOVUS COLLECT (2002MR)
:
Devotionem populi tui, quaesumus, Domine,
benignus intende,
ut, qui per abstinentiam temperantur in corpore,
per fructum boni operis reficiantur in mente.

The Novus Ordo redactors sliced out macero and put in tempero, related to temperatioTempero… or….  temperor?  There is a deponent temperor.   Temperantur can be either passive or active.  Tempero is “to observe proper measure; to moderate or restrain one’s self; to forbear, abstain; to be moderate or temperate”. We can also use this word to indicate the mixing of liquids, such as when water is added to wine in a cup, according to ancient usage. Tempero also means, “to forbear, abstain, or refrain from; to spare, be indulgent to any thing”.  Think of the virtue temperance.   Temperor is “to divide or proportion duly, mingle in due proportion”, like in the wine example above.  It is also, “to regulate, order” and “to restrain one’s self, forbear, abstain”.  In our prayer I think we have the deponent with active meaning, something like a middle voice.

WORDY LITERAL RENDERING:
We beg You, O Lord, kindly look upon the
devotion of Your people,
with the result that they who by means of abstinence are restraining themselves in due measure in respect to the body
may by means of the fruit of good work be refreshed in respect to the mind.

Macero… soften.  You would think we want to toughen, not soften.  Right?  This is LENT!  This is BATTLE!  We are FASTING!  GET TOUGH!  Right?  Think of the cooking term maceration.  Soften?  Really?

We macerate things by immersing them in some substance in order to break them down.  This is done with meat, for example to tenderize it, to break down the fibers of muscle so that they will not contract under heat and make the meat tough.  We do the same thing by pounding flesh with a spikey hammer.  Maceratio means tenderize.  Think of softening up an entrenched position of the enemy by hammering it with artillery.

Perhaps while we must toughen up in body though discipline, through discipline we can also mellow and tenderize our hearts in respect to any way in which we have hardened them.  Hard hearts don’t admit graces and don’t circulate joy or anything that is good.

What we are driving at here is “mortification of the flesh” and “renewal of the soul”.    Both, at the same time.

I think macero is much more interesting a choice.  Macerantur catches the ear right away, whereas temperantur…  meh… not so much.

NEW ICEL VERSION:
Look kindly, Lord, we pray,
on the devotion of your people,
that those who by self-denial are restrained in body
may by the fruit of good works be renewed in mind
.

More about that tempero.  As surely you do, I immediately think of Horace’s Ode 1, 20:

In Ode 1.20 the poet talks about his countryside villa (his “Sabine Farm”… *sigh*), his wine and a great shout that echoed out over Rome for his patron Maecenas who made a first appearance in public after an illness:

Vile potabis modicis Sabinum
cantharis, Graeca quod ego ipse testa
conditum levi, datus in theatro
cum tibi plausus,

care Maecenas eques, ut paterni
fluminis ripae simul et iocosa
redderet laudes tibi Vaticani
montis imago.

Caecubum et prelo domitam Caleno
tu bibes uvam; mea nec Falernae
temperant vites neque Formiani
pocula colles.

The parts below in parenthesis I added to make this clearer to those who don’t know much about Horace.

(When you, Maecenas, visit me in the country at my farm)
You will quaff from simple drinking cups
the lowly Sabine which I laid down with the
Greek style seal, in the year when the applause
was given to you in the theater,

dear knight Maecenas, so loud that
the Vatican hill together with the banks of
the fatherly river Tiber sent the praises
back to you (so loud they echoed off the Vatican hill back to the Theater of Pompey).

(At your home) you will be drinking Caecuban and the grape
crushed in the Caleniean press; my vines (when you visit my Sabine farm house in the country)
and not Falernian vines nor Formian hills
temper my cups.

It could be that tempero here is a reference to how the ancients used to drink their wine mixed with water.  To drink unmixed merum was a scandal and sign of immoderate … everything.  Mark Anthony was one such, and Cicero sharply pointed it out.  In the Ode, however, I think the very has the force of “mellow” or “season” and the object is the cups.    What is brilliant is that Horace made us think of both at the same time.

A long time ago, one of my Latin profs told me that as I got older I would appreciate Horace more and more.

