ADVENTCAzT 2025: 18 – Ember Wednesday – 3rd Week of Advent – Embers and O and Golden Mass

A 5 minute daily podcast to help you in your Advent preparation.

Today is jampacked, liturgically.  We enter today, 17 December, into the final stretch before Christmas.  Therefore at Vespers we start to sing the O Antiphons.  Today is Ember Wednesday in Advent.  Today’s Mass is also called the “Golden Mass… Missa Aurea” because of the reflection on the moment of the Incarnation and also because in early missals the initial of the Introit was often decorated with gold, it was highly esteemed.

Yesterday’s podcast HERE.

You hear also the Benedictine nuns of Gower Abbey, the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles.

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

Daily Rome Shot 1506 – Bagpipes

Please remember me when CHRISTMAS shopping online and use my affiliate links.  US HEREWHY?  This helps to pay for health insurance, utilities, groceries, etc..  At no extra cost, you provide help for which I am grateful.

This is terrific. We need MORE BAGPIPES!

Roman style…

Black to move. Mate in 4.

NB: I’ll hold comments with solutions ’till the next day so there won’t be “spoilers” for others.

I’m not seeing it today… anyone?

 

 

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
19 Comments

ADVENTCAzT 2025: 17 – Tuesday 3rd Week of Advent – Patience

A 5 minute daily podcast to help you in your Advent preparation.

Today we explore what “conscience” means, how its gets things right, and how it goes wrong.

We drill into “patience”, which is a key point in the Mass formulary of Gaudete Sunday (hint: modestia)

Yesterday’s podcast is HERE.

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

Daily Rome Shot 1505 – an appeal

Please remember me when CHRISTMAS shopping online and use my affiliate links.  US HEREWHY?  This helps to pay for health insurance, utilities, groceries, etc..  At no extra cost, you provide help for which I am grateful.

Pray for Jimmy Lai…

And this is different… fungus funky…. not sure it’ll catch on…

MUST.HAVE.ONE…

White to move and mate in 4.

NB: I’ll hold comments with solutions ’till the next day so there won’t be “spoilers” for others.

A well-deserving cause Fr. Z trusts.

And give the sisters some support.  They make great things for Christmas gifts.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
5 Comments

ADVENTCAzT 2025: 16 – Monday 3rd Week of Advent – Upcoming

A 5 minute daily podcast to help you in your Advent preparation.

Today we have a preview of the new week’s liturgical features.

Then we hear Fr. Troadec on preparing to receive the graces God wants to give us at Christmas.

Yesterday’s podcast HERE.

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

Augustine v. Jerome, Gimli v. Legolas, and The Roman Thing. Wherein Fr. Z rants and digresses.

Click!

On Sunday I posted about the difference between Latin gaudete and laetare.  In that post I commented on the mens of Roman liturgical use: to preserve.  I wrote that

“The Roman Thing… the Romanitas … that is the breath and heartbeat of Roman liturgical use seeks to hand on what it has received.  Only over great spans of time are adjustments made.  Since in this year much attention is given to The Lord of the Rings, recall what Gimli said about the Glittering Caves of Aglarond.  Ut brevis, I’ll write about that in another post.”

This is “another post”.

I had in the other post shown how in the Roman Rite we have Latin antiphons texts which are from Latin version of the Scripture that pre-date Jerome’s Vulgate.  There are textual differences, such as when we sing on the Sunday after Easter, Quasimodo geniti infantes instead of Jerome’s  Sicut modo geniti infantes.   The Roman Thing was to preserve the older version of the chant even when the Vulgate was made the Church’s official version of Latin Scripture.  They didn’t dare to to change the chant.   Indeed, Augustine remarks in a letter to Jerome that people were upset by the changes in Latin he was making.  Before I get to what was the original digression in the other post, I’ll digress here, because it is a fascinating example of the conservatism of worshippers in the thoroughly Roman early Church of North Africa.

Augustine refers to popular resistance to Jerome’s revised Latin biblical translations in several letters, most clearly in Letter 71 and again, with reflection and moderation, in Letter 82. The context is Jerome’s revision of Scripture according to the Hebrew and Greek texts, which disturbed congregations accustomed to the older Latin versions.  Here’s Augustine describing the situation to Jerome in 403 (ep. 71.5).  A passage from the Book of Jonah had been read including the plant that shaded the prophet.  Jerome had translated the Hebrew qiqayon as hedera (ivy) rather than the familiar cucurbita (gourd).  People in the city of Oea nearly rioted when they heard it.

