INSECURITY OF LITURGISTS WHO ARE WORSE THAN TERRORISTS IN THAT TERRORIST CAN NEGOTIATE

THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS POPE FRANCIS' MOST RECENT SLAP DOWN OF CARDINAL SARAH. INSTEAD OF RELISHING IT, PRAYTELL HAS A MELTDOWN WITH A COMMENT ON ITS OWN BLOG QUESTIONING AN EDITORIAL POST! EXTREMELY IMMATURE NO?

Why are academic liturgists so insecure as betrayed by their sheer arrogance when a contrary opinion is offered?

1. Lee Fratantuono says:

   October 22, 2017 at 11:44 am

   “In the controversial 2001 document Liturgiam authenticam (LA), the Holy See contravened the Second Vatican Council”

   Father Ruff, is not the epithet “controversial” an editorializing remark? Would you call “Comme le prévoit” “controversial”? “Magnum principium”?

   Also, is not “contravened the Second Vatican Council” a bit strongly worded? Your articles seem relentlessly to push the idea that those with whom you disagree are somehow all in contravention of Vatican II. 

   I realize this is a blog post and not a scholarly article, but perhaps a bit more balance is a virtue?

   
   
   1. Anthony Ruff, OSB says:

      October 22, 2017 at 11:47 am

      Nope. 

      We get to publish our opinions and our convictions at our blog, Lee. You can start your own blog and publish whatever you want at it. 

      What you can’t keep doing is complaining at Pray Tell about Pray Tell.

      Further comments in this vein will be deleted.

      awr

      
      
      1. Robert Jones says:

         October 22, 2017 at 11:55 am

         Thanks for that, Father Ruff!

         If Mr. Fratantuono and his lot have something new to say, I’m sure you’d post it and the Pray Tell community would engage it. But I’m glad you’re deleting comments that say the same thing over and over. Pray Tell is a more sane place than a few years ago! I like the range of opinions at the blog and learn a lot from it.

         rj
      2. Lee Fratantuono says:

         October 22, 2017 at 11:59 am

         You might want to revisit your comment about the English translation of “in primis”. While I would prefer something like “first and foremost”, “firstly” is not a “mistranslation,” as you call it. It might not be felicitous; it might not be poetic; it might not be ideal…but it is most certainly not a “mistranslation.”
      3. Anthony Ruff, OSB says:

         October 22, 2017 at 12:30 pm

         I agree with you, “first and foremost” would be better. As to whether the missal is infelicitous or mistaken – I think this discussion shows that translation is never an exact science, it is an art, and there will always be more than one view about it. It’d be good for all of us to keep this in mind whenever we speak about translation “accuracy.” For all that, I changed “mistranslation” to “translation” in my post in response to your point.
         awr