ASK FATHER: Can the “Dies Irae” be used in the Novus Ordo Requiem Mass? Wherein Fr. Z rants.

From a priest… I think…

QUAERITUR:

Preparing for a funeral Mass in the near future;
Is it permissible to chant the Dies Irae sequence in a Latin requiem Mass using the ordinary form? Didn’t see it anywhere in the copy of 1979 graduale simplex I have.

Of course you didn’t find the Dies Irae in the Graduale Simplex.  You won’t find it in the Novus Ordo Graduale Romanum or the Missale Romanum either.   That’s because the brain-trusts of the Concilium with the approval of Paul VI expunged it from the Church’s Novus-Ordoy prayer life.  And, since “we are our rites”, over time and the constant use of white vestments and happy happy happy celebration of lives with balloons and weepy eulogies, what were funeral Masses intended to pray for the souls of the dead have morphed into informal canonizations.

Back to the question: Can you use the Dies Irae in a Novus Ordo funeral Mass.  The short answer is “Sure!”.   The longer short answer is, “Sure! But it might not be licit.”   Another little longer answer might be, “Sure, but you might catch hell for it.”

See what I did there?

There is language in the introduction to the Novus Ordo Graduale Romanum – and I’m going on memories that reach back 40 years or so now – that just barely allows for the option of substituting one contextually appropriate chant for another.

There is no question that the Dies Irae is appropriate, though the progressivists will deny that to their death.

However, this is a question not so much of substituting another chant as inserting between the Gradual/Tract and the Gospel.

One can make a case that that is pastorally appropriate. Given the malleable rigidity of the Novus Ordo (whereby a despotic bishop can stretch and bend one option among many legitimate choices to force people into a lockstep uniformity alien to the entire ethos of the Roman Rite because –  you know – Befehl ist Befehl – right?) just about anything goes.   Sure, yes, of course now on paper it is absurdly claimed that there is one unique expression of the Roman Rite, which everyone knows is a lie.  Heck, on Sunday here in Rome just up the street where I live there is a church used by the Congolese.   I can’t describe what I heard and saw going on in there and I don’t have a video.  It was a unique expression alright.

In fact, quaeritur, how many unique expressions of the Roman Rite can there be until there isn’t a unique expression anymore?

There is the serious issue of what to do in the Novus Ordo when you want to have a classical musical setting of the Requiem… which can be done contrary to to the wishes of Oregon Catholic Press…. which makes me think of something a priest friend sent today…

… I digress.

Mozart’s Requiem has a Dies Irae.  It is one of the most important, known bits of his Requiem.  So, get the choir and orchestra ready (along with their checks) and then … what?… omit the Dies Irae?   That would be just plan stupid.  I would argue that if something is just plain stupid – like passing in front of a tabernacle and the Blessed Sacrament and ignoring it – as the Novus Ordo bids – ignore the rubric and do something that makes sense.   Ergo, you sing Mozart’s Dies Irae in a Novus Ordo Requiem and you genuflect before the Presence of GOD when you walk in front of the tabernacle.

This was my old mentor Msgr. Schuler’s position all those years after the Council. There was no one who knew the legislation and the intent of the legislation about sacred music better than he.  Period.   Each year when 2 November came around the Twin Cities Catholic Chorale (still exists) and members of the Minnesota Orchestra did Mozart’s Requiem with the Dies Irae because you just can’t leave it out.  That would be stupid.  But we are to take seriously some yoyo who claims that it isn’t appropriate and that it is VERBOTEN?   That type shouldn’t be allowed to make decisions about ordering soft drinks much less governing sacred liturgical ars celebrandi.

I am reminded of the great scene in the movie Amadeus, about Mozart (sort of).  The Emperor forbade ballet in opera at the advice of people who hated Mozart.  So, Mozart has a rehearsal without the music for the dancing and the Emperor shows up.