Nam cum lectum esset in ecclesia, ubi praesens erat episcopus, quod propheta Ionas sub hedera consedisset, tanta confusio exorta est in populo, maxime in Africa, ut vix potuerit episcopus sedare tumultum, clamantibus omnibus falsum esse quod lectum est.

And when it was read in church, where the bishop was present, that the prophet Jonah sat under an ivy, such confusion arose among the people, especially in Africa, that the bishop could scarcely calm the disturbance, with everyone shouting that what had been read was false.”

It got so bad that the bishop himself we nearly thrown off of his see.

Augustine explains the reason for the uproar:

“Homines enim, quae semel imbiberunt, difficile mutare patiuntur.

For people scarcely tolerate change in things they have once absorbed.”

They took their Scripture seriously.  Imagine this today.  Remember when the horrid translation used in the Novus in these USA had the baby Jesus placed in a “feed box”?  People should have rioted then and there and saved us a lot of time and wasted energy.

Augustine tells Jerome that even though his translation is philologically superior, he was causing scandal and loss of confidence in Scripture:   “Ne forte, dum paucorum doctorum studia corriguntur, plurimorum animis scandalum generetur. … Lest perhaps, while the studies of a few learned men are corrected, a scandal be produced in the minds of the many.”

Augustine does not deny Jerome’s expertise. His anxiety concerns reception in the Church, especially among the unlearned.

Sever years later, Augustine has another crack at his concern with Jerome’s work in ep. 82.3.  Again, he acknowledges Jerome’s skill but raises pastoral concerns.

“Ego sane fateor me in eis libris, qui canonici appellantur, didicisse hunc timorem honoremque deferre, ut nullum eorum auctorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam.

“I confess that I have learned to hold this reverence and honor toward the books that are called canonical, that I most firmly believe none of their authors erred in writing anything.”

Yet he adds (ep. 82.35) that translations are another matter:

“Quod autem ad interpretationes attinet, quae plurimae sunt, in quibus non parva potest esse varietas, magis mihi placet consuetudo ecclesiastica.

But as for translations, which are many and in which there can be no small variation, ecclesiastical custom pleases me more.”

Here Augustine clearly distinguishes between the inspired text and its Latin transmission. He recognizes Jerome’s scholarly achievement, but he insists that liturgical and ecclesial usage possesses its own authority, rooted in reception and stability.

I am reminded of Ratzinger writing that, no matter what scholarly blah blah could be bilge pumped about the bizarre rendering of pro multis as “for all”, the meaning of “for many” was but now its own theological locus.

These letters of Augustine explain why Roman liturgical texts often preserve Old Latin readings that differ from Jerome’s Vulgate. Augustine witnesses to a Church in which Scripture was primarily heard, memorized, and prayed. Altering familiar wording risked unsettling faith itself. The Roman chant tradition, by retaining forms such as Quasimodo, stands squarely within the pastoral instinct Augustine articulates.  Any priest who accidently stumbled on to the Pius XII Psalter will fill you in on this in detail.

Now to my original digression in the other post.  To repeat, I wrote that

“The Roman Thing… the Romanitas … that is the breath and heartbeat of Roman liturgical use seeks to hand on what it has received.  Only over great spans of time are adjustments made.  Since in this year much attention is given to The Lord of the Rings, recall what Gimli said about the Glittering Caves of Aglarond.  Ut brevis, I’ll write about that in another post.”

After the Battle of Helm’s Deep, the company heads towards Isengard.  They go past the scary trees that dispatched Saruman’s army leaving Legolas greatly curious and Gimli rather unsettled.   Gimli says that he saw something far more wonderous than this forest.

Here is the extended exchange.   Read it with your liturgically sensitive eyeballs.  Gimli speaks at first:


You may think them [the trees] wonderful, but I have seen a greater wonder in this land, more beautiful than any grove or glade that ever grew: my heart is full of it.

“Strange are the ways of Men, Legolas! Here they have one of the marvels of the Northern World, and what do they say of it? Caves, they say! Caves! Holes to fly to in time of war, to store fodder in! My good Legolas, do you know that the caverns of Helm’s Deep are vast and beautiful? There would be an endless pilgrimage of Dwarves, merely to gaze at them, if such things were known to be. Aye indeed, they would pay pure gold for a brief glance!”

“And I would give gold to be excused,” said Legolas; “and double to be let out, if I strayed in!”

