OT: Intriguing article on digital Bibles

alabama24 said:

I bet the next pope will. It wouldn't even surprise me if this one did. 

LOL!  Yeah, well, you're probably right; I'll mark that up as yet another reason I'm a Pre-Vatican II Trad.  [:P]  

I think the Bible that they read at home or in Bible study should be welcome in the "main service". Though I am not sure I would agree with you which is "the main service". I still find it silly for the reasons stated.

George Somsel said:

Michael Childs said:

Our Church has done several of the David Platt led "Secret Church" sessions, which involves intensive Bible teaching from 6 pm to after midnight.  It thrilled me to see my Young Adults with their Bible apps on their smart phones hanging in there for over 6 hours of intensive Bible study, (and some of my older adults with their paper Bibles as well.)

We were, however, talking about the regular communal service of the church and not about bible study.  Few, if any, would depreciate the usage of electronic media in venues other than the main service.

Butters said:

; I would never, ever even think to take an iPad into Mass.  

I think it was pointed out earlier New Zealand Bishops had to ban Priests from saying mass from their iPads...

-Dan

Lee said:

If the early Fathers had a handwritten codex, would they have used a scroll?

If the early Fathers had a printed book, would they have used a handwritten codex?

If the early Fathers had a digital reader, would they have used a printed book?

If the early Fathers had Powerpoint, would they have used a printed liturgies / lectionaries?

If the early Fathers had rock bands, would they have used .... 

If the early Fathers had email, would they etc. etc. etc.

 

Somebody tell me, if you know.

I think the early fathers would have had more sense than to use a rock band—why would they wish to destroy their hearing?

alabama24 said:

MJ. Smith said:

They can be liturgical objects appropriate for processions, visible to the congregations etc. Digital readers are primarily private objects therefore generally inappropriate for corporate worship.

I don't understand (practically speaking) how an iPad is any more or less "private" than a book. Both can be held by an individual. Both can be passed around by a group.

If someone values books "written by hand," that eliminates printed books.

If someone values books written on animal skin, that eliminates works on papyrus or paper. 

I am unsure what the argument being made is... Are the only copies of the scriptures allowed to be used ones which have historical significance? If that is the case, then the issue isn't iPad vs. Print, but Historical vs. New. [Again, I'm not trying to argue for any position, just trying to gain understanding from others who worship and think differently than I do. ]

Print media such as a PEW BIBLE are fixed and the same for each copy in the nave.  Electronic media can differ profoundly from one instance to another.  We are speaking of a communal exercise, not simply a bible study.  In a communal exercise everyone needs to be LITERALLY on the same page.

alabama24 said:

Which is what? [I'm just curious... Not trying to argue. ]

Sure, I'll do my best; and of course I'm not speaking ex cathedra here [:P] and this is just my opinion.  

A "paper based" lectionary, for example - in whatever form it's in - can last hundreds of years; and as such, and given the natural materials it's made of, has intertwined qualities of 1. continuity, of 2. memory, and of 3. deepening beauty.  

It's the same lectionary that was used for your grandfather's funeral which is now used for your daughter's wedding.  It's the same lectionary that you held tightly to during some grief that struck you a decade ago.  And there is the same page where you once, in haste, tore because in your joy to read something to someone you were a little too exuberant; but that person is now a person of very deep faith.  Holding it and using it connects one intimately with the past; a distant past and also your own personal past.  You see it change and it's beauty deepen, even (and perhaps especially) as it becomes worn and old.    

None of this, to my way of thinking, can be replicated with a digital reader.  However beautiful, in some ways, your reader may be, let's face it:  compared with a gorgeous book, that device is comparatively ugly.  Moreover, that device is indeed revolutionary; and being so, it really isn't rooted in history; and has practically zero historical continuity with the past.  It is, moreover, a device that is replaced every year or two or so, and so cannot embody (so to speak) memories; and provides very little personal continuity.  Finally, no device - however beautiful you believe it to be when new - can grow more beautiful; it can only grow more ugly, disordered, unwieldy, buggy, lifeless, et cetera.  

____

One other thing too:  the human brain is wired to place memories spatio-visually.  One remembers where thing are by associating them with something seen; this is how memories are placed and retrieved.  I have an immense memory of certain books I've read; but when I look at what that memory is rooted in, it's connected with all the underlining, and fingerprints from chocolate, and bent pages where I thought something was important, and smudges, and dents, and rips and so on.

This is not only beautiful (I truly cherish my books [:$]) it is also an incredibly rich environment for memory; they embody a great deal of visual and tactile feedback, where the book changes every time I pick it up and read it.  Indeed, when I walk through my study:  literally the conversations and dialogues with a given book, should it catch my eye, are reignited.  I wouldn't give up that conversation and memory and ongoing community for anything.  This would never happen if I were to walk past my iPad.  LOL.  

And I do think that, for all the benefits of digital reading (and there are many!), we do give up something very precious if we abandon paper-based books - for the above and many other reasons.  

Just my two centavos.

~Butters [:)] 

Butters said:

MJ. Smith said:

There is a reason there is resistance to the perpetual candle by the tabernacle being replaced by an electric candle.

Exactly.  And for many reasons.  For example: a candle is not just a "lighting device" - this reduces it to a mere utility.  

What is the advantage to reducing something so incarnational, so connected with history, so imbued with symbolism, to a mere utilitarian function?  To a dreary little electric bulb? 

Straw man. It's no use trying to settle such a complicated question by the use of extreme examples. Illustrative, perhaps, but no more than that (pun intended).

Of course, I have my own views. But all I am trying to do here is to state the principles which provoke us to open our minds, and see the features of other systems rather than ex cathedra acceptance or disapproval. No more than that.

Lee said:

It's no use trying to settle such a complicated question by the use of extreme examples. Illustrative, perhaps, but no more than that (pun intended).

Well, when you face something "complicated" - that's your view not mine - it's best to locate a principle. Otherwise you have no compass.  The Perpetual Candle is illustrative of a very useful principle.