YouTube thumbnailYouTube icon

BTW… the Dies Irae can be found in the Novus Ordo liturgical books, but chopped up into pieces in the Liturgy of the Hours.  So, technically, it is still in the Novus Ordo and, technically, available for “substitution” purposes in a Requiem.

Those were dark time, dear readers, and we are still suffering the effects.  We are especially suffering the effects now because that “we are our rites” principle, that lex orandi – credendi – vivendi principle, takes time to take shape, as Bugnini/Lercaro/understood in one way and Ratzinger/Benedict understood in another.

The liturgical progressivist excludes the Dies Irae and claims he is obeying the Council’s explicit principle for funerals: the burial rites were to express “more clearly the paschal character of Christian death.” That phrase from Sacrosanctum Concilium became one of the master principles for revising the funeral rites. On that reading, a funeral liturgy ought to foreground Christ’s victory over death, baptismal incorporation into His Passover, and the hope of resurrection more emphatically than the older Requiem did.  Nota bene: that is an admission that the TLM does highlight victory, joy, etc.

This is a key problem with the Novus Ordo: it emphasizes eschatological joy, which is okay, but it doesn’t tell you how to attain it.  The TLM does.

The lib liturgist/terrorist would say that the Dies Irae places too much affective weight on terror, doom, and forensic dread. Bugnini’s own summary is the classic evidence here: some reformers judged texts like Dies irae and Libera me to reflect a “negative spirituality inherited from the Middle Ages” and to “overemphasize judgment, fear, and despair,” so they preferred texts that urged Christian hope and expressed faith in the resurrection more effectively. That is the nearest thing to an explicit programmatic rationale from the reforming camp.

Again, how do you attain the Beatific Vision?  By having a steady and balanced dose of the Four Last Things and not a little dread of the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell.

The lib liturgist would argue that the funeral liturgy is for the consolation and catechesis of the living as well as intercession for the dead. Well, maybe not so much about that last depressing bit.  Therefore, the rite should speak in a register pastorally intelligible to modern congregations, many of whom are only tenuously catechized. You know, balloons and sing-along jingles about the flapping appendages of raptors.  In that frame, a lengthy medieval poem centered on cosmic dissolution, strict judgment, trembling and fear might be seen as pastorally counterproductive.  Instead of petitions about saving the Earth from greenhouse gases, plastic bottles and ICE agents, “Graciously grant that I be not burned up by the everlasting fire” could cause a few puzzled looks, especially at a parish where not a single word has been spoken about Hell or the Sacrament Penance for the last 60 years.

The Council’s broader rationale for revising sacramental rites was precisely that some features inherited from the bad old days (read: Tradition) had come to obscure their nature and purpose for people of the present day.  Remember the recent business about the “recent magisterium”?   Life really began anew at that Second Pentecost, 1965!  Never mind that people do not change, essentially, from age to age.  They are still human beings with impulses do to Original Sin and the good qualities of being wrought in the image of God.  But the progressivists think that people have evolved out of such dire things like, for example, it really is possible that you can go to Hell and that, having been all grown up, we stand for Communion and stick our hand out to take rather than to receive.

“But Father! But Father!, the now-awakened libs moan, you are distorting everything about the new springtime we are in!  The reform did not suppress echsta…. extraol… that ology stuff. It relocated and rebalanced it with and within and around the unspoken metatext between the printed lines of the Über-Council!  The current and unique is rooted in resurrection hope.  We are now an Easter People, an Alleluia Assembly not a Dies Downer!  HA!   But you … you and your kind … you must be forced into solitude and silenced because … because we… we…because we have to Council harder!  More, not less, Council.  But you don’t conform, no no… because you HATE VATICAN III…. er…. VATICAN II!”

I don’t hate Vatican II.  What has been done in the name of Vatican II makes me immensely sad.

At the same time, I am more and more convinced that God truly is in charge of the Church because of what we have seen in the wake of Vatican II.  There’s no other explanation and that fills me with resolve.

