Discussion in 'Announcements' started by Admin, Apr 23, 2013.
Yes maybe that is what is needed
It seems some are confused about what it is we are doing here. There is no way anybody will compromise on the Prayerbook. It is at the heart of any Anglican self-identity and we are working with the assumption that it is already a part of the standards. The PB is a sine qua non and a good touch-off point for further inquiries into historic Anglican identity.
There are plans to bring the book up online -- the first project of its kind anywhere on the Internet -- which if you are interested in helping please send a message.
(Note the above may or may not be the edition settled on)
How about this; What Prayer Book? Even that is not set in stone
The version can only be the 1662.
Are we not in danger here of creating some kind of museum Anglicanism rather than proclaiming a living faith and Gospel? Are you advocating the 1662 BCP only as a doctrinal norm or as a both a doctrinal and liturgical norm?
In the dear old CofE whilst of course the 1662 is still our authorized BCP the number of churches using it exclusively or for their main Sunday celebration of Holy Communion is small. During the First World War, it became evident that the 1662 book was out of date as it stood. Chaplains in the field felt that it failed to minister the love of God to souls that desperately needed it. It seemed cold and distant in a world at war and lacking in popular familiar devotion. Hence the beginnings of liturgical initiative in the CofE which was represented by both the Catholic and Evangelical sides.
Some time ago the King James Bible was felt to be too stuffy and became left behind but now is cherished by all Christians as a gem of Biblical beauty in a sea of banality. So, the 1662 BCP may have gone through stormy stretches but remains the apex of Anglican liturgy and culture where all adherents can draw unto. As a unifying instrument there is nothing better.
On the other hand we are not a Church or a Province. You would be asked a question such as, "Do you accept the 1662 Book of Common Prayer?" and a yes would add a visible Anglican tag under your name. However this is different from local use. You could proceed to use Common Worship for the reasons you outlined, which is nothing if not acceptable. That 1662 acceptance builds a bridge between you and all others who accepted it, use they a CW or a 1928 or a 1979 in daily life. The common cultural, theological, and ecclesiastical bridge is the sole goal.
I think your trying to go beyond what needs to be done. If you want somebody to have to prove they are Anglican then have them accept what you think makes one Anglican is not the best way because not everyone will be doing that. You see my Church uses the 1979 officially not the 1662 so I would have would have to say no to your question. But that doesn't make me not an Anglican.
If you want to really do it right than you'll need a field which ask what PB they go by, and what Anglican communion they go to, and what type of Anglican they consider themselves. For extra benefit even a link to their church if available, but we should never pigeonhole someone into one definition of Anglican. Ultimately it is your forum you have to decide if you want a certain type of Anglican or to be open to the Anglican world
On another matter that you mentioned, I have not heard anyone use the KJV for at lest 17 years where I am so I don't really see anyone use it
Yahoo Answers: What is the most common Bible translation in English?
ChristianPost: Top 10 Sales of Bible Translations in the United States
1. New International Version
2. King James Version
3. New Living Translation
4. New King James Version
5. English Standard Version
For what its worth, My church uses the Anglican Prayer book of Australia and we use New Revised Standard Version of the bible within our services and I have never seen the BCP used in church or the King James Bible in my 6 years as a Anglican.
That being said i do view these as part of my Anglican Heritage and both should be cherished. I still don't understand the fine points about arguing over what year to use but maybe that's just me.I also use only the KJB for personal reading at home and the NKJB for easy listening during my travels to and from work, the only NRSV i have is on my Kindle.
I look forward to seeing a BCP on this site and wish i actually had the time to help this project, but for now , i must sit in anticipation awaiting your results.
Agreed that the 1662 BCP should be the starting point.
There is a long history of veneration of icons and praying with and asking for intercessions from the saints & Mary.
This may be the most? divisive issue on here. I would propose that we could say something to the affect that there are differences within the board members, and due to the long history and accepted practice from tradition and the 7 Councils there is merit to their validity and comments discouraging as such are not permitted. Therefore there will be no discussions on these topics in the main board. I would propose a sub-board where only positive comments/virtues of these practices could be discussed.
I should add that there should be a location for discussing from contra position as well.
This seems to be a statement of almost a "confessional church", where there is a litmus test that must be passed. Seeing as this is from someone named "Admin", I presume you run this forum. Have you an agenda for it? Discussion presumes something to discuss. Unity of ideals presumes something else.
My take on Anglicanism is that it is a large and diverse group, with the very essence being tolerance and unity amidst disagreement. When I stand or kneel at communion with people whom I am know for a fact I disagree, I know I am in the right place. I agree only that all Anglicans are united with bread and wine, and by a common desire to follow Jesus. The rest is discussable. Mind, I have my preferences, but they are my preferences not everyone's.
Have I come to wrong forum? if there is a condition for membership here?
Please read above once again. The discussion isn't about conditions for forum membership, but concentric groups of users. There will be a larger group of users who pass basic civility requirements, and a smaller subset within of those identified as anglican based upon the traditional standard.