Anglicans Like Talking

[Nihil Obstat]

From MCJ


LAODICEANS

Friday, March 26th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 18 Comments

God bless ’em, as Joe Biden might say, you can set your clocks by Anglicans:

[quote]The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops, concluding its six-day retreat meeting at Camp Allen in Navasota, Texas, has posted a draft of the long-awaited 95-page report titled “Same-Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church” on the College for Bishops’ website here.[/quote]

Does ANYBODY not know what’s coming next? Because I don’t see how that’s possible.

[quote]“For a generation and more the Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican Communion have been engaged in a challenging conversation about sexual ethics, especially regarding same-sex relationships in the life of the church,” Theology Committee Chair and Alabama Bishop Henry Parsley wrote in the report’s preface. “The hope of this work is that serious engagement in theological reflection across differences will build new bridges of understanding.”[/quote]

Yup. We’re going to keep talking about stuff.

[quote]“I think the house believes that the progress that was made both in terms of the more well-known conservative viewpoint, for lack of a better term, as well as the creative theological work of the more liberal group, again for lack of a better term to characterize them[How about apples and oranges? - Ed], did provide some new theological insight and grist for conversation,” he said. “But we all believe and are of a mind that there is more work to be done in pursuing strictly theological and biblical insights that will give the church some kind of resource to work toward finding a way to live together in the midst of some rather strong differences among many of our members, clergy and congregations.[/quote]

And talking about stuff.

[quote]“The reception was less than thrilling,” Smith wrote of the papers in his blog. “One bishop pointed out that there was nothing new in the arguments, stuff we have heard 20 years ago. Still, I guess that it is a good thing that we are still at the table exchanging views.”[/quote]

And talking about stuff.

[quote]Meanwhile, Rickel wrote that he was “a bit disappointed with the report itself, which was really simply two papers, one from the conservative viewpoint, and one from the progressive viewpoint.” Rickel noted that the paper did “provoke very good discussion.”[/quote]

And talking about stuff.

[quote]Lambert, Diocese of Dallas bishop suffragan and member of [the] meeting’s planning committee, wrote on the Anglicans United website that the report “was received with some caution and we will continue to use the report as a basis for further conversations and it should not be seen as the definitive statement of the church’s statement on same-sex relationships, although some would see it as so.”[/quote]

I wouldn’t worry about that, Bishop. Episcopalians have never ever come up with a definitive statement about anything. These days, they don’t need to what with their inclination to establish facts on the ground first and ask questions later.

It must be hell to be married to an Anglican. Trying to work out where the family vacation’s going to be this year has to be excruciating.

Your Anglican husband wants to visit Europe, the Far East or some such place, your gamer son wants to go, “I dunno, someplace kewl, uh kay, whatEVER,” your sweet little daughter wants to go to Disney World to see Mickey again while you finally want to fulfill your lifelong dream and visit Webster Groves, Missouri.

So the four of you talk about it. And talk about it. And talk about it. And talk about it. And talk about it. And talk about it. And talk about it. And talk about it. And talk about it. And talk about it. And talk about it.

The thing is, you don’t realize that your Anglican husband is already on the best vacation he could possibly be on and your family hasn’t even left the house. So when you finally lose it, stand up and scream, “croutons on a stick, just PICK one!!” you’re in for the worst vacation of your entire life.



All links are in the [url="http://themcj.com/?p=10501"]main article[/url].

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='26 March 2010 - 12:55 PM' timestamp='1269626102' post='2080681']
From MCJ


LAODICEANS

Friday, March 26th, 2010 | Uncategorized | 18 Comments

God bless 'em, as Joe Biden might say, you can set your clocks by Anglicans:
[/quote]


<Smooch> I love you, too, Nihil. Not all Anglicans talk too much. And, I could show you some examples of findings of Catholic committees that aren't models of concise prose. But, I'm not going to bother because I have better things to do.

Heck, if I had my way, we could shorten the "begats" by a lot, and not really miss anything. "A bunch of people reproduced."

Let's not limit it to Anglicans. I vote we banish "committees" and "commissions" altogether, particularly governmental ones. It would save a lot of time and paper.

So, where do you want to go on vacation? LOL

Edited March 26, 2010 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='26 March 2010 - 05:12 PM' timestamp='1269641540' post='2080928']
<Smooch> I love you, too, Nihil. Not all Anglicans talk too much. And, I could show you some examples of findings of Catholic committees that aren't models of concise prose. But, I'm not going to bother because I have better things to do.

Heck, if I had my way, we could shorten the "begats" by a lot, and not really miss anything. "A bunch of people reproduced."

Let's not limit it to Anglicans. I vote we banish "committees" and "commissions" altogether, particularly governmental ones. It would save a lot of time and paper.

So, where do you want to go on vacation? LOL
[/quote]
I'm so sorry! Forgot that we had a practicing Anglican reading threads regularly now. Hope I didn't offend you.

[Innocent]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='27 March 2010 - 04:42 AM' timestamp='1269641540' post='2080928']
Heck, if I had my way, we could shorten the "begats" by a lot, and not really miss anything. "A bunch of people reproduced."
[/quote]

An Anglican who prefers prosaic prose to poetical language? [i]That[/i] is unusual. I would have thought all Anglicans loved the beautiful prose of the Authorised Version.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Innocent

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Innocent' date='27 March 2010 - 02:19 AM' timestamp='1269674346' post='2081193']
An Anglican who prefers prosaic prose to poetical language? [i]That[/i] is unusual. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/lol_grin.gif[/img] I would have thought all Anglicans loved the beautiful prose of the Authorised Version.
[/quote]

I'm not going to pretend that my preferences are consistent.