So, use the Dies Irae.  You might catch some flack for it.  Be ready.

Posted in "But Father! But Father!", "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests, Our Catholic Identity, Save The Liturgy - Save The World, Wherein Fr. Z Rants |
1 Comment

ASK FATHER: Grounding for the “harrowing of Hell”

In a comment elsewhere on the blog…

QUAERITUR:

Father, since the Gospels do not record Jesus harrowing hell, where did that phrase of the Creed come from? Is it based on the writings of any of the Early Church Fathers? If so, which ones? It would be interesting to trace the development of this doctrine.

I recently wrote about the harrowing of Hell HERE.  There, find CCC references which have footnotes.  But I can help you with your homework.

The Church’s teaching about the “harrowing of Hell” rests on two things taken together.

First, the New Testament witnesses that Christ truly entered the state of the dead and proclaimed his victory there. Second, the Church’s interpretation of “hell” in the Creed points to the realm of the dead, not the Hell of the damned. The Catechism states this explicitly: Christ “descended into hell” means that, in his human soul united to his divine person, he went to the abode of the dead, and he did so “not to deliver the damned” but “to free the just who had gone before him.”

The damned cannot be delivered.  Ever.  Forever.  Go to confession.

Scripturally, the locus classicus is 1 Peter 3:18-20, wherein Christ, put to death in the flesh and brought to life in the spirit, goes to preach to the “spirits in prison.” Closely joined to that is 1 Peter 4:6, “the gospel was preached even to the dead,” which the Catechism cites as a reason for the descent. Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Acts 2:27 and 2:31 is also crucial, because Psalm 16 is applied to Christ in terms of not being abandoned to Hades, which presupposes a real descent to the realm of the dead. Romans 10:7 refers to the “abyss” in connection with bringing Christ up from the dead, and Ephesians 4:9 speaks of his descent into “the lower regions of the earth”.

Hence, the biblical case is cumulative rather than dependent on a single unambiguous verse.

Acts 2 gives the language of Hades; 1 Peter gives the strongest picture of Christ’s saving proclamation to the dead; Romans 10 and Ephesians 4 contribute supporting imagery. Christ truly tasted death, entered the condition of the dead, and extended the efficacy of his redemptive work to the righteous who had died before his Passion. That is the precise doctrinal shape of the “harrowing.”

Magisterially, the most basic grounding is the Creed itself. The Apostles’ Creed, in the form used by the Church, explicitly professes: “He descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead.” The Catechism treats this credal article as dogmatically normative. It explains its meaning in paragraphs 631-637. The Compendium of the Catechism repeats the same teaching and clarifies that this “hell” is “different from the hell of the damned”; it is “the state of all those, righteous and evil, who died before Christ,” and Christ went down “to the just in hell who were awaiting their Redeemer.”

The Catechism’s doctrinal precision matters. It says that the frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was “raised from the dead” presuppose that he first sojourned in the realm of the dead. It then defines the term: “hell” here means Sheol or Hades, the abode of the dead deprived of the beatific vision. It further states that the descent is the final phase of Christ’s messianic mission, by which the reach of his redemption is extended to all the saved of every time and place. That is why the teaching belongs not to pious legend alone, but to the Church’s formal exposition of the Creed.

See also can. 1 of Lateran IV which is especially important because it states the matter in a compact doctrinal form: Christ, “being dead, descended into hell, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven,” adding the classic clarification that “He descended in soul, arose in flesh.” That formula is a strong magisterial anchor because it specifies the mode of the descent in relation to Christ’s true death.

There is also a liturgical grounding. The Church’s Holy Saturday liturgy preserves and transmits this doctrine in the Office of Readings, whose ancient homily portrays Christ descending to the dead and awakening Adam. While that ancient homily is not, by itself, a dogmatic definition, its inclusion in the Roman liturgy shows that the Church publicly receives and hands on the descent into the abode of the righteous dead (not of the damned) as part of the Paschal mystery.

