Unreal. This sort of convolution still exists?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,676
    Don't read Pray Tell. It's bad for you. As for the author's conversion, I think he lost his mind rather than converted.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,937
    My god within is one with Your Within-ness and together we attain ... uh... nirvana? Come on now, you need to explore the space!
  • My loud drunken neighbors tried that argument on me once. It doesn't work in that context either.
  • MBWMBW
    Posts: 175
    While I am in sympathy with the OP's comment on PT, I wonder if the comments on his post above evince a lack of charity which does the cause of sacred Sacred Music little good.

    I believe such comments give many a reason to ignore the valuable insights and information posted on this board.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Let's have a plebiscite. A synod. A Sensitivity Training Seminar. You can rest your case, MBW.
    Sarah's Circle will win the day.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,676
    Let's have a sensitivity training seminar. I have always wanted to smack a facilitator.
    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • MBWMBW
    Posts: 175
    Pat and Mike are talking about people who don't see eye to eye with them about (insert controversial subject here).

    Pat: That guy is a (insert derogatory term here) because he won't do what we believe is right.
    Mike: Maybe he would be more receptive if you did not call him a (insert same derogatory term here).
    Pat: You are a (insert same derogatory term here).

    To quote Fred Allen, the moral is: "You can lead a horse to water, but an architect makes his own plans."
    Thanked by 1JL
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,937
    MBW

    Never make personal accusations. That is the forum decorum here.

    Theology, however, is always fair game. If you take a remark toward a belief system, philosophy or theological perspective personally here or anywhere else it is because you have chosen to make it personal. If you choose to share a perspective here, you can be sure I personally will 'test the spirit'. It is what we are commanded to do in the scriptures.

    Plenty of people challenge my position here. Some have even taken personal swipes at me.

    Adam, I find it amusing (and ironic) that you would thank above said comment since you personally have called me a nut, but hey, who's keeping score?

    If you cannot separate the 'valuable information' that is found here from the person who deposits it, then I would say you are going to have a difficult time figuring out what is right from wrong.

    By the way. Anyone who comments here without sharing his/her true identity isn't willing to share credibility.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,428
    Adam, I find it amusing (and ironic) that you would thank above said comment since you personally have called me a nut, but hey, who's keeping score?


    I also said I liked you.
    In the same sentence.
  • MBWMBW
    Posts: 175
    Francis,

    I don't believe I made any personal accusations. My comments were about other comments, not about the people who made them. If any of my comments were taken as ad hominem, then they were not taken as I intended.

    Thanked by 2CHGiffen CharlesW
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,937
    MBW

    I know YOU didn't make any ad hominem attacks. I was just stating the rules of the forum here, and making it clear that theology/philosophy is fair game. You should also take note that none of US have made ad hominem attacks either on the particular commentator. We simply look at the matter (content) submitted and provide our own commentary. If our commentary holds some sarcasm it is probably because we used to think the same way at some point in time. Don't take it personally or project our sarcasm toward yourself or the 'victim'.

    In other words, people need to get over it.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,937
    I also said I liked you.
    In the same sentence.

    Ohhhhh!!!! So as long as I say, "I like you", with a smile while stabbing you in the back, I'm good, eh? You can still keep my hymn arrangement I made for you. No hard feelings. (actually, I was quite offended and I was surprised it was let go as it was. The moderator should have stepped in and said something. It was a direct personal attack... and as you can see, I am still very hurt.)
  • MBWMBW
    Posts: 175
    MBW

    Never make personal accusations.


    and then

    MBW

    I know YOU didn't make any ad hominem attacks.


    You should also take note that none of US have made ad hominem attacks either on the particular commentator.


    after

    As for the author's conversion, I think he lost his mind


    What am I missing here? Nothing.
    I guess I will go to my sensitivity synod and try to get over it.