I suppose with many more seasons behind me now, I have mellowed a little, mixed as I have been in respect to years and tears.

Our prayers this week are giving us different virtues to think about: devotio, moderatio, temperatio. There is a frequent juxtaposition of mens and corpus or caro, rationabilia and corporalia in Lenten prayers.

We are both.  Both must be subject to discipline during Lent.

 

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, WDTPRS |
Leave a comment

Daily Rome Shot 1558

WELCOME REGISTRANT:

LindaAnn

Please remember me when shopping online and use my affiliate links.  US HEREWHY?  This helps to pay for health insurance (massively hiked for this new year of surprises), utilities, groceries, etc..  At no extra cost, you provide help for which I am grateful.

Today’s Wordle: 3

Germany. They’re really going to fill those pews! The SSPX has to learn.

But don’t worry, DDF says she’s not as important as we thought.

White to move and mate in 4. HERE

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
3 Comments

LENTCAzT 2026 – 08: Ember Wednesday 1st Week in Lent – The Four Preachers

A 5 minute daily podcast to help you in your Lenten discipline.

Today we hear about the Roman Station: St. Mary Major, a review of Ember days, and then about our annual Lenten Retreat’s four preachers.

Yesterday’s podcast HERE

Posted in LENTCAzT, PODCAzT, SESSIUNCULA | Tagged , , ,
Leave a comment

Daily Rome Shot 1557

Today’s Wordle 5

There is some trouble with the blog’s software right now.  We will be doing some maintenance later in the week.  I can’t easily get to the comment queue without the query timing out.  I have to use my phone instead, which is pesky.

Please remember me when shopping online and use my affiliate links.  US HEREWHY?  This helps to pay for health insurance (massively hiked for this new year of surprises), utilities, groceries, etc..  At no extra cost, you provide help for which I am grateful.

Black to move and mate in 4.  HERE

Hey Fathers!  How about a clerical Guayabera shirt?

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
2 Comments

Brief summation of Bp. Schneider’s appeal to Pope Leo about the SSPX

Bishop Athanasius Schneider sent a letter to Pope Leo making an appeal to him about the announcement of the SSPX that they will consecrate bishops. It is at Diane Montagna’s Substack.

In my opinion, the letter is a bit too long, at 3200 words. When you write something to someone who is incredibly busy you want to maximize the chance that he will read the whole thing. But, hey.  At the end, however, there is a short and direct appeal which is quite compelling.

To help you with the letter, and at least get the main points out there, here is a precis.


Bishop Schneider argues that the intense global reaction to this announcement exposes a long-standing ecclesial wound. The debate often devolves to juridical positivism, treating papal consent for episcopal consecration as if it were a matter of divine law and equating disobedience automatically with schism. In doing so, critics overlook both patristic precedent and the Church’s historical canonical practice.

Schneider challenges what he calls “quasi-dogmas”, namely, the claim that papal authorization for episcopal consecration is required by divine right and that consecration without it constitutes schism per se. In the first millennium bishops were typically elected and consecrated locally, with no formal papal mandate required. Even the 1917 Code of Canon Law punished episcopal consecration against papal will with suspension, not excommunication, indicating that the Church did not consider such acts inherently schismatic.

He distinguishes between the dogma of papal primacy and historically contingent modes of exercising hierarchical communion. Acceptance of the Pope, adherence to definitive magisterial teaching, and sacramental validity pertain to divine law; concrete disciplinary mechanisms do not. He cites St. Athanasius’ resistance to Pope Liberius amid Arian crisis and Cardinal Iosif Slipyj’s unauthorized consecrations during Vatican Ostpolitik as historical precedents demonstrating that extraordinary circumstances may justify irregular actions without constituting schism.

Schneider uses the metaphor of a burning house to describe the current ecclesial crisis. Doctrinal and liturgical ambiguities following Vatican II constitute a smoldering fire. Those who resist certain reforms, particularly in liturgy, are treated as disobedient firefighters even while attempting to preserve the Church’s patrimony.  Either the fire chief is denying the seriousness of the fire or the fire chief wants large parts of the house burn so that it can be rebuilt according to a new design.