In summation, the doctrinal content is this. Christ really died. In his human soul united to his divine person He descended to the abode of the dead. He proclaimed there the Good News of salvation. He liberated the just who had awaited Him. He did not empty the Hell of damnation or grant a second chance to the damned.

The chief supports for the above are Acts 2:27-31 and 1 Peter 3:18-20; 4:6, with Romans 10:7 and also Ephesians 4:9. Magisterially, the doctrine is grounded above all in the Apostles’ Creed and expounded authoritatively in Catechism 631-637.

Following the Creed, Fathers of the Church support the doctrine of the harrowing of Hell, as described above.

For example, St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies 5.31.1 he says that Christ “tarried until the third day in the lower parts of the earth,” and speaks of his descent to those who had died, tying it to Ephesians 4:9 and the “heart of the earth.”   St. Cyril of Jerusalem in Catechetical Lecture 4.11 he says Christ “went down into the regions beneath the earth, that thence also He might redeem the righteous,” and he names David, Samuel, the prophets, and John the Baptist among those awaiting redemption.

Rufinus in his Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed notes a historical point: the clause “He descended into hell” was present in the creed known at Aquileia, though not then in the Roman form. That matters because it shows the doctrine is older than the universal stabilization of the wording.

Consequently, the doctrine is older than the universal credal wording. The descensus clause was not present in every early local creed in the same form, but the underlying belief is already attested in the Fathers and later receives authoritative credal and conciliar expression.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged
1 Comment

From “The Private Diary of Bishop F. Atticus McButterpants” – 26-03-28 – A bold statement for foot washing

March 28th, 2026

Dear Diary,

They’ve been after me for weeks about “reaching the peripheries” again. I swear that phrase follows me around like Chester when I open a bag of jerky. It’s like Francis is back from the grave in spades.  Every meeting, every memo, every pastoral planning session. Peripheries peripheries peripheries. I asked at one point, “How far out do the peripheries go exactly?” Nobody laughed except Msgr. Tommy.

Anyway, McSwiney* said that for Holy Thursday I should make a statement of inclusion and accompaniment by washing the feet of twelve quadriplegics. “A prophetic witness! The paper will eat it up! It’s synodal!  Think what Caccia** will say!”  A chance to be synodal and get in good with the new Noonce. I said yes of course.  It’ll be terrific!

I met with seminarians today.  We had lunch.  It’s great to see them eat.  They’ve come back from wherever they go when they’re not here for Holy Week services with me at the cathedral.  There aren’t all that many of them but they all seem to be impressed with Fr. Msgr. Tommy.  The VD doesn’t think that’s a great idea because all them have birettas because of Tommy and some blog or other.  He hasn’t liked Tommy for a long time.  It’s just a hat, right?  As long as they are happy, I guess.   And it’s worth seeing McSwiney turn purple.  The cassocks and surpluses almost gave him hives last year, stuff about the old days.  He dresses all those girl servers for his Masses in sort of flour sacks with twine, or whatever, ‘cuz “the poor”.  The old ways seem better if that’s all we get instead.


*Msgr McSwiney is rector of “Spirit and Truth” Cathedral.  Nickname: “The Irish Setter”
**The new Apostolic Nuncio to these USA.

Posted in Diary of Bp. McButterpants | Tagged
1 Comment

ROME 26/3– Day 12-13-14: whew (lots of photos)

The Roman sunrise….was… ah, forget it!  I’ve been busy.

Some photos from the last couple of days.

Some lunch on Holy Saturday in Trastevere.

What everyone needs.

Roman artichoke.

Cannelloni

Lamb.

Crossing the Tiber.
 

Before the Vigil.

       

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
7 Comments

Your Sunday Sermon Notes – Easter Sunday

Too many people today are without good, strong preaching, to the detriment of all. Share the good stuff.

