Friday, 9 September 2011


I find it strange that, considering so few bloggers actually condescend to link to me, that I get so many visitors a day - 300 on average. Why do they not link to me? Are they trying to shield their readers from what they might deem heterodox, or extreme, liturgical theology, like private popes ticking off their private Index of Forbidden Blogs, or a mother safeguarding her children from inappropriate reading material? Are adults not capable of making up their own minds? I did. Someone shewed to me the history of the Liturgy, and the dealings of the Papacy with it, and I made up my own mind, and found that the claims of Vatican I were disconsonant with the facts as they now are. Perhaps it's deeper than that, though. Perhaps the moderators of the Great Blogs (and I know they read little old me from time to time, that's what Sitemeter is for!) are scared by what I say, and want to keep their own readers in the dark; in the Romish fantasy land of Summorum-Pontificum-is-the-cure-of-centuries-of-liturgical-malaise, or Anglicanorum-coetibus-will-actually-work, etc.

Oh well, I shouldn't care really. The Romans who read this blog can get on with their new mistranslation and the rite of 1962 to their heart's content - it has nothing to do with me!


  1. The non-Ultramontane, indeed even the anti-Ultramontane, viewpoint put forth on this blog is absolutely vital for the contemporary life of the Roman communion. Would that more sons of Rome were as faithful as you, Patricius, in criticizing Her beastly excesses over the centuries and soundly correcting Her fallible teachings. We can only hope and pray to alter Her course for, Lord, to whom else can we go--particularly if we want to keep (as is our right) our inheritance, the Western liturgy? Sure, there are little pockets of orthodoxy scattered here and there but no Church. Please, Rome, hear us!

  2. I believe Patricius you answer your own question in your post.

    Make nice sophistries about the 1960s liturgy being ancient and venerable and how wonderful the turgid Vox clara usurpation of the 1998 ICEL translation is and you will have lots of links - but would you want them?

  3. Well, not running one of the 'big blogs' I can't say, though the fact that you have in the past been so consistently insulting about other, rather "major" Catholic bloggers (Fr Zuhlsdorf and Fr Blake spring to mind) will hardly have encouraged either of them, or those bloggers who are their friends/allies, to link to you.

    If you burn bridges, you shouldn't be too surprise people aren't keen to build new ones to reach you.

    For what it's worth A Fourfold Vision links to you because even if I think you talk a lot of rubbish at times, it is at least often interesting rubbish. And you tend to choose nice pictures for your blogs.

    And while I'm frequently rude and dismissive about your views, you've always shown the impeccable grace of posting these comments anyway!

  4. Patricii!

    I would link to you if I knew how to link to you.

    My blog is here:

    In caritate Xp.,


  5. I generally publish all comments unless they contain spam or abuse, and you're right Evagrius Ponticus (about Mrs Zed and Blake) - though what makes you think I had them in mind?

  6. Your on my blog roll, I just need to post more myself.

  7. I mention those two particularly only because: (a) you have attacked them in the past, (b) they are fairly trad, (c) they have a fairly large following, and (d) they are fairly well-liked/influential amongst the traddy blog-diaspora.

  8. Patricus I've been linking to you since I started my blog and you never linked back, I just took it as being because I'm not Roman!

    Getting links is never easy, maybe you should take a look at the "guild of blessed Titus Brandsma" and see if they will let you join as a contributor.

  9. May I be honest? I think you're a bit angry and not a lot of people can handle that.

    But you do it with so such wit and charm, that I can't help but read! :)