Fr. Serge,

You too should watch what you post. It is IELC we are speaking of rather than ICEL. Would that have happened as you posted, perhaps things would be more orthodox in the RCC.

My defense of DJS was more of an attempt to inject some logical reasoning into an otherwise emotionally charged debate. This, as most of my previous attempts, failed.

Steve

Sorry, Steve, but you missed it here. djs’ logical flow was clear. He stated: 1) that opponents conspired to disseminate a critique of the work, 2) that such conduct would be considered a major ethical lapse in the world of SA, and 3) that in the world of SA it would certainly have professional consequences and perhaps legal ones as well.

It is clear that djs meant to issue an accusation and to judge those who disseminate the review as immoral, unprofessional and possibly illegal. There is no other reason for him to have introduced such a comparison.

The problem is that djs has no foundation for his statement. No one has come forward to tell us why they chose to disseminate the book. Djs assumes that their intent was nefarious. Why does he do so? How does he know this? How can he be certain that those who disseminated the book were not invited by someone in authority to do so? Or received a blessing for that work? How does he know that their intent was nefarious?

Djs’ comments remain irresponsible. I have accepted his attempt to clarify them as a withdrawal of his accusation and an apology.

I agree with your first comment, although probably differently than you meant it.

I disagree with your second comment. No one has provided evidence of that those who disseminated the book conspired to do anything except begin a discussion about a potential major change to how Byzantine-Ruthenians celebrate the Divine Liturgy. No one can claim it to be true that the person or persons who disseminated the review meant anything more.

The whole discussion on the Forum is the realm of private conversation. No bishop has given a blessing for these discussions and, as far as I can determine, no one has taken anything from these discussions back to those in authority for consideration. Even with the participation of learned folks like Father David and Father Serge this whole discussion remains in the unofficial category. Compare it, if you will, to a discussion during coffee hour after Sunday Divine Liturgy. There is no way anyone can suggest that the discussions on this Forum equate to a very public and open discussion of the Revision to the Divine Liturgy guided by the bishops. [Let’s face it, only a small percentage of the Ruthenian clergy and people are internet savvy and know about this Forum, let alone participate here. The greater part of these discussions most certainly occur in local parishes after Sunday Divine Liturgy with coffee in hand.]

I am confused. We are confused. He, she it is confused.

Eli

PS: The ICEL is a bug bear abt. copyright. They went bonkers when people began translating and distributing Vatican II documents into English and making them public at the very time that they were making uncalled for liturgical decisions in text and in rubrics and music. Some people could then rightly say "Vatican II did not mandate THIS!!" Heaven forefend!!

So too their texts were distrubuted in draft form however all orthodox commentaries against weak theology and poorly constructed text, inclusive language, and other related banalities were ignored.

True.

And since this is the case then djs should not be called to task quite so harshly for expressing an opinion over coffee and donuts.

Why would one bristle over donuts and coffee, at a comment which carries no more weight than a sneeze, a wink or a nod carries during the homily?

Eli

I'll just quietly exit this discussion, while I still have my dignity.

Steve

It broke the tension in a way and was a great distractor from something that should have been kept private in the first place. You are a knight, as Father Deacon Brown might say, not a knave!

Have you read any of my typoos leightly?

Eli

Because even over coffee and doughnuts it is irresponsible to make accusations that cannot be proven.

The discussion on both sides of the issue of liturgical reform has been strong, born of strong beliefs either towards reform or towards the official Ruthenian liturgical tradition. For the most part it has been free from personal judgments. If you look at my posts on this topic, for example, I have strongly stated that I believe that those proposing reform are well intentioned even though I strongly believe that they are wrong. djs has crossed the line by making an accusation by comparison that those who disseminated the review of the Revised Liturgy are somehow nefarious. Your own posts have come very close to the line of personal judgment of those in authority. Unless one has proof and is willing to document it, the only thing one can do is to assume that those in authority (or those one disagrees with) are mistaken in their facts / position on the issue / judgment of an issue while also assuming good intent of that individual. And, of course, if one does have actual proof of wrong-doing the matter should be taken to those in authority and not placed in the public forum for discussion.

Dear Administrator,

I know that you came back and tried to soften some of your early language in this discussion, particuarly toward Father David and the committees. And I think you should be allowed to have those second thoughts and express them and I appreciated them, and took them quite seriously given the many levels at which you invest your entire person in this Church, in her liturgical life.

Additionally, I don't think it was a bad thing for you to point to djs's recent comments and suggest a second thought or two on his part. I think that was warranted.

I do also think, given ALL that has been said here, by many, that to single djs out for an especially threatening reprimand was a little too much. I don't say that to challenge your right to do that as owner here. I simply say that I did not see djs's words as any more than ill advised or perhaps simply too emotional for the time and place. I saw them as reflective of a belief that there's been an injustice done in some way to the good intentions and work of the liturgical committees. And perhaps, in charity, he has a point.

I don't agree with him, but I don't feel as though the committees or the members have truly been threatened by djs's comments. Nor has Father Serge. Not in any meaningful or real way.

