Translation Brouhaha for Dummies
  • G
    Posts: 1,397
    I have a favor to ask, I have had very limited access to the internet since early August, (on the rare occasions I can access it, it is slow dial-up, making searches fruitless,) I have NO access to any non-MSM newssource except a diocesan paper which gave me no clue that something big was going on -- could someone explain WITHOUT polemic exactly what in the world happened toward the end of the summer regarding the new translation?

    It seems from the number of post on it on PrayTell and Gotta Sing that it was big, but there also seems to be a lot of "no one has told us what is going on," so perhaps nothing genuinely new is going on? in skimming the more orthodox sources, I don't see anything momentous enough to have caused such alarm.
    Anyway, thank you kindly (don't rush to answer, won't read it for several days.)


    (Can't fill out registration for the Colloquium yet either, arghh! but oh boy howdy, am I THERE!!!!!!!)

    Save the Liturgy, Save the World!
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    The pseudonymous "Xavier Rindfleish" covers the issue ably, although it is from a conservative standpoint. There's also a leaked document on wikileaks about it, but I don't know the URL. XR's articles can be found as PDFs at Pray Tell (and are quick reads to get the gist) and someone who knows the URL can post the leak.

    EDIT: Found it. https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:Areas_of_Difficulty.pdf
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Actually G, you have summarized the situation rather well! All we really know for sure are that there are delays in the final text due to the appearance of some bureaucratic wrangling.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    The file appearing at National Catholic Reporter today has no identification properties, but the same file posted at Gavin's link above retains the creator properties.
  • Xavier Rindfleisch
    Posts: 37
    The file appearing at National Catholic Reporter today has no identification properties, but the same file posted at Gavin's link above retains the creator properties.


    Jeffrey is correct. The item is listed on wikispooks as posted by "anonymous." However, the document itself shows that it was created on 11/04/2010 by awruff.

    But there is still no way to know who "awruff" is, so we're right back where we started.

    On www.praytellblog.com, Benedictine Fr. Anthony Ruff, a liturgy professor at St. John’s University in Collegeville, Minn., reported Oct. 31 that he had obtained a leaked copy of a “report prepared for [English-speaking] bishops’ conferences to make them aware of the problems in the 2010 received text.” Pray Tell Blog & Fr. Anthony Ruff, O.S.B.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    It might still be possible, or so it seems, that the identification marks indicate the document creator but not necessarily original author. It does however suggest that the document creator knows the identity of the author.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    All of which is beside the point, I suppose. If the question is, what is happening with the translation?, we don't really know more than we ever knew.
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    Wow, this is amazingly thorough. It just goes to show a lot of work has gone into these translations. I can't for the life of me understand why priests still haven't gotten the message that they're supposed to say these words instead of just making something up. Why change the translation in the first place, if the actual words don't matter?
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    Well, for those of you who missed it, Dom Ruff actually posted the document at PrayTell, with a declaration about how he had decided to release it, and a statement (if I remember correctly) that he had removed some portion and that the formatting was his. It vanished very soon thereafter. One can only wonder whether the change of heart was personal (though if so I would have expected to see a statement explaining his reasons) or compelled by some outside source. At any rate, I downloaded it while it was up -- the metadata were as JamesOLeary shows -- and apparently so did someone else.
  • Xavier Rindfleisch
    Posts: 37
    I need to keep reminding myself that this is fellow fighting for "transparency" ...
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    I just keep thinking that there might be alternative explanations.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,033
    "in skimming the more orthodox sources, I don't see anything momentous enough to have caused such alarm."

    I for on, am mystified at the silence from this quarter (e.g. Fr. Z). Seems like this would be right up his alley.

    If the leaked document is to be believed, the whole thing is so bizarrely bad that you have to wonder whether it's all just a joke, or perhaps a plot to discredit the entire translation process so far.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    I find it puzzling how quickly CDWDS produced the "Received Text" after the bishops' conferences approved their draft version. The process had been very slow when ICEL and the conferences were involved: so slow that (IIRC) many propers were still absent from the draft when it came up for a vote by the USCCB. And yet between November '09 and May '10, CDWDS turned the job around quickly, produced the latest version, made dozens of modifications perhaps without adequate review, and apparently introduced various flaws described by the critique. I can only wonder about what process was followed.

    It's sad that the work of translation is still conducted in such a secretive manner.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    I for on, am mystified at the silence from this quarter (e.g. Fr. Z). Seems like this would be right up his alley.


    The problem is this. Getting worked up in a frenzy requires at least that you have your facts straight. There have been no facts on this whole thing. There has only been rumor, innuendo, unsourced and unsubstantiated claims, and confusion, and pretty much only one source from which to draw and base all commentary and protests. this is just not a good basis for a frenzy. I don't begrudge PrayTell's efforts, but one must understand a certain reluctance to jump into a fray with a blindfold on. No one really knows anything for sure.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,033
    Let's hope it's all just a big misunderstanding.
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,021
    Ha ha! That's what the last 50 years have been - a big misunderstanding!

    What makes any of us think it will be any different in the 21st century?
Add a Comment