Was there a GOOD point made in the sermon you heard at your Mass of obligation for this Easter Sunday?

Tell us about attendance especially for the Traditional Latin Mass.

Any local changes or (hopefully good) news?

A taste of what I offered at 1 Peter 5 this week:

The pastoral edge of the text is impossible to ignore in any age, and present circumstances make it all the more urgent. When public and manifest grave sinners present themselves within the Eucharistic assembly, and when shepherds refuse to address the scandal, the damage extends beyond the individual. Scandal instructs. It de-catechizes by example. It tells others that what is plainly contrary to the Gospel and the law of God may safely coexist with sacramental communion. Paul will have none of it. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” He is speaking of those inside the Church. The community has duties toward its own members. This is not contrary to charity. It is one of charity’s hard forms. It serves the sinner’s good and protects the Church from contagion.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
5 Comments

PASCHALCAzT 2026 – 47: Easter Sunday – Joy

A 5 minute daily podcast to help you in your Easter celebration.

Just listen!

Yesterday’s podcast – HERE

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

“He descended into Hell” – Notes on “The Harrowing of Hell”

Quiet day, as befitting Holy Saturday.  All is quiet in the Church as Christ’s soon to be reclaimed Body is in the tomb while His human fused divinity harrows Hell.

I understand that Mel Gibson’s sequel to the Passion of the Christ will include the “harrowing of Hell”.  That’s a big undertaking for sure.

The question arises: What did Christ’s soul (human and divine united and unconfused) to in separation from His Body in the tomb?

Starting with some citations in the New Testament we pry open what came to be known as the “harrowing” or “raid” of hell, what Christ did between His death on the Cross and His resurrection.

Originally, the English word “harrow” has to do with preparing ground for tilling.  “Harrowing” involved drawing a kind of grate with downward spikes over the ground to break it up.    Here’s an image from a 16th c Book of Hours:

After the Council Trent was closed, the Roman Catechism was issued in 1566.  It was intended especially to shore up the fundamental doctrine of the clergy and be an aid for pastoral preaching.  I take my title for the columns I post at One Peter Five from Trent, which says that sermons should be giving “at least on Sundays”.

The Catechism explains with characteristic clarity the articles of the Apostle’s Creed and therefore what the “harrowing of hell” was and why Christ did it.

The Roman Catechism states that after His death Christ’s soul, in no way diminished, descended into hell in solidarity with man not to suffer, but to “liberate the holy and the just from their painful captivity, and to impart to them the fruit of His Passion.”

The Catechism then says, “Having explained these things, the pastor should next proceed to teach that …”, … and here let me fulfill the Catechism’s directive,…

Christ the Lord descended into hell, in order that having despoiled the demons, He might liberate from prison those holy Fathers and the other just souls, and might bring them into heaven with Himself. This He accomplished in an admirable and most glorious manner; for His august presence at once shed a celestial lustre upon the captives and filled them with inconceivable joy and delight. He also imparted to them that supreme happiness which consists in the vision of God, thus verifying His promise to the thief on the cross: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.  […]  But the better to understand the efficacy of this mystery we should frequently call to mind that not only the just who were born after the coming of our Lord, but also those who preceded Him from the days of Adam, or who shall be born until the end of time, obtain their salvation through the benefit of His Passion. Wherefore before His death and Resurrection heaven was closed against every child of Adam. The souls of the just, on their departure from this life, were either borne to the bosom of Abraham; or, as is still the case with those who have something to be washed away or satisfied for, were purified in the fire of purgatory.

One artistic representation I thoroughly enjoy is that the Blessed Fra Angelico.  The Roman Catechism says Christ “despoiled the demons”.   Note what’s under the door Christ has blasted down.  You can right click for a larger version.

Out comes old Adam, first of all, to the New Adam.

