www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Comparative Liturgics

Dear Alex,

Just a reflection!

Alex quoted by Serge:
"I think all Christians of Particular Churches have great feeling for the amalgam of religious and cultural traditions that constitute their Churches' inner life. But they are the way in which we live our faith and so are integral to our experience of it."

Reflection:
Alex, as usual you have clear insight into the relationship between the human and the spiritual and their interrelationships in the reality of Particular Churches.

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Serge,

A reflection about parts of your posting.

Serge:
"So I'd think. But except for stalwarts like (preschism, for all the Catholics reading) Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Una Voce, not a whole lot of Latins put up a fight when the Amchurchers (and their opposite numbers in Britain and elsewhere) strode into town ...."

Reflection:

How did we get to that one?

Did anyone get pictures of the Striding into Town?
It'd make great theater! What Town? What Striding?

Not real, just like AmChurch. Not REAL!

There was no fight needed. The Council; the bishop of our diocese; the Bishops Conferences, national and international; the Synod of Bishops; Catholics recognized their authentic teachers and those that the bishops authorized to implement the renewal. No need to fight them.

Serge:
"A lot of people quit going to church, though, which makes sense in a way:"

Reflection:
We have discussed the numbers of believers of Churches who attend Church regulary at other times and in other threads on this forum. If I remember those years correctly, there was a loss of practicing Christians across the board. There were many sociological forces at work that explained that.

There were exceptions. They did not unfortunately include the Catholics or the Orthodox.

Serge:
".... though, which makes sense in a way: why go to a half-sed copy of secular humanism in church when the secular world itself does it so much better? Even the art and music are better outside."

And what Church are you talking about here? Is it the Latin Catholic Community down the street? Is it the Latin Catholic diocese made up of communities like the one down the street gathered around their bishop? Perhaps you talk about the Churches gathered around their bishops who are in communion with each other in the United States. Perhaps you speak of all of those bishops who along with all other bishops who share communion with our Patriarch? Since you cite Archbishop Lefebvre, you appear to be talking aout the whole Patriarchy. But I'm not sure.

So what real Church are you talking about? AmChurch is a mental construct, nothing more, nothing less.

What are you saying?

What Church or what in that Church are you talking about as half----....?

Don't you agree that if a Catholic poster here were to say that about Orthodox Churches what you are saying about the Catholic Chruch, you could not tolerate it.

Why should we, Serge?

One last question:
Could you explain how this statement did not cross into Catholic Bashing!

Just calling a spade a spade as I see it.

Now, a simple request. Please do not refer to any private body parts however oblique in your response!

PLEASE.

Steve

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Steve,

I know that you love obscurantism and that you regularly practice it. Perhaps it is your background as an English teacher. Perhaps you like to use vague and imprecise words in order to keep your vocabulary well-stocked.

If you do not believe that the numbers of active worshippers is down, well, I guess you don't like to look at solid figures.

If you don't believe that the numbers of vocations is down there is not much one can do to help you.

If you aren't interested in the investigation as to the cause of these phenomena that is fine, but why then are you posting in response to an observation about declining numbers?

You do use many words. If that is your goal, congratulations.

Dan Lauffer

Dan,

For some reason my response to Serge's posting seems to bother you. It appears to me that it led you to step beyond the bounds of appropriate behavior in your posting. More on that in a paragraph or two.

That is sad, because it appears to me that you have not read thoroughly what I wrote. As we'll see below your posting gives little evidence that you have done so. It seems to me that you not reading has no connection to my writing style.

But let's deal with style since you have taken it upon yourself to raise the issue!

Dan says:
"I know that you love obscurantism and that you regularly practice it. Perhaps it is your background as an English teacher. Perhaps you like to use vague and imprecise words in order to keep your vocabulary well-stocked. "

Dan, it seems to me that you've stepped beyond the bounds of civil behavior for a bulletin board like this one. You have attacked something which any English teacher, student, and anyone who writes knows is very personal, a person's way of expressing himself or herself.

I would think that given your background as a Minister you would understand that. Your way of preaching or speaking or writing is an extension of you.

My writing style is my writing style. Your writing style is your writing style. I work very hard to convey meaning clearly. You work to convey meaning.

If my writing style gets in your way and you dont want to continue reading what I say, I will understand. I wouldn't want to tax your mind with obscurantism or vague and imprecise vocabulary! Feel free to bail out at any point.

