Article XVII

[Albion]

While that isn't an unreasonable interpretation, the thing is, many of the Articles were deliberately written to be as muddy as possible

Maybe I just wince at the word muddy. I think something like balanced or moderate would express it better.

Muddy seems to me to suggest that the Article was bungled, but we normally say that the wording of most of them was carefully chosen in order to have broad appeal, acceptance, or something like that.

 

[PaladinValer]

Maybe I just wince at the word muddy. I think something like balanced or moderate would express it better.

Moderate? Maybe, but that would imply some sort of real intent to make a definitive position. Given the hope and desire of Good Queen Bess, it would not make much sense that any real attempt to make anything definitive so all could point to it and say "here it is".

Besides, given her religious practices, she would have preferred the return to the 1549, although the 1559 was certainly no acceptance of the 1552.

Muddy seems to me to suggest that the Article was bungled, but we normally say that the wording of most of them was carefully chosen in order to have broad appeal, acceptance, or something like that.

All "muddy" means is no clear picture due to its attempt at inclusivity under the Elizabethan Settlement. It has nothing to do with it being invalid, worthless, or unimaginative. I believe my previous post said her ideas were very clever, so while that Article was "muddy", that very intent of muddiness was brilliantly played.

 

[PaladinValer]

Here you go...

Commentary, not neutral translation...in fact, there is no translation!

She wants a translation, not sectarian balderdash.

 

[Liberasit]

Commentary, not neutral translation.

She wants a translation, not sectarian balderdash.

h

Oh, what now?

 

[Arcangl86]

Honestly, it seems written in a way that at the very least the Lutheran, Arminian, and Calvinist viewpoints on election can be supported.

 

[PaladinValer]

Honestly, it seems written in a way that at the very least the Lutheran, Arminian, and Calvinist viewpoints on election can be supported.

Yup. Even theosis; anyone can look at it and say "Hey! There's my belief! No problem here".

Brilliantly done; clear as mud.