That sure reference work for the Catholic faith issued in 1997 in the Latin typical edition (1994 in French), the Catechism of the Catholic Church, covers this article of the Creed in par. 632ff.  The first meaning applied to this phrase was that “Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there” (632).

The place Christ went, the abode of the dead, biblical sheol, is where the none of the dead can see God, regardless of their wickedness or righteousness. Christ descended into sheol to liberate the righteous dead, not the damned.   Thus, the “the Author of life”, by dying destroyed “him who has the power of death, that is, the devil” (635).  Furthermore, as we read in an ancient Holy Saturday sermon in Greek (included in the Office of Readings of the Liturgy of the Hours),

He has gone to search for Adam, our first father, as for a lost sheep. Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death, He has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve, captive with him – He who is both their God and the son of Eve.

This article of the Creed underscores Christ as the Second Adam, making right the damage worked by the First Adam in the original sin of our first parents.

It may be that an element of ancient mythologies influenced the telling of this doctrine of the Apostolic Church.  Down through the centuries this idea of the “harrowing of hell” fueled the imagination of Christians and their theological reflection resulting in apocryphal “gospel” accounts, medieval mystery plays, and works of art such as Eastern icons.  There is something paradoxical in the core of the doctrine, namely, that our God, in an indestructible bond with our humanity, might go to hell, even if for a brief and specific mission.

In early Christian apocrypha, such as the Greek fourth century Acts of Pilate or the Latin medieval Gospel of Nicodemus there were imagined dialogues between the King of Glory, Christ, and the Prince of Hades, Satan.  In the medieval period, particularly from 13-16th  century England, there were performances of mystery plays, including of course the dramatic “harrowing of hell”.   Mystery plays were an important force in the revival of modern theatre.  The 13th century Aurea Legenda or Golden Legend compiled by Jacob de Voragine (+1298) includes the tale.

Dante in the Divine Comedy has Virgil give the poet an eyewitness account (Inf 4,52-63).

rispuose: “Io era nuovo in questo stato,
quando ci vidi venire un possente,
con segno di vittoria coronato.54Trasseci l’ombra del primo parente,
d’Abèl suo figlio e quella di Noè,
di Moïsè legista e ubidente;57Abraàm patrïarca e Davìd re,
Israèl con lo padre e co’ suoi nati
e con Rachele, per cui tanto fé,60e altri molti, e feceli beati.
E vo’ che sappi che, dinanzi ad essi,
spiriti umani non eran salvati”.
Replied: “I was a novice in this state,
When I saw hither come a Mighty One,
With sign of victory incoronate.Hence he drew forth the shade of the First Parent,
And that of his son Abel, and of Noah,
Of Moses the lawgiver, and the obedientAbraham, patriarch, and David, king,
Israel with his father and his children,
And Rachel, for whose sake he did so much,And others many, and he made them blessed;
And thou must know, that earlier than these
Never were any human spirits saved.”

In Eastern iconic depictions of the mystery, you see the risen Lord in luminous garb, carrying a Cross, trampling broken doors.  He extends His hand, sometimes to an old man, Adam, or to others below in a cave or tomb-like grotto.  Sometimes we see Dismas, the Good Thief, to whom Christ promised salvation that very day as they were crucified together.  In renaissance frescoes and paintings the same themes continue, but often with the dramatic addition of irritated devil onlookers, probably echoes in paint of the mystery plays common to the era.

Through the ages up to our own day in the Easter vigil liturgy in the Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, a sermon known simply as “The Easter Sermon” attributed to St. john Chrysostom (+407) is read, often with dialogue-like participation of the congregation (not “assembly”).  Here is an excerpt:

Let no one fear death, for the Death of our Savior has set us free.
He has destroyed it by enduring it
He destroyed Hades when He descended into it
He put it into an uproar even as it tasted of His flesh
Isaiah foretold this when he said
“You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below.
Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with
It was in an uproar because it is mocked.
It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed
It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated
It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive.
Hell took a body, and discovered God.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see.
O death, where is thy sting?
O Hades, where is thy victory?