The crisis surrounding the SSPX reveals deeper tensions tied to ambiguous conciliar formulations (ecclesial cancer) and subsequent theological developments.  He cites commentary arguing that Vatican II’s pastoral tone and lack of doctrinal precision generated confusion. The issue, he suggests, is ambiguity rather than formal heresy. The SSPX, in his assessment, seeks clarification and continuity with the Church’s perennial teaching. He portrays the Society as motivated by love for the Church, the papacy, and souls, not by schismatic intent. Quotations from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre are offered to demonstrate fidelity to papal primacy and sorrow over conflict with Rome.

The Holy See has shown generosity toward the Communist Party of China, allowing them to select candidates for bishops, yet the SSPX are treated as second-class citizens.

Schneider questions why the Tridentine and Vatican II Professio fidei, once universally sufficient as a profession of Catholic faith, is no longer accepted as adequate for ecclesial communion in the SSPX’s case. If Vatican II did not issue definitive dogmatic definitions, and if the faith of the Church remains unchanged, he asks why adherence to the prior profession should be considered insufficient. He contrasts Rome’s ecumenical language regarding shared faith with non-Catholic Christians with its stricter stance toward the SSPX.

He urges provisional pastoral measures, including granting the Apostolic Mandate for episcopal consecrations, to stabilize the Society’s sacramental life and facilitate calm doctrinal dialogue. Such measures, he argues, would not compromise doctrine but would reflect pastoral charity. Citing Benedict XVI, he warns that historical failures to pursue reconciliation have hardened divisions.

Schneider concludes by directly imploring Pope Leo XIV to act as a true bridge-builder. Granting the mandate would integrate two generations of faithful attached to the SSPX, prevent unnecessary rupture, and demonstrate magnanimity consistent with the Petrine office. The appeal frames the moment as providential: a decision for generosity and unity could heal a sixty-year wound without loss to the Church’s doctrinal integrity.


Here is the last part of the letter to Pope Leo:

With sincere concern for the unity of the Church and the spiritual good of so many souls, I appeal with reverent and fraternal charity to our Holy Father Pope Leo XIV:

Most Holy Father, grant the Apostolic Mandate for the episcopal consecrations of the SSPX. You are also the father of your numerous sons and daughters—two generations of the faithful who have, for now, been cared for by the SSPX, who love the Pope, and who wish to be true sons and daughters of the Roman Church. Therefore, stand aside from the partisanship of others and, with a great paternal and truly Augustinian spirit, demonstrate that you are building bridges, as you promised to do before the whole world when you gave your first blessing after your election. Do not go down in the history of the Church as one who failed to build this bridge—a bridge that could be constructed at this truly Providential moment with generous will—and who instead allowed a truly unnecessary and painful further division within the Church, while at the same time synodal processes that boast of the greatest possible pastoral breadth and ecclesial inclusivity were taking place. As your Holiness recently stressed: “Let us commit ourselves to further developing ecumenical synodal practices and to sharing with one another who we are, what we do and what we teach (cf. Francis, For a Synodal Church, 24 November 2024)” (Homily of Pope Leo XIVEcumenical Vespers for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, January 25, 2026).

Most Holy Father, if you grant the Apostolic Mandate for the episcopal consecrations of the SSPX, the Church in our day will lose nothing. You will be a true bridge-builder, and even more, an exemplary bridge-builder, for you are the Supreme Pontiff, Summus Pontifex.

+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana

24 February 2026

Posted in Leo XIV, SSPX, The future and our choices | Tagged ,
9 Comments

LENTCAzT 2026 – 07: Tuesday 1st Week in Lent – Against the wicked

A 5 minute daily podcast to help you in your Lenten discipline.

St. Jerome used to say Mass at the Roman Station today. We hear something Christ told St. Catherine of Siena in the Dialogues. Then, a blunt prayer to illuminate the wicked in the Church, to expose the horrors they are working. Fr. Troadec describes praying in faith filled simplicity. Lastly, on his feast day, we hear the Collect for St. Matthias.

Whew.

$£€ – Yesterday’s podcast HERE

Posted in LENTCAzT, PODCAzT | Tagged , , ,
1 Comment