the result of your post is that I will hesitate in the future to post things I'm doing, or questions I have on this forum.

I hope you don't let one person ruin all the fun helpfulness.

Don't worry little Joe, I'm not going anywhere. I'll still join in on all the fun, I'll just ask my questions privately.

PaixGioiaAmor: Thanks for your input.

Good point, Padster. Some of the EF folks can be the most difficult for OF people to deal with. Their rules are not our rules. We have rules and procedures but they are guidelines, not so much laid-down-from-God law. Also, I think newer rules haven't had the time to become as fixed and inflexible. More of that will be worked out over time.

I don't want to spoil the party....
What I noticed, as did David, is that the timing of the renewed post seemed odd in that we have approximately 320 more days to contemplate the vagaries of the law and the practicums, as we are not even a week into Eastertide, alleluia and all that (???)
Discuss away. Just don't miss the forest for the trees would be my advice.

blink·ered
adjective \ˈbliŋ-kərd\
Definition of BLINKERED
1
: limited in scope or understanding : narrow-minded
2
: a horse fitted with blinders

ZOMG

"'Zounds"? (No, thanks, I know what it really is, folks...)

Isn't there some piece of scifi with a society so advanced it has only two laws? Don't bother anyone, and Don't be easily bothered?

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Zither Or My Guitar?

Apparently some clarification is needed.

I do not see what is so noble or brilliant about having silence

This is sarcasm. Please avoid it. (The rest of the commentary seemed unobjectionable to me.)

And also:

If you can't even handle this kind of criticism from other professionals, how will you handle THAT kind of criticism when it come

Sarcasm from an anonymous person on the internet doesn't count as professional critique. Anonymous users have a special duty to resist the temptation to post messages that they would not write with their names attached.

Sarcasm from an anonymous person on the internet doesn't count as professional critique. Anonymous users have a special duty to resist the temptation to post messages that they would not write with their names attached.

This fries me, to be honest.

Not many here are anonymous. Anyone who has been here any amount of time has/can figure out the true identities of the vast majority of regular posters. I'm "anonymous" in as far as you would have to do some research, combing through many of my past posts to make a case for who I am. This is the method to my madness; sure, someone could reveal my identity and make a case against something I've said, but when I demonstrate how much work they must have had to have done to do so, they end up looking nuts/obcessed.

You want this whole forum to die off and to have no conversation? Try to have people use their real names.

If we used our real names, I'd say almost nothing. Maybe that would be welcome to you. But I don't think many want to give anyone advice or speak openly knowing that their words are google able decades later.

That seems to be your point. Well sometimes people need to be told how it is for their own good and for the sake of their jobs. I don't know what you don't get about that. They don't have to listen and anyone can dismiss the words of anyone that they want to here. I dismiss the words of many here.

But there are NOT many "trolls" here who don't believe what they type and are only doing it to get a reaction. The discussions that go on here are valuable and people are saying it like it is for the good of other people.

That, IMHO is true charity.

I thought sarcasm was when people say the opposite of what they really mean to say.

I honestly meant to say that I did not understand the noble silence concept that was introduced or why the choir later thought it a brilliant idea.

But thank you for pointing out the phrase that you found objectionable. I respect your authority as moderator of this forum, and I will do my best in the future to phrase all aspects of my postings in a way that hopefully will not be considered objectionable.