“You have not seen, so I forgive your jest,” said Gimli. “But you speak like a fool. Do you think those halls are fair, where your King dwells under the hill in Mirkwood, and Dwarves helped in their making long ago? They are but hovels compared with the caverns I have seen here: immeasurable halls, filled with an everlasting music of water that tinkles into pools, as fair as Kheled-zaram in the starlight.

“And, Legolas, when the torches are kindled and men walk on the sandy floors under the echoing domes, ah! then, Legolas, gems and crystals and veins of precious ore glint in the polished walls; and the light glows through folded marbles, shell-like, translucent as the living hands of Queen Galadriel. There are columns of white and saffron and dawn-rose, Legolas, fluted and twisted into dreamlike forms; they spring up from many-coloured floors to meet the glistening pendants of the roof: wings, ropes, curtains fine as frozen clouds; spears, banners, pinnacles of suspended palaces! Still lakes mirror them: a glimmering world looks up from dark pools covered with clear glass; cities, such as the mind of Durin could scarce have imagined in his sleep, stretch on through avenues and pillared courts, on into the dark recesses where no light can come. And plink! a silver drops falls, and the round wrinkles in the glass make all the towers bend an waver like weeds and corals in a grotto of the sea. Then evening comes: they fade and twinkle out; the torches pass on into another chamber and another dream. There is chamber after chamber, Legolas; hall opening out of hall, dome after dome, stair beyond stair; and still the winding paths lead on into the mountains’ heart. Caves! The Caverns of Helm’s Deep! Happy was the chance that drove me there! It makes me weep to leave them.”

“Then I will wish you this fortune for your comfort, Gimli,” said the Elf, “that you may come safe from war and return to see them again. But do not tell all your kindred! There seems little left for them to do, from your account. Maybe the men of this land are wise to say little: one family of busy dwarves with hammer and chisel might mar more than they made.”

“No, you do not understand,” said Gimli. “No dwarf could be unmoved by such loveliness. None of Durin’s race would mine those caves for stones or ore, not if diamonds and gold could be got there. Do you cut down groves of blossoming trees in the springtime for firewood? We would tend these glades of flowering stone, not quarry them. With cautious skill, tap by tap — a small chip of rock and no more, perhaps, in a whole anxious day — so we would work, and as the years went by, we should open up new ways, and display far chambers that are still dark, glimpsed only as a void beyond fissures in the rock. And lights, Legolas! We should make lights, such lamps as once shone in Khazad-dum; and when we wished we would drive away the night that has lain there since the hills were made; and when we desired rest, we would let the night return.”

“You move me, Gimli,” said Legolas. “I have never heard you speak like this before. Almost you make me regret that I have not seen these caves. Come! Let us make this bargain — if we both return safe out of the perils that await us, we will journey for a while together. You shall visit Fangorn with me, and then I will come with you to see Helm’s Deep.”

“That would not be the way of return that I should choose,” said Gimli. “But I will endure Fangorn, if I have your promise to come back to the caves and share their wonder with me.”

“You have my promise,” said Legolas. “But alas! Now we must leave behind both cave and wood for a while. See! We are coming to the end of the trees.


What do those who repress the Roman Rite say?  CAVES!

Click!

For those of you unfortunates who have never read The Lord of the Rings, after the destruction of the Ring, Gimli leads many Dwarves south to Aglarond to become to first Lord of the Glittering Caves. The dwarves of the south build great works in Rohan and Gondor, including a new gate for Minas Tirith made of mithril and steel. After Aragorn’s death, 262 years old Gimil sails with Legolas into the West, the first Dwarf in the Undying Lands.

“Unfortunates”?  Nay! Rather, “fortunate indeed”!

You have the chance to read it for the first time.

Marvelous.

Here’s an idea.  If you have a couple of friend/family who haven’t read it, give them a set like the one pictured above for Christmas and then read it together.

Posted in Hard-Identity Catholicism, The Drill | Tagged
10 Comments

ASK FATHER: Why do the TLM Gospels switch between “Ierusalem” and “Ierosolyma”? Wherein Fr. Z drills and then rants. – UPDATED

UPDATE 15 Dec:

Follow up question below.


From a priest reader…

QUAERITUR:

Why do the TLM Gospels switch between “Ierusalem” and “Ierosolyma” as in today’s “Ierosolymis” when referring to Jerusalem?

Father has been observant!  Good question.

Indeed, this week the Gospel from John reads

In illo tempore: Misérunt Iudaei ab Ierosólymis sacerdótes et levítas ad Ioánnem, ut interrogárent eum … At that time, the Jews sent to John from Jerusalem priests and Levites to ask him, …”.