  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,428
    Really? Gosh - I'm sorry. I really didn't mean to offend you. A lot of my friends are nuts.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    MBW, in all sincerity- as you and Mr. Flowerday have both mentioned CharlesW's comment as uncharitable, may I offer some perspective? CW is one of this forum's most accomplished pundits and comedians. If you are a habitué, you know that's a given. Of course, there is some merit to your contention that an MSForum naïf would not have that perspective, and reject his mirth as insensitive, callous or uncharitable. CW is a major musician who takes no salary from the Roman Church (he is Byzantine) for his services as an organist choirmaster. Plus, like me, CW is long in the tooth and, like Grampa Simpson, a geezer prone to ignore political correctness as a total waste of time, breath and bandwidth. YMMV.
  • MBWMBW
    Posts: 175
    melofluent,

    Thanks for the gracious word of context. I have had my say on this topic and look forward to future lively discussions.

    Re teeth, I am beginning to trip over mine.
  • I have no idea whether any of the above was directed my way -- you all are far too rhetorically sophisticated for me to untangle such intentions. But, as I was one of the early commentators, and so, I suppose, my comment was possibly an object of attack, here, let me unpack my brief remark, behind which I stand with two feet.

    The argument of the referenced post, insofar as there was an argument, seemed to be this: "These people seemed to me to be behaving wrongly. But then I chose to become one of them, and learned to engage in the same behavior with them, and now I feel a sense of fellowship with them and we all seem to be getting a lot out of this activity. So the behavior is just fine."

    Now, the behavior may, or may not, be just fine -- and I'm serious about the 'or' in that assertion; adjudicating that issue wasn't my point. My point was that the argument (more of a story than an argument, really) for the conclusion that their behavior is just fine is a horrible argument, and is not a story that anybody should take seriously (at least not in favor of that conclusion). As an experiential story in favor of a point of view, it applies just as well to the behavior of drug addicts (and my rude neighbors).
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,921
    We are told not to be conformed to the world, but maybe that is what happened to the writer of that piece. He saw the congregation around him acting in a somewhat worldly way, a way that failed to acknowledge the transcendent character of the Holy Sacrifice, which happens at every Mass. After a while, he adopted their this-worldly focus and he thinks he's better off for doing so.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    MD, it is ghastly astonishing as to what lengths people of persuasion go to caricature a reasonable assessment of an ill-composed reflection that has the implication of "God's will" as a rhetorical raison d'etre.
    "You traddies are mean." "CMAA fosters group-think counter to the mercy of Jesus." You only see negative connotation to everything."
    I've had enough. I'm not a CMAA shill, nor would Mahrt or anybody else I know in CMAA demand that of me or anyone else. I'm beyond saturated with the reactionary propaganda that all of us, CMAA or not, are Pharisee-cloned nay-sayers to intellectual freedom and expression. It's the same leftist tack imposed in secular media and politics. And it's tiresome, dishonest and needs kicking to the curb.
    If I wanna tell a CMAAer I like certain Joncas pieces, then damn the torpedo's. If I wanna say that yakking sucks at Mass, well consider me Jesus with a whip.
    I've had it with wimpy Christianity. Here endeth my lesson, my rant.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW francis
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,676
    Thanks for the kind words, Melo. The original article seemed to me a case of an individual going along to get along. Perhaps, not knowing that individual, there is much more to the story. However, there is too much of an entertainment mentality coupled with worship these days. I have never been convinced that the main purpose of attending church is to socialize. A bit old-fashioned, but worship of God and giving Him undivided attention seems closer to what we all should be doing. Granted, the ADHD generation can't sit still for long without fidgeting with something. I am sure it can be blamed on everything from TV in childhood, over-stimulation in general, or to parental drug use before their birth - as I have heard a couple of psychologists say about school children. You should sit in the loft with me and see the cell phones come out during the sermon - our sermons are not that bad and are generally worth hearing. It's crazy! I have found a good deterrent to talking after dismissal is an old but effective device called the sforzando. LOL
    Thanked by 1bhcordova
  • kenstb
    Posts: 364
    This is an interesting thread. I agree with Charles W, and have tried the postlude route. Unfortunately, in my neck of the woods, the pastor is opposed to it.
    Francis, don't take to heart that anyone thinks that you're nuts. People who change the world are always a little crazy.
    Thanked by 2irishtenor francis
  • I guess I don't really get it - why can't the people just talk out in the vestibule of the church (or in the parking lot)? Isn't that the reason more churches are building or adding "gathering spaces"?
  • Unfortunately, in my neck of the woods, the pastor is opposed to it.