Open to all.
From Charles Culbreth (melofluent, ie. fluent in melody)
Richard Chonak is our moderator. His integrity is beyond reproach, and his intent is for the betterment of all here, and Christians in general. His heart is true always. He can and admits upon the occasion to an honest misunderstanding.
@PGA- you are an equally treasured colleague, but you are trying to solve some puzzles about the forum of which none of us has all the pieces. It's best not to dwell in guessing others' intents and motivations. Regarding "trolls" here with intent to _____? or do actual damage. Many of us, including myself, can attest to the very unpleasant reality of their presence here. How many of them, or who they are, or such details are irrelevant. These sad souls feed off of any slight pittance of a word or meaning, and will use it not only here, but in others' real lives to wreak havoc, sew suspicion or otherwise demean and as they feel empowered, effort to destroy careers and lives. Don't ever assume this is some college kiosk of ideas.
Like it or not, none of us has a corner on the market of declaring what constitutes "true charity" is here and its going price at any moment. Chonak has the thankless job of actually having to moderate thousands of IPA's and user ID's and he does so with professional courtesy, always.
@Ignoto- where you have erred is not at all concerned with anonyminity or your manipulation of semantics. You have clearly managed to draw attention to an agenda you carry not for the benefit of all, but for some affirmation you require for your POV. How is this conclusion derived? Because you have voiced it three times now, the last occasion two posts prior to this? To what end? To whose benefit or satisfaction? (I venture too close to overkill here, I'm done.)
I am a 63 y.o. naif who still believes in all those noble things we want our fellows to share. But I cannot control how my words are received, so I have to take care in how I say them, or couch them, if I wish to be taken seriously.
And if a couple of my CMAA friends love me enough to work through my foibles and failings, like Chonak has, I am in their debt.

My pastor takes the position that he is the parish liturgist. He can usually produce documents to prove what he says. I have encountered a few of Gavin's experts, too. I usually tell them I don't work for them and to take their complaints to the pastor. That is the end of it.

I'm with PGA; church work requires a thick skin. I used to get fired up about the ridiculous pronouncements by rad-trad fundies here too, but I realized something: They're not at my church. They have no business telling me or anyone else what to do. In fact, most of these people giving their high and mighty pronouncements about silence or what hymns you can or can't use or whatever will go to their own church on Saturday and warble out "Gather Us In" into a microphone attached to their 1973 Baldwin Computer Organ. So if Wendy is doing the best Wendy can in her situation, that's fantastic, and anyone who says otherwise can go suck a lemon.

It's the people in our churches we have to watch out for. And the trads are the worst. In my last Catholic church, the choir would weekly sing the communion antiphon, usually in English to a psalm tone. It was a great struggle to get this accepted. Then one of those young traddy nuns (that some here love so much) came to my church, and started telling everyone in the congregation "he can't do that! He can't chant the proper to an unapproved translation! They have to do the Latin or a hymn!" Two years of work down the drain. Thanks for the help, sister.

We will always have the "experts" with us. As one former boss said, "I don't wish them harm, but I do wish them away."

And I'm with you - except that while I don't think Wendy did anything wrong, neither do I think that the poster who challenged what she did is wrong either. I think her skin was too thin.

Let people talk. Wendy is free to ignore the other person and decide that she's doing the best she can in her situation. She's also free to decide he's right and learn something from him.

Good grief! Agree to disagree, but don't be disagreeable because you don't agree.

You say potayto, I say potahto.
I study Plato, you play the Lotto.
I say tomayto, you say tomahto.
You roast a capon, I keep my cap on.

Right from the gate-o, I sing legato.
But no debate, oh, you sing vibrato.
Strum with a capo an aria da capo.
But where I cain't go is singing bel canto.

Dance 'round the May pole, that would be top hole!
It would be great, oh, down by the Grotto,
Losing our Mo-Jo, playing some Mah-Jong,
Playing with Play-doh, eating gelato.

Gavin's in finals and been in Houston too long! ;-)

Would our lives be substantially changed if the post-conciliar chairperson for the missal was Msgr. Amiable Bugnini?

I have dealt with some of those "rad trad fundies" and they are every bit as bad as the aging flower children who want to give peace a chance. The solution would be a large boat in the middle of the sea with all of them on it. Then a storm of biblical proportions. Nah, it will never happen. LOL

Wendi, ya must be doin' something right, then!

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Dixit PGA:

Personal criticism would be "Chonak is overweight."

However, it would be completely factual!

The Church should bring back the Lenten Fast as is was prior to Pius X (I think 'twas Himself): Completely meatless all of Lent, and only a certain number of OUNCES of food per meal per day, based on one's state in life. (Massive amounts of Purple here)