The Neo-Vulgate on the Vatican website has “ab Hierosolymis” in John 1.  That “h” reflects the Greek rough breathing mark on the initial iota:  ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων.   More on that below.

The two forms enter Latin through different routes: Ierusalem comes primarily from Hebrew, usually mediated through Aramaic. It functions in Latin as a foreign, indeclinable proper noun, much like Bethlehem or Nazareth.

The Vulgate preserves both forms because Jerome did not impose a single Latinized solution where the source languages differed.   Jerome recognized the difference in his ep. 57 to Pammachius about interpretation of Scripture, he wrote:

Hierusalem et Ierosolyma non unum nomen est, sed duo. Illud Hebraicum est, hoc Graecum; et saepe secundum proprietatem sensuum Scriptura utitur alterutro. … Ierusalem and Ierosolyma are not one name, but two. The former is Hebrew, the latter Greek; and Scripture often uses one or the other according to the proper character of the meaning.”

Ierosolyma comes through Greek, already adapted to Greek morphology. When it enters Latin, it behaves as a declinable plural noun (neuter plural in form, often treated as feminine).

Ierusalem is indeclinable and static. It tends to appear in contexts where the city is treated as a theological or symbolic locus, rather than as an object acted upon.

Ierosolyma declines (Ierosolymam, Ierosolymis, etc.) and therefore is used more smoothly in narrative movement: going up to, coming down from, being sent out of, or destroyed. This is why Gospel pericopes involving travel, procession, judgment, or historical action frequently favor Ierosolyma.

The distinction is not a rigid one, mind you.  However, there is enough of a distinction that early commentators and medieval writers noted it.

Venerable Bede (+735) wrote in his Commentary on Luke 9:51:

Non frustra Lucas Ierosolymam dicit, non Ierusalem: terrenam civitatem significat, quae Dominum occisura erat; non illam pacis visionem quae in caelis est. … Not without reason does Luke say Ierosolyma and not Ierusalem: he signifies the earthly city which was about to kill the Lord, not that vision of peace which is in heaven.”

The medieval Glossa Ordinaria (12th c. in PL 113-114) which uses the Vulgate says:

Ierusalem interpretatur visio pacis; Ierosolyma vero frequenter ponitur pro civitate carnali... Ierusalem is interpreted as ‘vision of peace’; Ierosolyma is often used for the carnal city.”

Forms of Ierosolyma occur in all four Gospels in the Vulgate tradition, not just in one, and they do so with a fairly consistent narrative profile.

In Matthew, Ierosolyma appears frequently in passages describing movement to and from the city or its historical actions, for example: “Tunc abiit Iesus in Ierosolymam” (cf. Matt 20:17), and in judgment contexts: “Ierusalem, Ierusalem, quae occidis prophetas…” where the vocative form is used rhetorically (Matt 23:37).

In Mark, the form is likewise common in travel narratives and Passion contexts, especially in the long ascent to the city: “Erant autem in via ascendentes Ierosolymam” (Mark 10:32). Here the declinable form fits the narrative needs of the Gospel.

In Luke, Ierosolyma is especially prominent, reflecting Luke’s strong geographical and theological emphasis on the journey to Jerusalem and its role in salvation history (Luke 9:51 ff.). Luke uses both forms overall, but Ierosolyma dominates the travel and rejection motifs.

In John, although Ierusalem also appears, Ierosolyma is used repeatedly in contexts involving feasts, pilgrimages, and concrete actions within the city such as the example in today’s reading (Gaudete Sunday) and also “Ascendit Iesus Ierosolymam” (John 2:13; 5:1).

It is likely that, through the centuries, the constant auditory exposure to the forms through reading aloud (the common practice in ancient times for reasons of retention, etc.) and singing in liturgy embedded the different overtones of the forms in the readers/hears such that they virtually automatically took in the theological differences.   The Frankish commentator Amalarius of Metz in his Liber Officialis (PL 105.1145) opines:

“Non solum verba, sed etiam forma verborum intellectum movet audientis… Not only the words, but even the form of the words moves the understanding of the hearer.”

