In your soon to be published book, do the anti-Novus Ordo (New Mass) part, interspersing it with with the pro. Can you do that, Jim? Keep it dry and detached? If you try, yes. But will you try?
Jim: Good question.
Make your posts a foreshadowing of arguments to be fleshed out along the way.
And remember: keep it flat and noncommittal. It’s only right and it’s less you might have to apologize for.
Be not overly concerned with order and sequence, but be willing to test your readers for their ability to connect things. Does that mean not concerned at all? Hardly. That would be a slatternly procedure, to be sure.
Go rather for the lasting image or hit-home phrase, the (dare I?) poetic. Absolutely. Do not shrink from the poetic. Do you dare?
Don’t overdo the explanatory or saying where you got such and such, as from so and so, who is not paying attention anyhow and furthermore probably does not give a care.
For instance, recall the Synod of Pistoia, a regalist gathering called for by a secularly reforming grand duke seeking to clip papacy’s wings who got almost no local support in his territory Tuscany, as we saw in the last installment.
The duke and the bishop who sided with him lost that one, we have seen. The bishop resigned, the duke lost and when he went on to become emperor, the air had been removed from his balloon, even before the pope kiboshed the whole matter.
It would after all be a several generations later before papacy wings were clipped — by Garibaldi’s and his red shirts, chasing the Vatican I bishops and cardinals from their holy city.
We have noted too that the Pistoia proposals were eerily prognosticative of the yearning for vernacular liturgy, instituted 150 years or so later.
Pistoia was too much, too soon, a trial balloon of liturgical and other change and became a mere footnote. . . . .
more more more . . .