Colloquium with László Dobszay

[musicus]

Does the moderated red removal refer to -http://www.caterinati.org.uk/aim.html - Society of Saint Catherine of Siena?

Alas, no. It was, as stated, a flame.

[NorthernTenor]

"Flame" covers a multitude of sins. I'm sure that, on reflection, the individual concerned regretted the allegations he made about two individuals (for whom I happen to have considerable respect).

I guess the lesson is to match location to style. There are some locations that act as safety-valves for strong, ideologically-grounded angst, and they and their interaction make for great entertainment. My impression is that the SoSG and its comment board have a different role.

[Southern Comfort]

The problem is that no one can see who the "flame" was about, due to the vital omission of the conjunction "and". In fact it referred to two people who had already been mentioned in the thread. It was nothing to do with the Society of St Catherine of Siena.

The second problem, which is a moderation problem, is that there is a significant grey area between what can be described as a flame and what can be described as fair comment.

At the risk of getting another warning, I have to say that musicus has evidently not been reading what the said gentlemen have written over the past several years, both in print and on blogs. Nor, it seems, has he been following their activities not only as recorded on various YouTube videos but also in journals which are readily available to the general public. This is what I was commenting on.

At what point can one's reactions to this sort of thing be muzzled? I do think that the whole concept of "fair comment" is a thread which we could legitimately debate.

I do apologise for any distress caused, but I also feel that the Society and its members need to be able to point out when opinions are being quoted which are not necessarily all that they might seem. If there is a better way of doing this, let's hear about it.

[Southern Comfort]

and Alcuin Reid's The Organic Development of the Liturgy is well worth the read - and it says a lot about active participation.

Alcuin Reid's views, while interesting, have been comprehensively hung out to dry in respectable journals such as Worship. While evidently a scholar, he also evidently has a certain agenda which affects his scholarship. I have not read the particular work that presbyter cites (but I will). It could be that this is somewhat different.

[Southern Comfort]

SC wrote:

On a point of fact, the Vatican's English translation of Sacramentum Caritatis contains the following:

I am referring here to the need for a hermeneutic of continuity also with regard to the correct interpretation of the liturgical development which followed the Second Vatican Council

(see footnote [6]).

Yes, but the problem with TF's blog is that at the time he christened it the only relevant quote from BXVI referred to "a hermeneutic of rupture" with the past. TF made up his "hermeneutic of continuity" title out of thin air. The papal coinciding only appears to have come along much later.

[NorthernTenor]

Sc wrote:

Yes, but the problem with TF's blog is that at the time he christened it the only relevant quote from BXVI referred to "a hermeneutic of rupture" with the past. TF made up his title. The papal endorsement appears to have come along much later.

I'm sure Father Tim will be pleased to know of the Holy Father's backing for his interpretation of the Holy Father's approach to liturgy.

[mcb]

To be fair, the phrase hermeneutic of continuity is shorthand: Pope Benedict's original phrase was the "hermeneutic of reform", of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. It's worth repeating because it sets out the priorities succinctly, and in a way that tends to undermine the position of those who routinely invoke the so-called hermeneutic of continuity: (i) reform; (ii) renewal and (only) (iii) continuity.

Worse still is the way proponents usually disregard the word hermeneutic in favour of the word whose meaning they actually understand. The irony is that this usually leads to viewing the last forty-odd years of the church's history as rupture. Which is precisely what Pope Benedict was warning against.

[NorthernTenor]

It is significant that the Holy Father felt it necessary to write footnote 6 of Sacramentum Caritatis, presumably for those who had read his original comments without the benefit of an understanding of his published views on the matter. He defines "reform" in its Catholic sense, as a matter of development in continuity, as opposed to the Protestant or political sense of rupture with the past (his interest in Newman is relevant here). This applies to our forms of public prayer as much as to theology.

Neither Professor Dobszay nor the individuals libelled by SC stand outside this interpretation. All three have dedicated scholariship and good will to the attempt to work out the liturgical and pastoral implications of the Council. We should come out of our comfort zones and engage with them.

[musicus]

The problem is that no one can see who the "flame" was about, due to the vital omission of the conjunction "and". In fact it referred to two people who had already been mentioned in the thread. It was nothing to do with the Society of St Catherine of Siena.

Agreed; I should have made that clearer.