Directly to the question at the top: those who edited the 1570 edition of the Missale Romanum and subsequent editions did not take it on themselves to “flatten” the literary and theological registers of the Gospel as they had been received.  The Traditional Latin Mass preserves rather than innovates.  They kept this usage of different forms because it follows the Vulgate text as inherited, allowing each evangelist’s linguistic register to remain intact rather be inflicted with forced uniformity. Their mandate, articulated in the wake of Trent, was to restore and stabilize the Roman Rite iuxta veterem et probatam consuetudinem, not to subject the received texts to literary or theological “improvement” (aka tinkeritis).   As a result, they did not presume the right to harmonize or rationalize the internal features of the biblical text – or the Mass itself! – even where those features might strike a later age as inconsistent (or viz. the Mass, “later accretions to be removed” or “superfluous gestures” or “needless repetitions”).

However, the Neo-Vulgate (Nova Vulgata of 1979 (1986) in the main does not retain the different forms. Instead, following Hebrew and Greek texts and not the Clementine Vulgate, with exceptions it overwhelmingly standardizes the name to indeclinable Ierusalem.   As a result, the patristic and medieval exegetical distinction (earthly, divided Ierosolyma versus peaceful, theological Ierusalem) is no longer audible in the Latin text itself.  The Nova Vulgata treats Latin as a transparent vehicle for the critical Greek text, even at the cost of flattening distinctions that earlier generations regarded as meaningful. The distinction survives in patristic theology and medieval commentary, but no longer in the Latin biblical text itself as proclaimed in the modern Roman Rite.

Whatever theological distinctions remain must now be supplied entirely by commentary, not by the language of the Gospel proclamation.

The Neo-Vulgate makes irony redundant.  A project undertaken in the name of “fidelity to the sources” ends up showing less respect for the actual Latin Bible which the Church prayed, preached, and heard for centuries than did early editors working with far fewer modern “scientific” philological tools. Where the traditional Roman liturgy trusted the text it received, the Neo-Vulgate editors trusted their own corrective instincts. The result is a Bible that is cleaner and smoother … and theologically poorer.  Its like a cold, sterile exam table with a paper sheet over it.

I also have in mind some bishops these days who want – lovingly and pastorally – to force everyone to be in lockstep like mindless drones.  They empty the meaning of unity by imposing uniformity.  “Everyone must stand now… sit now… receive this way… in a conga line, cause, you know, processions and … and … pastoral reasons!”

Our forebears had a far better bead on unity.

 


QUAERITUR:

Now for a follow-up question: why is it plural? Ab hierosolymis ne discederent always makes me pause.

As to the plural… it might be along the lines of how Greeks thought of cities as complexes of elements rather than a single thing. For example Athens in Homeric Greek is singular Athene (Ἀθήνη) but later, as it grows and absorbs more entities, becomes plural Athenai (Ἀθῆναι ). So maybe the singular form, Ierusalem which is more theological and spiritual, unified in God’s shalom, is perceived as a whole and the secular place on the map you travel to or from or conquer is seen as a collective of different neighborhoods or even religious groups in contact with each other. New York City is several boroughs and many neighborhoods, is called New York City (singular) but NYC also stands (stood for) abstractions (such as freedom, a new beginning, financial power).  We can call NYC “The Five Boroughs” too, though that isn’t orthographically close.

Hence, sometime Jerusalem is felt as one thing and something as a collective of things.

 

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Patristiblogging, The Drill, Wherein Fr. Z Rants |
5 Comments

ASK FATHER: What’s the difference between the “rejoice” of “Laetare” Sunday of Lent and “Gaudete” Sunday of Advent?

From a reader…

QUAERITUR

What is the difference between gaudete and laetare? Gaudete seems to be 2nd person plural imperative, while laetare looks like an infinitive. Both mean “rejoice” but is there a subtle theological difference in meaning?

Laetare Sunday in Lent and Gaudete Sunday in Advent function liturgically as measured respites within penitential seasons. Each marks a moment when the Church allows a restrained anticipatory joy to surface within a discipline that remains fundamentally ascetical. The rose vestments, the softening of musical austerity, and the scriptural tone of the Mass all reflect this moderated gladness ordered toward what is approaching, Easter in Lent and the Nativity of the Lord in Advent.

Both Gaudete and Laetare are imperatives. Gaudete is the second person plural imperative of gaudeo. Laetare is the second person singular imperative of laetor, which is a deponent verb and therefore passive in form while active in meaning. The apparent resemblance of laetare to an infinitive is “cosmetic” rather than grammatical. The Latin verb laeto exists, but it is not operative in the Introit. The laetare form belongs to laetor and functions fully as an imperative.