If it is important to you to read what I write and you need me to use less developed sentence structure and shorter words in postings to you, let me know. Depending on my schedule, I'll be happy to accomodate you if time permits.

But I would like to point out that choice of vocabulary, my writing style, and genre are mine. They are not a proper subject for negative criticism here. That is not what this Forum is about.

I campaign for the use of respectful language.
I do not use personally abusive language. I do not use inappropriate words. I do not belittle people, institutions, or their practices.

Some posters have used words that are the names of private body parts and suggesting doing impossible things with other parts. A Word meaning to engage in sexual congress was posted in Russian though to his credit the poster did withdraw it.

IT IS MY BELIEF THAT IF A POSTER REFRAINS FROM INAPPROPRIATE VERBAL BEHAVIOR, NONE OF ANY POSTER'S PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES, INCLUDING WRITING STYLE, CHOICE OF VOCABULARY SHOULD BE THE TOPIC FOR A THREAD OR A POSTING OR A PART OF A POSTING!

If you feel that you have a need to talk about such things with any poster, may I suggest that you be courteous enough to speak to him or her privately. I hope that my meaning is clear and that the words are not vague or imprecise. Failing that you may find fewer and fewer posters responding to you.

Why do I feel that your posting has little to with the content of my posting? Since it is appears that you have not even read parts of my posting, I wonder that the issue is not my writing or the issues that you attempt to raise.

I cannot help but wonder if it is realted to the fact that I was asking about words which I believe carry an anti Latin Catholic bias.

I must ask, are your comments a kind of bait and switch using ad hominem tactics.

Now, let's look at the posting by Serge that I was responding to and examine your concerns with my response.

Serge was commenting about this statement by Alex:
"I think all Christians of Particular Churches have great feeling for the amalgam of religious and cultural traditions that constitute their Churches' inner life. But they are the way in which we live our faith and so are integral to our experience of it."

Here's what Serge said:
"So I'd think. But except for stalwarts like (preschism, for all the Catholics reading) Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Una Voce, not a whole lot of Latins put up a fight when the Amchurchers (and their opposite numbers in Britain and elsewhere) strode into town. A lot of people quit going to church, though, which makes sense in a way: why go to a half-a*sed copy of secular humanism in church when the secular world itself does it so much better? Even the art and music are better outside."

Now to the rest of your posting, Dan.

Dan says:
"If you do not believe that the numbers of active worshippers is down, well, I guess you don't like to look at solid figures."


Dan, here's the part of my posting that had to do with numbers. Did you miss it?:

"We have discussed the numbers of believers of Churches who attend Church regulary at other times and in other threads on this forum. If I remember those years correctly, there was a loss of practicing Christians across the board. There were many sociological forces at work that explained that."

"There were exceptions. They did not unfortunately include the Catholics or the Orthodox."

Now, Dan, where did you get the idea that I " do not believe that the numbers of active worshippers is down?"

If you do choose to comment on what you think I said, then be sure to read what I said.

Dan says:
"If you don't believe that the numbers of vocations is down there is not much one can do to help you."

What I don't believe is that I wrote about vocations at all! Please read what I say. Please do not inject what you think I said. Don't chastise me on the basis of something that I did not say!

I don't remember asking for your help or is that hidden in what you see my obscure writing, too? That vocabulary is so vague and imprecise because it does not exist in my posting. At least read what's there not what you think is there! If it's not there, don't claim you can't understand it because its written in the fashion called obscurantism. The problem isn't with words which are not there.

All of this makes me wonder on which end the miscommunication is happening.

Dan says:
"If you aren't interested in the investigation as to the cause of these phenomena that is fine, but why then are you posting in response to an observation about declining numbers?"

The part of Serge's posting that I responded to was about the Latin Church and its members and its practices.

That point of my posting is that I believe that there was inappropriate use of words about the Latin Church or what happens in it. Serge was talking about the Latin Church when he used the term halfa*sed in regard to what happens in the church or in church.

This was not a discussion about numbers. That was a detail used to try to create the impression that what was happening in the church caused loss of attendance without mentioning that there were multiple factors involved in causing that phenomenon.

I noted that we had dealt with the fact of lower Church attendance in other postings and that Serge's assertion was incomplete. There are many sociological developments that played a part in that phenomenon.

If you really are interested in the causitive factors for that phenomenon check out the archives. Don't divert attention by insinuating that I am not interested. You don't know me that well.

I asked Serge why that segment of his posting should not be considered Catholic Bashing.

