A couple of days ago, a comment (that I have not posted) to my post Questions and Answers Reflecting on Blackfen's "little spot of bother" told me that the text of that post had been distributed via comments on a couple of other blogs. I wasn't quite sure what to make of this, or of what its implications might be, so I thought I would just wait and see what happened.
1. That re-distribution has drawn my reflections to the attention of the "tradosphere", as perhaps can be seen in my own site statistics, in the comments on the blogs that experienced the re-distribution and in the dialogue in the comments box to my original post. Whether or not it was a strategy that conforms to the etiquette of blogging .... I think it did achieve what the person concerned wanted to achieve. I suspect that I share the frustration of that blogger in trying to get a different perspective noticed, in circles that could usefully enter into dialogue with it.
2. I received a visit from one commenter who appreciated finding an orthodox Catholic blog that was not dedicated to the extraordinary form. My long resisted temptation to put a "TLM free zone" strapline at the top of this blog has instead given way to my coining the phrase the "tradosphere". There might be a lot of "traditional Catholics" out there, either blogging or visiting blogs, but I have begun to wonder if all they are doing is talking to themselves. There is nothing wrong with that, but I feel that one aspect of blogging is dialogue - hence the concept of the "comments box" - and that needs difference.
3. The visitor referred to above indicated that they would look round my blog to see what else I have posted. So, I thought, what should I highlight for them to visit? I think the posts from my visit to Quebec for the International Eucharistic Congress must be up there - go back to June 2008 in the archive for those. I am quite proud of my recent posts for UK National Marriage Week, too (see February 2009). Whoops, sorry, I'll do penance later in Lent for the "proud" ...
4. Up until now, I hadn't really taken much cognizance (good word, that, I think) of what Cardinal Hoyos had said during his visit to England last summer. It was quite interesting to draw the conclusion, not by any deliberate intention, that the head of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei's remarks during that visit were not based on the text of Summorum Pontificum or Pope Benedict's accompanying letter! And it is precisely those remarks that have encouraged the "promotion" of the extraordinary form in the way that I do not believe to have been anticipated/envisaged by Summorum Pontificum itself. The phrase isn't mine, but it does appeal to a mischievous streak: is this "the spirit of Summorum Pontificum" at work?
5. My approach to comments received at my blog. I start with a presumption to publish a comment, in the interests of dialogue. I then apply some filters. Courtesy comes high up my criteria for putting up a comment. I am also rather more interested in posting something that presents a substantial argument, or well argued opinion, and decidedly not interested in the ad hominem, (or ad feminam?); I can cope with robustness if it is in the form of an argument, I can't cope with robustness if it is a personal attack. It is possible to dialogue with a properly argued case or opinion, whereas generalised criticism is actually impossible to respond to (and much of the tradosphere's response to the Tablet article unfortunately seems to me to fall into this latter category). If a comment says something as a statement of fact about something or someone else, I will try my best to verify the truth of that comment before I post it; a clear expression of an opinion will not be subject to that quite so much.
6. And I am still trying to find the answer to a question of a few days ago. If, as I contend, "traditional Catholicism" should no longer define itself by attachment to the extraordinary form, since one of the implications of the language of "two forms of the one Rite" in Summorum Pontificum is that the one form is, juridically speaking, just as "traditional" as the other, then what exactly is the defining character of "traditional Catholicism"?
7. And, for Zero: I haven't stopped blogging. It's just that I got rather tangled in the tradosphere, and am hoping now that I will untangle myself ....