The names of these Sundays derive from the opening word of the Introit antiphon. Gaudete Sunday takes its name from Philippians 4:4, where St. Paul writes, “Gaudete in Domino semper; iterum dico, gaudete … Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice.” (Phil 4:4). The Latin corresponds directly to the Greek χαίρετε in the same verse. Laetare Sunday receives its title from Isaiah 66:10, which in the Roman chant tradition opens, “Lætáre, Ierúsalem, et convéntum fácite, omnes qui dilígitis eam … Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad for her, all you who love her” (Is 66:10). The underlying Hebrew reads, “שִׂמְחוּ אֶת־יְרוּשָׁלִַם וְגִילוּ בָהּ כָּל־אֹהֲבֶיהָ,” which is rendered accurately as “Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad for her, all you who love her”.

The Vulgate text of Isaiah, however, reads, “Laetamini cum Ierusalem, et exultate in ea omnes qui diligitis eam” (Is 66:10). The Introit chant’s Laetare, Ierusalem reflects an older Latin stratum influenced by the Septuagint tradition in use before Jerome’s final Vulgate recension. This feature of the Introit is a small but clear indicator of the antiquity of the Roman chant corpus and its complex textual history.

We find other examples of this in the Roman Church’s chants.  For example, on the Sunday after Easter we sing Quasimodo geniti infantes which is from the Vetus Latina rather than Jerome’s Sicut modo geniti infantes.   At Easter time we sing Sicut cervus desiderat ad fontes which reflects the older, Vetus Latina, whereas Jerome went with Quemadmodum desiderat cervus ad fontes.   That quemadmodum doesn’t exactly flow trippingly, does it.

The point is this: the mens of Roman liturgical use is to preserve.  The Roman Thing… the Romanitas … that is the breath and heartbeat of Roman liturgical use seeks to hand on what it has received.  Only over great spans of time are adjustments made.  Since in this year much attention is given to The Lord of the Rings, recall what Gimli said about the Glittering Caves of Aglarond.  Ut brevis, I’ll write about that in another post.

No substantial semantic distinction separates gaudeo and laetor in this liturgical usage. Classical and ecclesiastical Latin employ both verbs for joy, delight, and gladness, with overlapping ranges of meaning. Any finer distinctions belong more properly to context than to morphology. In Philippians, the Apostle grounds joy in the nearness of the Lord and the peace that follows trustful prayer: “Dominus prope est” (Phil 4:5). In Isaiah, joy arises from restored worship and the abundance that flows from fidelity to the Lord’s covenant, including consolation, nourishment, and peace portrayed in maternal imagery (Is 66:11–13).

The tonal difference between the two Sundays flows from their seasons. Advent’s joy is vigilant and forward-looking, shaped by expectation and proximity. Lent’s joy is restrained and interior, ordered toward endurance and hope in the midst of discipline. These differences arise from biblical context, seasonal theology, and the structure of the Mass itself rather than from the grammatical form of Gaudete or Laetare. The imperatives serve the liturgy by summoning the faithful into a joy that is real, ecclesial, and situated within the Church’s pilgrimage toward her great feasts.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, WDTPRS | Tagged ,
2 Comments

Your Sunday Sermon Notes – 3rd Sunday of Advent “Gaudete” – 2025

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 Gaudete Sunday, the 3rd of Advent?

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:

[…]

“Make straight His path!” cries the Baptist.

The perennial admonition rings out with such force: go to confession.

The straightening can be gentle now, even if it involves tears, restitution, and penance. Later, the Straightener will do the straightening Himself. Yet this sobering truth does not extinguish joy. On the contrary, it grounds it. There is more than this world. There is Heaven. There is the final summation of all things “ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus… that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28). The reason for joy is not merely approaching. The Reason Himself is drawing near.

The human experience of time mirrors this acceleration.

In finem citius.

Motus in fine velocior.

The closer we get to the end, the more things seem to speed up.

This applies to our aging lives, where years seem to vanish with increasing speed. It applies also to the liturgical year, whose structure sweeps us, swiftly and sweetly, into the heart of the mysteries. Holy Church does not merely inform us about salvation history. She immerses us in it. She draws us into the Mystery which is the cause of our joy.

[…]

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
2 Comments

ADVENTCAzT 2025: 15 – 3rd Sunday of Advent “Gaudete”

A 5 minute daily podcast to help you in your Advent preparation.

Today we do a spiritual deep dive into the thematic Introit of Holy Mass which gives this 3rd Sunday of Advent its nickname: Gaudete… Rejoice!

Yesterday’s podcast HERE.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
1 Comment