Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Benedict XVI's Reform by Nicola Bux

I have just read this book, published by Ignatius Press. It makes important points on an important subject, drawing on sources such as Sacramentum Caritatis. It is an explanation of Pope Benedict's position on liturgical reform, which is that those who have taken a rigid stand on the Tridentine Mass are as mistaken as those who took Vatican 2 as a go-ahead signal to make things up as they went along.

The current position is that there are two forms of the one Latin rite - the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form. Priests should not be celebrating one to the exclusion of the other. And furthermore, the provisions of Sacrosanctum Concilium should be complied with, which means giving pride of place to Latin, Gregorian Chant and Polyphony. When this is done, as, for instance, at the London Oratory, there is no reasonable ground for criticism of the Oridinary Form of the Mass.

Unfortunately, few of the current bishops have so far taken the Benedictine reforms seriously. Without the support of their bishops, those clergy who do are finding themselves out on a limb, regarded as reactionaries or dissidents. Yet the only point of growth in the Catholic church is within the movement which is reclaiming traditional forms of worship, which are drawing a new generation of young people. Pretty much everywhere else, the story is of continuing decline.

It is a pity that the translation of this book from the original Italian is so awful. It needs to be republished with a new translation, a native English speaker being involved in the final editing. It will then reach the wider audience it needs to be read by.

Kommentarer

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...