Passive non-participation

[Nick Baty]

We have no common ground so discussion is impossible.

[NorthernTenor]

We have no common ground so discussion is impossible.

Who are you addressing? NorthernTenor or Contrabordon? Either way, an unwillingness to engage in reasonable discussion, including examination of first principals and their working out, is to be deprecated.

[Nick Baty]

I was addressing Contrabordon.

[MaryR]

Where are the moderators?

NT, you seem to like to press the buttons of certain people, knowing it'll provoke a certain response. It makes the forum feel an unpleasant place to be at times. I'm all for healthy debate, discussion, disagreement, but I'm not in favour of baiting people.

Nick, don't rise to the bait. And PMs are just that - personal messages. They are not to be discussed or referred to on the forum, IMHO.

I think Johnquinn39 raises some interesting points and it's worth continuing the discussion, if we can stay on topic!

[Nick Baty]

Apologies, Mary. Much of this is my fault, not NT's. You know my background and present practice. I realise I am way behind current trends. I'm an old git who doesn't like the way the wind is blowing and I'm too set in my ways to grasp all these new-fangled ideas. That's exactly why I have bowed out of most commitments. My PP reckons he and I could create something of a haven for those who remember the ways things were. (Great song!)

[docmattc]

Where are the moderators?

NT, you seem to like to press the buttons of certain people, knowing it'll provoke a certain response. It makes the forum feel an unpleasant place to be at times. I'm all for healthy debate, discussion, disagreement, but I'm not in favour of baiting people.

Nick, don't rise to the bait. And PMs are just that - personal messages. They are not to be discussed or referred to on the forum, IMHO.

I think Johnquinn39 raises some interesting points and it's worth continuing the discussion, if we can stay on topic!

This one was on his way home from work. I said last night that we should not be grinding axes here, so lets keep to specifics without generalising what others' views might be, without assuming posters' political leanings, without surmising what posters to other fora beleive.

Mary is right, this makes the forum an unpleasant place to be and here we respect other people's opinions even though we might not agree with them. We do not however second guess or extrapolate those opinions.

Lets continue the discussion about the use of 'sacral' language in liturgy, which is essentially what Johnquinn39 was getting at originally.

This moderator is on a fairly short fuse at the moment and off topic or personally directed posts will be deleted.

[NorthernTenor]

Where are the moderators?

NT, you seem to like to press the buttons of certain people, knowing it'll provoke a certain response. It makes the forum feel an unpleasant place to be at times. I'm all for healthy debate, discussion, disagreement, but I'm not in favour of baiting people.

Nick, don't rise to the bait. And PMs are just that - personal messages. They are not to be discussed or referred to on the forum, IMHO.

I think Johnquinn39 raises some interesting points and it's worth continuing the discussion, if we can stay on topic!

This one was on his way home from work. I said last night that we should not be grinding axes here, so lets keep to specifics without generalising what others' views might be, without assuming posters' political leanings, without surmising what posters to other fora beleive.

Mary is right, this makes the forum an unpleasant place to be and here we respect other people's opinions even though we might not agree with them. We do not however second guess or extrapolate those opinions.

Lets continue the discussion about the use of 'sacral' language in liturgy, which is essentially what Johnquinn39 was getting at originally.

This moderator is on a fairly short fuse at the moment and off topic or personally directed posts will be deleted.

Docmatic,

You are not alone in being on a fairly short fuse here, and that's the problem. There have been a worrying number of posts on this forum that seem to have forgotten its guiding principal: dispassionate and reasoned debate, with a good deal of humour thrown in for good measure. I have in the recent past seen grave libel on this board, against named clerics in good standing, without either justification in fact or apology. I was criticised for condemning this behaviour. I have been accused today by another board member, without justification or retraction, of spreading falsehoods about him elsewhere. The same board member has sunk to damning those who disagree with him by association with the "frighteningly right wing" and those who are not to be trusted with the care of children. He then went on to refuse to discuss Contraburdon's perfectly civil protest at this on the grounds that they had "no common ground".

This thread was not begun in a dispassionate, enquiring manner. The opening post did not simply suggest we discuss the place of Latin and sacral English in the liturgy - that was my suggestion, in an attempt to bring reason and focus to the thread. Instead, Johnquinn39 accused those who disagree with him of leaving "people remote (or removed) from the Word of God".

There is, unfortunately, a pattern here. MaryR has now criticised me for disagreeing with people, saying that doing so in the knowledge that others won't like it is "baiting" that "makes the forum feel an unpleasant place". Your response to this as moderator is "Mary is right". All this gives the impression that there is an inward-looking, cosy circle associated with the SoSG that feel they reason, others aren't there yet, and the rest are a threat.

I am aware that not all posters are members of the SoSG - indeed, the intolerance that I have described has led this contributor to hold back from joining, in concern bordering on disgust. However, if the SoSG's board moderators fail to discourage and where necessary prevent such behaviour, it will become a stain on the Society's reputation. I urge you to reflect and act.

Best wishes,

NT.

[Nick Baty]

I have been accused today by another board member...of spreading falsehoods about him elsewhere.

Yes. You have.