For the liturgy, I definitely prefer the prose of the St. James Bible and the older 1928/1662 Anglican Books of Common Prayer over the new translations/rites. From my childhood memories, I can still sing virtually the whole eucharistic service from the 1928 version. For me, liturgy is as much an emotional experience as an intellectual one, and the more "modern" language "gets in the way" for me.

But, for Bible study, I think accuracy and understanding the original intent is more important than the "beauty of the language." So, actually, I use a Catholic translation "The New American Bible." I admit that I stumble on phrases that I don't think are as "pretty," but because Biblical scholarship has advanced, I use this translation, because it is more accurate. I also like the fact that my NAB, at least, has lots of notes.

As for the "begats," as an editor, I find them repetitive. But, I'm sure that a scholar of Judaism and ancient Hebrew would be able to explain to me their purpose, and then they wouldn't bore me so much.

[mommas_boy]

I sense a brutal bible battle brewing.

How's that for poetic language?

Edited March 27, 2010 by mommas_boy

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='27 March 2010 - 02:54 PM' timestamp='1269719654' post='2081466']
I sense a brutal bible battle brewing.

How's that for poetic language? [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/P.gif[/img]

[/quote]

LOL! Well, they're won't be any battle brewing from my end. I'm not a biblical scholar, nor do I pretend to be. In college, I had a friend who was a grad student in Classics and an Catholic ex-brother (not sure what order he left). While we sat with our English translations, he was able to read Greek, Hebrew, and ancient and modern Latin. We used to have wonderful bible studies, because he would talk about all the nuances of the original language that make "accurate translation" so difficult, and sometimes controversial.

If any of the posters on Phatmass who ARE biblical scholars feel that a different translation is better/more accurate than the NAB, I'm willing to listen. I got used to using the NAB when I was in college and dinosaurs roamed the earth, but I'm not tied to it.

I still think the King James Bible has some of the most beautiful prose ever written in English, but it obviously is no longer the most accurate translation. Still, it has its place (in my world, at least).

Edited March 27, 2010 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='26 March 2010 - 11:58 PM' timestamp='1269665890' post='2081145']
[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/lol.gif[/img] I'm so sorry! Forgot that we had a practicing Anglican reading threads regularly now. Hope I didn't offend you.
[/quote]

Nihil--I was not offended. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/blowkiss.gif[/img] Anglicans are not alone in talking far too much at times and getting nowhere. Anyone who works in Corporate America--or politics-- recognizes the disease.

If I'm ever offended, I'll say so.

Edited March 27, 2010 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[Slappo]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='27 March 2010 - 01:04 PM' timestamp='1269720256' post='2081473']
LOL! Well, they're won't be any battle brewing from my end. I'm not a biblical scholar, nor do I pretend to be. In college, I had a friend who was a grad student in Classics and an Catholic ex-brother (not sure what order he left). While we sat with our English translations, he was able to read Greek, Hebrew, and ancient and modern Latin. We used to have wonderful bible studies, because he would talk about all the nuances of the original language that make "accurate translation" so difficult, and sometimes controversial.

If any of the posters on Phatmass who ARE biblical scholars feel that a different translation is better/more accurate than the NAB, I'm willing to listen. I got used to using the NAB when I was in college and dinosaurs roamed the earth, but I'm not tied to it.

I still think the King James Bible has some of the most beautiful prose ever written in English, but it obviously is no longer the most accurate translation. Still, it has its place (in my world, at least).
[/quote]

Try the Douay Rheims bible for beautiful prose as well as accurate translation

Try the RSV for something way better than the NAB. The NAB is not a very strong translation imo. The two bible scholar professors I had made us use the RSV and neither of them liked the NAB.

[jeffpugh]

http://www.drbo.org/

[Slappo]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='27 March 2010 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1269721700' post='2081497']
http://www.drbo.org/
[/quote]

I don't recommend that website. If you look at the links below that it supports, they are in error with the Church.

SSPX/Angelus Press/etc

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='27 March 2010 - 03:14 PM' timestamp='1269720896' post='2081483'][/quote]
Nihil--I was not offended. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/blowkiss.gif[/img] Anglicans are not alone in talking far too much at times and getting nowhere. Anyone who works in Corporate America -- or politics --recognizes the disease.

If I'm ever offended, I'll say so.

Edited March 27, 2010 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[Nihil Obstat]

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Slappo' date='27 March 2010 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1269721463' post='2081492']
Try the Douay Rheims bible for beautiful prose as well as accurate translation

Try the RSV for something way better than the NAB. The NAB is not a very strong translation imo. The two bible scholar professors I had made us use the RSV and neither of them liked the NAB.
[/quote]

Showing my ignorance--what does RSV stand for? (Somehow, on this phorum I doubt it stands for the Revised Standard Version--that Protestant stalwart.)

Also, I was introduced to the NAB back when it was the newest translation available. The reason I asked for other suggestions was that I figured that there was probably something newer that was more accurate.

Edited March 27, 2010 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[Nihil Obstat]

I think we'd be referring to the RSV-CE. (Catholic Edition)


From my brief research it sounds like it's widely considered among the most accurate translations.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Nihil Obstat