Dan Says:
"You do use many words. If that is your goal, congratulations."

My friend, your words, though few, speak volumes about who you are and what you are about to a perceptive reader.

That sentence is oblique, not an example of obscurantism. The vocabulary is neither vague nor imprecise. The meaning is there. You just have to work to get it.

It is said with sadness.

Steve

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Inawe

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Inawe

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Inawe

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Dear Steve,

Just a further point here as I am in full agreement with you.

The posters on this Forum really need to avoid personal comments in responding to others with whom they do not agree with.

Yesterday, I was called "not well" and "perverse" in one thread.

I apologised for something I said. No apology for these unacceptable words were forthcoming to me, however - and I won't hold my breath, who cares?

It is no use doing a "tit for tat" thing because the language will only get worse and you'll wind up apologising in the end for everything anyway.

I'm sorry about this, my friend and I say this because this occurs on a site which represents my spiritual heritage.

Alex

Alex,

I did not call you perverse. I said you took a perverse interest in New Skete wackiness. That is very different. For instance, I am a pretty much normal guy. But I take a perverse interest in goats. *no, I am not into bestiality* :-) , but I have an abnormal affinity for these cool animals. I admit that it is abnormal how much I like goats. Therefore, that one instance is "perverse." But I am not a perverse person, because overall, I am normal.

That's how I see what you said. Overall, you are a wonderful person. However, I was highly offended by what I saw as your "perverse" interest and way of reacting (making fun?) of New Skete and Orthodox. That's a big distinction.

Anyway, I don't want to hold grudges or have someone else hurt, either. So I apologize for reacting in a way that was unclear to you and not expressing myself more clearly. I do not think you are a perverse person; rather, I find you to be a very likeable and nice person, with the exception that I did not like what you said yesterday about New Skete. Hope this clears things up.

anastasios

Steve, I always find your posts quite informative and well written. You are very clear and to the point. As for some other posters on here who lack good taste, good manners and Christian charity, do what I do...just ignore their posts. It saves so much on my blood pressure medication. If someone wishes to disagree with me respectfully, I have no problem and love to "discuss" these differences of opinion. But once it turns to anger, personal attacks and abuse I just ignore them. A wise old priest once told me that Christ told us to love our neighbor, but never said anything about liking him or her. He also went on to add that if contact with someone gave rise to uncharitable thoughts or acts, then to avoid them and thus avoid the occasion of sin. It works for me! God bless you dear brother and don't let it worry you.

Don

Don,
Thank you for those most sensible comments. I think I should also act on them.

May Our Blessed Lady Mother of us all and my Mistress keep you in her care.

Angela

Dear Alex and Don,

Your words of support and understanding are greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your sage advice.

Steve
JOY!

Thank you for the inforamtion Anastasios.

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Steve,

I hope you realize that our (Byzantine Catholic) parishes are much more harmoneous than the impression you may have -- even with some of the difficult issues that result from our declining numbers in North America.

Most of the issues that come up here, one would have to sit through alot of parish meetings, GCU golf games, pirogi festivials and Trustee Dinners before the topics ever came up, and when they do it is more inqusitive rather than parishioners with strong, preformed opinions.

In that sense this forum serves a good purpose. It lets members of our Metropolia discuss some matters of interest that they couldn't really find enough interested parties in their parish to form a conversation around. And certainly we get the opinions of several folks who are not Byzantine Catholics was well.

Glad to have you here.

Kurt

Dear Kurt,

Thank you!

I came here to learn, and I certainly am.

Most of it is good. Like anywhere else, when you take a stand against ongoing misrepresentation of fact and belittling behavior, you become a target of those who have no answer except to turn to ad hominem argument and personal abuse.

Silly me, I thought that this place had rules against things like that.

Thanks for your kindness and your presentation of fact when others present misinformation.

Steve
JOY!

Dear Serge,

I am in receipt of your e-mail to me. If you have something that you need to say to me, please say it here. If you say something worth responding to, I'll respond.

Steve
JOY!

Again, Anastasios, thanks for the information. This situation has not come up before for me.


[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Steve,

Posting private messages to the entire forum is against proper netequitte. It was sent privately so as to not involve the rest of us. Please erase your public answer. We don't want to know what you have to say to Serge.

Thank you,

In Christ,

anastasios

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: anastasios ]

I was not familiar with this guide.

Thank you for the information.

Steve
JOY!