    Yeah, I'm sick to death of what Pastors are opposed to.
    Thanked by 1kenstb
  • worship of God and giving Him undivided attention seems closer to what we all should be doing


    But you can do that anywhere. The purpose of getting together to worship God at church, and in particular by celebrating Eucharist, is that we're doing it as a community. Being community requires actually communicating with other people, not just sitting silently alongside them.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,676
    You join with them in adoring the living God. You don't need to exchange recipes, sports scores, compliment clothes, check your cell phone for Facebook messages, or any of the other garbage that passes for "community."
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,937
    thank you, Adam. Apology accepted... on with our nutty forum.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Xpost from commentary at PTB:

    We have seen what happens when a community of people, for good or ill, chooses to disregard self-discipline and then chooses to behave individually no matter at what expense to the greater society. That is likely too abstract a concept to apply to this discussion.
    Let’s frame the same concern more analogously to the situation of church worship. When individuals assemble to take in a film at a movie theater, they do so knowing there are basic if not minimal conventional behaviors they must adhere to in order to maximize their experience and enthusiasm for this type of social and aesthetic exchange. Whether it is profitable to debate that licentious, un-bridled social behaviors were dealt a blow with the institutions of television and video, electronic gaming and social media becoming ensconced is actually irrelevant here. Who among us has not noticed or acknowledged that at least one if not three generations of folks are ignorant by omission/commission of social mores when they go to the concert hall, the movie theater and certainly the church. Focusing upon the most pervasive of these, that reality impugned upon the majority of film-goers expectation of maximizing the movie experience with all its rituals when infants and toddlers howled, elderly folk, teens and others did not curtail their chatting during the film, and the now ubiquitous interruptions that smart phones elicit. So, what happened? The film industry, unlike the music industry, cannot privatize the movie experience as of yet. The industry along with the theater providers were compelled to articulate and enforce the minimal standards of personal behavior of all in the confines of the movie theater. (Were that likewise the circumstances of school and professional concertizing, musical theater and other artistic presentations.) The result in 2015 is that anybody viewing a film in a theater has a reasonable expectation that their fellows will conform their individual behaviors so that all may benefit for the better.
    I realize that taking in a movie is not at all aligned to the experience of corporate worship. God forbid that the RCC would relent to conventional wisdom and install bistros, concessions, and stadium sound systems that enable folks to freely move, talk, converse on media if their personal interest in what is happening on-stage wanes. But in actuality, the real issue of this discussion ought to be who has the authority to determine that code of conduct for worshipping congregations? A congregation is not the same as an assembly, as it infers an overarching consensus as to what is to happen at worship. So, if there’s an ersatz and ad hoc (perceived) consensus of free license, I’m okay, you’re okay comportment at worship, rest assured that there are very unhappy people that you’ve marginalized because you self-perceive you’re in the majority. That doesn’t at all seem like we care for the least and last in that schema.
  • That's very nicely put.

    I think that there are abstract concepts that very well do apply to the case at hand, and indeed are at the heart of the problem. Here are two of them:

    "What seems to me to be good and right is so."

    "An action is good if its consequences are so."

    I don't know how to make sense of the original post (not yours but the one to which you link) without these principles, and I strongly suspect that both are at work, perhaps only implicitly. They are among the worst 'abstract, philosophical, evils' of the 20th-21st centuries I can think of, and infect the thought of a great many people, alas. (They did not originate in the 20th century, but they rose to public prominence then, and are now all but 'common sense'.)

    Whether putting the matter in those terms, on that particular web site (which I had never visited -- at least to my recollection -- prior to following your link), would be at all effective, I have no idea.

    Anyway, your analogy is a nice one and your careful application of it seems to me to be effective.
    Thanked by 1melofluent
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,083
    Charles, I agree that Mass should be for worship and to be with God in His house. Therefore, I dress up in suit & tie for Mass to remind me and those around me that this is a solemn occasion (most of the time, sometimes I put on a dress shirt and a sports jacket - usually in the Summer.)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,676
    bhcordova, I can't say I do all that with the choir loft having a uniform year-round temperature - hotter than hell. I do, however, dress decently in slacks and dress shirt with bowtie, of course, on special occasions. I am always a bit puzzled when I look out over the almost off-color t-shirt slogans and scantily clad parishioners. I guess I should be glad they came, since many other things compete for their attendance and attention.