And then you go on to do exactly the same thing by saying:

The same board member has sunk to damning those who disagree with him by association with the "frighteningly right wing" and those who are not to be trusted with the care of children

When, if you scroll up, you will see what I actually wrote:

And, yes, many of them are frighteningly right wing. I can think of one where people are openly and unashamedly Thatcherite. If I was fortunate enough to have children, I certainly wouldn't let any of these people babysit!

I said nothing about "those who disagree" with me. I said:

I'm not talking about a preference for these things (Latin Chant and the Gregorian Rite) – which, I'm sure, many on here share – but a demand that this is the only acceptable way forward.

I did not say they were "not to be trusted with the care of children" but that I would not entrust my children to them – a totally different meaning.

[docmattc]

It is only now that I have had chance to carefully digest the contents of this thread, something I should have done earlier in the evening.

I have been accused today by another board member, without justification or retraction, of spreading falsehoods about him elsewhere. The same board member has sunk to damning those who disagree with him by association with the "frighteningly right wing" and those who are not to be trusted with the care of children. He then went on to refuse to discuss Contraburdon's perfectly civil protest at this on the grounds that they had "no common ground".

And I have sinced asked that we refrain from personal comments on the thread, and have deleted the accusation as it was certainly not appropriate for this forum. It is personal asides which take us off topic and make the forum unpleasant. My earlier comment was not sufficiently clear. Please lets move on and leave the personal out of it (everyone).

This thread was not begun in a dispassionate, enquiring manner. The opening post did not simply suggest we discuss the place of Latin and sacral English in the liturgy - it accused those who disagree with the the poster of leaving "people remote (or removed) from the Word of God".

I beg to differ. The opening post made no accusations of "those who disagree with the poster". The opening post stated that there was "a lot of talk" without specifying by whom (although clarifed on a later post) and asked if "we" could "leave people remote (or removed) from the Word of God?".

I have left Nick's post in place replying to NT as I have left NT's post in place referring to personal comments made earlier in the thread. This is the last chance. Can we please attempt to address the original question?

[monty]

There is a lot of talk at the moment about teaching people (the young in particular) Latin, and using archaic and non-inclusive language.

Iam not sure why.

Is there a danger here that we could leave people remote (or removed) from the Word of God?

I have been following this thread but not been moved to comment before now. Like others I do not enjoy reading personal attacks on anyone, be they a member of SSG or not. When a thread becomes nothing more than petty bickering with a 'you said', 'he said', 'she said' and so on I can only think of splinter and planks. There have been times when I have gasped at the outright rudeness displayed and think it is a great shame we cannot all treat each other with respect. My comment over.

On topic, the original post brings back memories of how things were before Vatican II when the only real place for laity (in my opinion, I was only a child so could be wrong) was kneeling in the pews, sitting whilst the detached choir sang and putting money in the collection tray. We turned up for all the processions and there was no choice. The whole neighbourhood was involved so why would we be anywhere else? The most I knew about Epistles was that if you did not get to church before the 2nd Epistle you could not count it as having attended Mass so either had to go to a later one or confess it as a sin.

Did I feel involved? Yes.
Did I understand all the Latin? No.
Was it a way of life? Yes.
Did I feel my religion was the core of my life? Yes.

Now, do I feel involved? yes but mainly because I am in a choir, am a reader, EM, general willing dogsbody
Do I understand the Latin motets we sing? No. Do I feel I need to? No - I am singing to God
Is this a way of life? I make it so but that is not easy and none of my neighbours share this way of life.
Do I feel my religion is the core of my life? No, but I know that God is.

So, I consider arguing about the use of Latin is missing the point. There is another thread about words in hymns we just don't understand and so far no-one has mentioned anything other than English.

I have to leave this for now but surely we can respect each other and respect differences.

[presbyter]

I have also been browsing the Leeds Diocese music list - superb choral music, but the congregational parts and responsorial psalm seem to be absent.

I just had a look - I think the psalms (responsorial and those for Vespers) are simply not listed. I've been to Vespers (but not a sung Mass) in the Cathedral and the congregation had the psalm texts and music for the chants. Leeds does a wide variety of different styles of music. That it's not all listed on the web site doesn't mean it's not there.

[johnquinn39]

Johnquinn39 accused those who disagree with him of leaving "people remote (or removed) from the Word of God".


NT.

Again, mea culpa. I had no intention of accusing anyone who disagrees with me with the above!. I'm sorry if it came over like that.

All the best

John

[Nick Baty]

I had no intention of accusing anyone who disagrees with me with the above!. I'm sorry if it came over like that.

John, you accused noone of anything. What you said was:

Is there a danger here that we could leave people remote (or removed) from the Word of God?

That to me sounds like a rhetorical question – it wasn't aimed at anyone and you certainly did not mention "anyone who disagrees with me".

You raise some excellent points and your posts are always interesting. Keep posting and stop apologising.

[johnquinn39]

Keep posting and stop apologising.

Thanks for your kind words, Nick. However, let me apologise in advance, because I have a few more mea culpas to post!

John

[Nick Baty]

The why not give us one great mea maxima culpa in advance and have done!
Rubbish – I don't always agree with you but you are one of the voices of reason on here!