The “harrowing of hell”, however it took place and however it may be depicted, is an doctrine of faith to which as Christians we give assent.  The central point of this article of the Creed is that the Christ in His atoning Sacrifice has free us from the eternal bonds of death in sin, liberated us from the fear of unavoidable everlasting separation from God.

Whether in our recitation of the Holy Rosary or during Holy Mass, every time you say “he descended to the dead” and in the newer version is “he descended into hell”, do so with hope in your heart and firm belief that Christ’s Sacrifice freed you from the inevitability of hell.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
7 Comments

LENTCAzT 2026 – 46: Holy Saturday – The last indignity – UPDATED

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

We hear about the Bapistry of St. John Lateran, where the ancient catechumens became new creations. Card. Schuster looks into the tomb while we wait

Yesterday’s podcast – HERE

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

ROME 26/3– Day 11: Good Friday

Sunrise… 06:48

Sunset…19:40

Ave Maria Bell … 20:00

It is Good Friday.  It is a 1st Friday.

It is the Feast of St. Richard of Chichester (+1253) which I cannot let go by without remembering a limerick my old pastor Msgr. Richard Schuler would occasionally quote:

There was an old Bishop of Chichester,
Who said thrice (the Latin for which is ‘ter’),
“Avaunt and defiance,
Foul spirit called Science,
And quit Mother Church, thou bewitchest her.”

BTW… St. Richard called for a Crusade against the Saracens.  Bless him.  Happy feast of St. Richard!

Some Good Friday shots. I’m still waiting for more pics.

The end of the Miserere and the “earthquake” at the end of Temebrae. Too dark for video.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
1 Comment

From “The Private Diary of Bishop F. Atticus McButterpants” – 26-04-01 – A scare

April 1st, 2026

Dear Diary,

I had a nasty little fright today. Finance thing. Worse, donor thing. Worst, Knights of Malta thing.

Turns out there were phone calls which Fr. Gilbert intercepted from a couple of the local Malta gents, the ones with the capes and the solemn faces and the checks with all those useful zeroes, are upset. Really upset. Something about Rome, tradition, disrespect, sovereignty, dignity, ancient privileges, yaddayadda. Usually when people in fancy uniforms start talking about “ancient rights” I tune out, but today I paid attention. Because money.

Apparently some knights in Rome are in a grand snit with the Pope over something or other. If this keeps up, we won’t be seeing the same support for the clinic, seminarians, cathedral roof, or anything else. They’ll take their checkbooks and go play crusades with someone else. I’m told the trads that broke away have a huge church over in Black Duck. I’ve gotta talk to Jude.

One thing after another. At a FMFH* in runs Chester who grabbed a donut off of Vice’s plate and trotted off. Fr. Gilbert ran after him, “Drop it, Chester!” It was the best part of the meeting.

Lunch helped. Since Good Friday is in a couple days and I’ll have to fast like one of the Desert Fathers, I fortified myself. Meatloaf with gravy, mashed potatoes, buttered carrots, two rolls, wedge salad, and a slice of coconut cream pie. Not huge. Moderate. Pentitential, even, given the circumstances.  We’ll go to Razzo’s soon.

Fr. Tommy used to say at this time of year that fasting is easier if you prepare spiritually. I say it’s easier if you prepare caloricly.

Anyway, I need those Malta men to calm down. If they secede from Rome, fine, that’s above my pay grade. If they secede from Libville’s diocesan annual appeal, that’s personal.

(later)

Okay… I get it.  Fr. T was on the phone about something er other with me tonight after I wrote … he told me that Knights thing was an April Fool joke.  Fell for it.  Dang.  Could I call him back to the chancery?  He’d come, of course.  Fr. Gilbert walked right into it and then I did too.


*Finance Meeting From Hell

Posted in Diary of Bp. McButterpants | Tagged
8 Comments