The second problem, which is a moderation problem, is that there is a significant grey area between what can be described as a flame and what can be described as fair comment.

"Fair comment" is not a licence to print whatsoever you like. I judged that two of the comments could be considered libellous and possibly put the SSG at risk of legal action.

At the risk of getting another warning, I have to say that musicus has evidently not been reading what the said gentlemen have written over the past several years, both in print and on blogs. Nor, it seems, has he been following their activities not only as recorded on various YouTube videos but also in journals which are readily available to the general public. This is what I was commenting on.

No-one will be moderated or warned for pointing out my ignorance, but that's not the point. My moderation is neither validated nor invalidated by my knowledge or lack of it. The only criterion is conformity or otherwise with the rules of the forum (to which everyone acceded when they joined).

At what point can one's reactions to this sort of thing be muzzled? I do think that the whole concept of "fair comment" is a thread which we could legitimately debate.

I refute the term 'muzzled'. It implies that fair comment has been suppressed. I removed nothing that was pertinent to the argument. What I removed were phases that, had they been submitted to any responsible newspaper or journal, would not have been printed because they are quite possibly actionable.

I do apologise for any distress caused, but I also feel that the Society and its members need to be able to point out when opinions are being quoted which are not necessarily all that they might seem. If there is a better way of doing this, let's hear about it.

One better way would be to avoid questionable assertions about individuals and to rely instead on rational argument. I am happy to say that this is, in fact, the normal mode of discourse on this board. This is no one-man-blog where anything goes; if it were, you wouldn't see me for dust.

[presbyter]

Just for information - footnote 6 of SC doesn't use the word hermeneuticus in the official text of the document.
It uses explicationis.

Both words can mean a method or style of interpretation.

(6) De necessitate loquimur cuiusdam explicationis continuationis, ratione quoque habita rectae lectionis liturgicae post Concilium Vaticanum II progressionis: cfr Benedictus XVI, Sermo ad Romanam Curiam (22 Decembris 2005): AAS 98 (2006), 44-45.

On a personal note, one document that seems to me to get, as it were, shoved under the carpet and forgotten about, is Mediator Dei - but a comparison of that document with the 1963 Constitution is, in my opinion, an interesting exercise in seeing both continuity and development.

[Southern Comfort]

Thank you, musicus, for the reply.

I obviously accept your opinion of the references concerned, and I want to put on record that my aim in this all along was to ensure that readers of this valuable board were aware of where some of those cited were coming from. I hasten to add that I do not include Professor Dobszay among these, since his scholarship and character are already evident from his writings (not least in the Society's journal). However, some of those who are lending support to him may not be so well known to readers of this board, and it was my intention to provide an indication that their motives may not be (and in my opinion certainly are not, judging from their track records) identical with his.

Perhaps I should have phrased it in this way and left others do draw their own conclusions. Once again, I regret any excess of zeal which may have been perceived.

[presbyter]

Worse still is the way proponents usually disregard the word hermeneutic in favour of the word whose meaning they actually understand.

hermeneuticus ................................. explicationis.

Both words can mean a method or style of interpretation.

LOL mcb - you are surely not suggesting that those using the word ..............

BTW (that's By the way.... in internet speak) - I looked up flame in internet speak and discovered there's also something quite nasty called a troll. Musicus will be hard at work if we ever have one of those!

[musicus]

Thank you, musicus, for the reply.

And thank you, Southern Comfort, for your gracious response.

[NorthernTenor]

Southern Comfort wrote:

my aim … was to ensure that readers … were aware of where some of those cited were coming from … I do not include Professor Dobszay among these… However, some of those who are lending support to him may not be so well known to readers of this board, and it was my intention to provide an indication that their motives may not be (and in my opinion certainly are not, judging from their track records) identical with his.

I see an opportunity for a postgraduate theology student to contrast and compare. Fortunately I’m not one, but my impression is that the three have much in common in their approach, in particular an acceptance that the two main forms of the Latin Rite are both deserving of respect, and that elements of post-conciliar reform and practise are themselves in need of reform, in the interests of continuity with our tradition . Non-specific warnings as to “motives” and “track records” are not helpful.

[musicus]

I think we have achieved as much rapprochement as we are likely to in this matter, so may we please agree to differ and move on?
1st June does seem a long way off