I am sorry Father was put on the spot like that but we are all on a spot in this and trying hard to keep things moving and substantial and of some use and merit. I do not want to loose the great good that's coming from these discussions, however informal.

I apologize to you now for any distress I am causing you and to the memebers here. This is not a revolt against your authority as much as a plea for mercy for djs's distress which is as real and warranted as your's and mine for that matter.

Thank you for being patient with me in this. I will give you the last word here, as owner, and because I have said all that I see that is needful to say in this note.

Eli

Can't say I care for coffee and doughnuts. I also can't say that I'm sure what in my reference to ICEL has distressed Steve.

I was not confusing ICEL with the IELC; I was contrasting the behaviour of the one with the behaviour of the other. I have good reason to know that when ICEL sent out drafts for comment, they included serious warnings against disseminating or reproducing the draft. IELC did not take such precautions - that's all I said. I was not thereby praising ICEL.

ICEL maintains the tightest control over its material - even if permission is obtained to reprint something or other, it is still not permitted to change the pagination and/or the capitalization, let alone the text. This simply isn't the case with the IELC's materials, past or present.

Fr Serge

Apropos to nothing but a terrible nosiness, what do you enjoy for a light breakfast or afternoon pick-me-up?

I do not much care for donuts at all.

I like a quick bread or pound cake with a light pour of cream and berries of some kind tea or coffee, Arabic coffee if I can be home to make it.

My father used to like garlick dills and a beer.
He used to serve my sister, as a toddler, limburge cheese and crackers with her pickles.

I stayed as far away from that party as possible.

Eli

Personally, I think y'all ought to ease up on DJS. I don't think he meant what it is said he meant. Or at least did not intend what was attributed to him AS intent.

So, has anyone ordered books yet?

If someone has ordered books, where did they order the books from? When does payment have to made? Do they have any idea when they will receive them?

(I'm beginning to wonder if the process has really gotten this far along, or if someone has just been crying wolf.)

Thanks to Steve, Eli, and Staro. But I hope you don't mind if I disagree on a point. I don't think that there should be any lightening up in moderation; instead, I would argue that we all be held to higher standards. And if my posts appear to cross some line, I welcome that perception being called to my attention so that I may address the issues raised.

Along these lines, I want to reiterate a comment of Fr. David: "I agree ... that we should discuss the substance, but the problem is that in so many cases a “spin” is put on my words that was not there ... ". I would like to think that once a clarification has been given, thne that would settle the issue of what the words of a post meant. I am thus sorry to see the adminsitrator persist in repeating the charge that I made an accusation - even an " accusation by comparison". This is an erroneous interpretation of my post.

Fine so far.
Gonzo.
An utter misinterpretation.

The idea of "accusation by comparison" might hold water, if I had made a comparision.
Suppose I said Case A is like Case B in this way and that way, and this and that. Moreover, the actins taken in Case B would be considered unethical and possibly leagally actionable in Case A. Then the one might readily infer that the intention was to extend the similarities of Case A and B ethical and legal consequences of the actions.

The problem with this interprestation is that it is pretty much the opposite of what I wrote. I did not compare the two models of dissemination, I contrasted them, and starkly so. I pointed out ways in which the models suggested and used by Fr. Serge were very different.

I continued this contrast in the next paragraph, in which I noted the distinctive ethical and legal standards in Scientific publication.

The adminsinistrator claims that "There is no other reason for him to have introduced such a comparison (sic)." Huh? I am sure that with a little imagination several will come to mind. But I already indicated the reason of the person who wrote the post: I felt it worthwhile to underscore the inadvertent irony in post of Fr. Serge.

It is so easy to complain - as has been done for years - about the process that is being used by our Hierarchs for the preparation, review, editing, publishing, and dissemination of new materials. But when other processes are suggested, it is easy to see that they have their pitfalls too. Some suggestions, like the Scientific American model, probably have very little to recommend them in the liturgical case. Apparently so little in fact, that the model was not used by the very person who suggested it. That irony underscores the difficulty in establishing a model that will satisfy all parties. And may help give some perspective to the various complaints about process.

I've had scones with clotted cream, but, while off to the mountains, I stayed at a B&B that served them in a bowl with a "light pour of cream".
Never had them like that before, but always will now.

Djs,

Nice try at spinning. But it’s not going to work anymore.

Please re-read your own posts in this thread.

You most certainly did make accusations (see primarily your post dated 07-29-2006 07:04 PM but also the post dated 07-29-2006 03:11 PM).

You most certainly did make charges of misconduct (see primarily your post dated 07-29-2006 07:04 PM).

A motivation to make false accusations and charges of misconduct can only be to start an argument or to lead the discussion away from the issues and towards personalities. That is known as flaming.

You have a long history of flaming and then, when called out for it, claiming that everyone misunderstood what you wrote. It is not going to be tolerated any more.

You have earned yourself a 30 day timeout. Like other posters who have earned timeouts, if at the end of 30 days you can acknowledge your flaming, promise to change your posting style and then follow through with a style that is less flaming you may resume posting on the Forum.

Since djs has pretty much ruined this discussion I am closing this thread. I suggest that those who wish to continue the discussion begin a new thread.

Admin