I've been following this board and thought I was understanding the various players quite well. Something I just read on one of the music threads made me realize I just might not. Will you please tell me if I am understanding the various view points correctly?
Understanding the dynamics of the conversation will assist me in following the conversation more precisely. I thank you in advance for any clarifications or corrections.
Camp A: There is no common text/setting in English, so we are attempting to do so. There might be justifiable differences in opinion or preference, but it is better to have something than what we've got right now which is nothing. By making one common text/setting, it will change several churches' renderings, but we believe this to be secondary to the need to have one common text/setting.
Camp B: You shouldn't mess with it because it has been that way for 40 years and the people know it and aren't complaining. Did you ask them what they wanted? (includes calls for conferences and lay participation)
Camp C: I agree we need a common text/setting, but I think it should be like this instead... (includes the full use of the 1940s recension)
Camp D: We're dying off anyway. Isn't this like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic? (includes people saying they or others will 'dox)
Camp E: Historical, patristic, and other academic defense of why the text/settings should not be promulgated in the way they have been/will be.
Camp F: Why did we spend so much time and money on this when it could have been spent on ___ instead?
Camp G: I'm going to wait until it comes out to give my opinion.
Am I understanding the basic dynamics of the conversation correctly?
