Elitoft wrote:
How neat to round up the politicians and lawyers. But in reality, Fr. David's wish, I would think applies more aptly to everyone but those stereotypes. It is those who want a to gain some specific outcome, independent of objective truth, who like to conduct arguments undisciplined by logic and with tendentious twists of words.

And btw, you may are wrong about the "the rest of us". While I have been largely in agreement, at the level of personal preferences, with the Administrator on these threads, I have found the general discourse, sometimes including his, too often flawed and occasionally just irresponsible, IMO. As to the rest of the rest:

Well no wonder! Perhaps, people should post with disclaimers as to whether their discourse is "normal" or not. Perhaps those that know better, can actually help advance the discourse by clarifying rather than muddying the waters of discourse. Classical logical validity is a requisite of a sound argument, but, of course, it is not a guarantee of truth; that also requires the truth of the premises. (If 2+2=5, then I am the pope; logically valid, but I am nevertheless not the pope.)

If the argument is valid and the conclusion is suspect, then let's discuss the verity of the premises rather than introducing some humpty-dumpty view of logic, itself. The latter tactic may be useful to taint an argument without having to do the heavy lifting of verifying premises, but it is flawed, and clarifies nothing; maybe that's the point.

It is certainly why I remain in the discussion, and why I characterize the discussion as often irresponsible. You are suggesting that there is a growing threat of an informed rebellion against this ostensibly secret liturgy. Go figure!

How has this happened?

Has the meme of assimilating this work to all of the problems of the Latins caught hold?

Have the claims of EVIL inclusive language - regardless of what is actually written in LA - caught hold, and with them the nasty allegation that our Bishops are nuts, inspired by the evil one, and/or catering to feminists who want to destroy our church?

Has the insidious tactic of scapegoating Fr. Petras - what a fantastic insult to the intelligence of the many others involved in this work - and transforming this matter into an issue of his personal preferences, which hold other works in "contempt" gained traction?

Has the very innovative idea that the project is tainted by the lack of lay participation - while the level of particpation probably larger than ever before in our church - caught hold?

Has the idea that this work represents disobedience to Rome - an idea that has been tendentiously raised in the past to justify disobedience to bishops - caught on?

And so forth. It is not as a means to advance ANY particular outcomes that I disagree with these tactics. As I said, my personal preferences are mostly in line with administrator's (except I would really prefer more Slavonic). But I can't go along with this highly politicized rhetoric, IMO, which fans the embers of discontent into the flames of rebellion.

djs

That may require a classical use of language.

I'm all for it!

I cannot find this new liturgy. Is it online or isn't it. I checked Father's blog and couldn't find it. Where is it? What's the point of being in a discussion about nothing? Where is this liturgy? Why isn't it posted to some link? Where is it? That lack of visibility is at the crux of the problem. Show the liturgy.

CDL

Dear CDL - go back to page 2, look at my last posting on that page (it's the second posting from the bottom of the page) and you will find where you can order the just-published book which includes the text of the "final version" of the Chrysostom Liturgy as proposed by the IELC in October 2004 - the rest of the book is a critique of that version.

Dear djs - don't worry; most of us can probably tell when somebody is not engaged in normal discourse. But you might wish to remember the story of the poor man who thought he was a worm. [As in Psalm 21:6 :But I am a worm, and not a man). He spent several years in a mental hospital, and was pronounced cured and released.

As he was leaving, carrying his suitcase, the hospital staff and his friends were waving good-bye as he walked to the front gate to catch the bus. Suddenly, as he approached the front gate, he dropped the suitcase, turned round, and ran back to the mental hospital, looking ashen-grey with terror.

The Nurse, alarmed, asked what was wrong. The man gasped: "just outside the gate - CHICKENS!"

The Nurse replied: "Now John, stop this. You're cured. You know perfectly well that you're not a worm. There's nothing to be afraid of."

John answered: "Yes, I know that I'm not a worm. But do the chickens know it?

Incognitus

I heard that the Sisters of St. Basil the Great have a fair amount of influence over the wording of Liturgical texts. I realize from the list of participants of the IELC that none are present on the committee, so does anyone know if there is any truth to this statement? Could they be the "feminist" influence?

I find this second post from djs to be of far greater substantive depth and merit than his first.

I do wish that he and Father David would add something of substance to the substantive observations and questions that now litter the floor of this topic, rather than carping about florid language in more florid language, rather than complaining about not being attended to while ignoring direct and salient questions and observations.

Add a certain weakness to their rebuttals.

Eli

This runs a grave risk of falling into the category of wild speculation. Granted the Sisters did not do the translations for their series of private liturgical prayer books for the Holy Hours on their own, but these texts would most certainly be held up as exemplars of liturgical language, and be credited to the Sisters who print them, sell them and use them.

Orthodox clergy tend to respond quite favorably to them. One of them actually knew personally the priest who had translated much of the text in the Vespers book.

So this would, I think, just roil an already mirky murk.

Eli

This is irresponsible by both posters. I know many of the sisters and have great respect for them. It is fair to say that many of them have bought into the use of gender neutral language (as is evident from their publications, which are otherwise very good and extremely useful). It could also be fair to state that they do share witness with a certain extent with the secular feminists (believing some elements to be good). But it is wrong to suggest that they are somehow the “’feminist’ influence” behind the use of gender neutral language in the proposed Revised Liturgy.

I beg your pardon. The questions that I posed in my second post - first and third copies were deleted, problems with the upload - were lifted from postings on this forum. The quoted comments were, at the time of their posting, either objected to directly, or reported to moderators for action; there were no postings that recognized that the comments themselves are irreponsible. So I am perplexed, why is repeating them considered so?

It is interesting to know that the new Slovak(sic) Recension has rubrics for "the opening and closing of the Royal Doors". I have to laugh as most churches in Slovakia have removed their Deacon Doors. Maybe they need to add rubric about Deacon Doors :p !

Ungcsertezs (The doors, the doors, where art thou Deacon Doors?)

Forum Note:

One of the posters asked me to delete his post because it did not really contribute anything. It seemed wise to also delete those posts which responded to his post. But it appears I have accidentally deleted one too many posts (even Father Anthony’s). If I deleted your post by accident please post your thoughts again.

Admin

Finally!! We are having fun!!

Eli

Admin,

Have you read the book:
Goodbye, Good Men

If not it is a great read.

OOPS !