Tuesday, April 12, 2011

The silly, silly New York Times

Sometimes I've dreamed of being a reporter at this paper but I would have to stick with some other beat and stay away from religion. I could never write anything like this, which makes claims such as: the current translation "did not always adhere tightly to the Latin." Umm, no kidding.

And then the story digs up every conceivable critic of the new translation, including my friend Fr. Anthony Ruff, who is quoted (one never knows what relationship there is between what is quoted and what was actually said) in defense of "consubstantial."

After all, he is a brilliant man, who, unlike so many others who have criticized this term, is aware that early Christians actually made up the term because nothing else would suffice. It has a long history.

However, Fr. Ruff does complain about awkward syntax and other issues, and wishes that the new version would be better. No doubt he is right here. People close to the translation have said as much. But, truly, we've waited 40 years for this. We can't let any more time go by. The current translation I regard as destructive to the faith. It cannot be permitted to last any longer.
(Comment moderation is now in effect for this site.)