OFFLINE
TERESA BENEDETTA
Post: 31.601
Post: 13.689
Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009
Administratore
Utente Gold
October 21-22, 2017
Canon212.com
Seeing the headline above, my first thought was 'Soylent Green', that futuristic movie where it was thought that human corpses - and not
plankton from the sea as advertised - were being recycled into a food product rationed to hungry people; or, to take the above headline
literally, that garbage (food garbage, presumably) was being recycled for distribution to poor people. Thankfully, that is not the story at all -
and the Canon212 editors should observe a basic rule of journalistic responsibility: Do not knowingly lie and mislead.
cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/10/21/brazilian-cardinal-supports-controversial-food-policy-sa...
And since Canon212 is a Catholic site, surely they must know that falsifying what a news report says by tagging it with a certifiably wrong
headline violates the Eighth Commandment! Yet Canon212 has been merrily doing this with a lot of other stories as well. It is just flat-out,
malicious lying, and it should stop.
As much as I appreciate the site's news aggregation effort for the convenience it provides, it is completely unnecessary for Canon212 to
invent eyecatching but false headlines. While I am at it, there is no need either to attach the prefix 'Francis-' to anything the C212 editors
disagree with or disapprove of. Readers are well aware of C212 biases and don't have to be bludgeoned in the eye by self-evident facts.
I personally do not see anything wrong with recycling soon-to-expire or just-expired (according to the recommended 'sell-by' date) grocery
products that are uncontaminated instead of the groceries simply incinerating them, because in Brazil, right now, apparently, they are
not allowed to donate such products.
PewSitter.com
The link for the banner headline is to a Google translation of a Spanish report, but the gist is that recently, InfoVaticana in Spanish, La Nuova
Bussola in Italian and L'Homme Noveau in French simultaneously published a letter by Cardinal Sarah saying that despite the authorization
given by the pope in the motu proprio Magnum Principiam for national bishops' conferences to publish their own translation of the Roman Missal
to the vernacular, the Vatican still retains the final authority to recognize and accept such translations.
The pope has since written Cardinal Sarah to 'correct' him, and I shall translate Bussola's account of it - in which the Vatican tells Bussola that
the pope wants his 'correction' to Sarah published in full - a probably unprecedented papal demand on a media outlet. (One assumes
the two other sites which published Sarah's letter also received the same communication from the pope.)
Anyway, I shall translate Bussola's account of this probably landmark event, but my immediate reaction goes even beyond editor Riccardo Cascioli's
guarded comment on the consequences implied by the pope's position: It used to be that because of all the local 'initiatives' by priests
imposing themselves on the Novus Ordo Mass, Catholics could no longer as in centuries past be sure that they could attend the same Mass wherever
in the world they happened to be.
Now, it is not just the rubrics and external aspects of the Mass that can be autonomously determined by a parish or a Mass celebrant, and therefore
differ from place to place. Now the pope has just authorized even the content of the Mass itself to be autonomously determined by the
bishops'conferences - because that is what they can do by authorizing a translation they approve of. One can expect that it will no longer
be just a 'translation' from the Latin, but even a free-form rendition of what the bishops' conference thinks the Mass should be saying. (First 'victim'
of this autonomy, since it already is - despite Benedict XVI's correction - is the wrong and wrong-headed translation of 'pro multis' in the words
of the Consecration of the Wine to 'for all' instead of 'for many'. But then Bergoglianism finds 'pro multis' exclusivist so it ought to have no
place in the Mass, whereby JMB is once more editing words attributed to Jesus himself, these ones at the Last Supper.)
This is nothing less than liturgical anarchy - parallel to the pastoral anarchy proliferated by Amoris laetitia, it makes Catholicism
the victim of Bergoglian laissez-faire: "Let everyone do as they discern", being the euphemism for "Let everyone do as they please"
and an alternate formulation for "Let everyone follow his own conscience".
This anarchy is the logical and foresseable consequence of Bergoglio's idea, expressed in Evangelium gaudium, to allow bishops'
conferences full doctrinal authority, presumably without regard to what the rest of the Church is doing. This is no longer
the Catholic Church, in which 'catholic' means universal. Bergoglianism is now imposing a fragmentation of the universal Church
through a series of fiats effectively dissolving the unity and universality of the Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church. No
Correctio, filial or fraternal, will remedy this - only an act of God will.
If anyone still thinks this pope is not anti-Catholic and is not apostate, please wake up and face the facts!
Consider also the plethora of pro-Luther Bergoglian hype in the headlines these days - but I will come back to that later. Aldo Maria Valli
already did an excellent kick-off for this expose of growing Berglutheranism preached by the apostate Jorge Martin Bergluther.
Pope sends ‘Correctio fraternalis’
to Cardinal Sarah
by Riccardo Cascioli, Editor
Translated from
Oct. 22, 2017
Cardinal Robert Sarah’s interpretation of the motu proprio ‘Magnum Principium’ is incorrect – the spirit of the papal document is precisely to allow bishops’ conferences to carry out their own liturgical translations with autonomy and [the pope’s] trust which Cardinal Sarah would like to limit.
Pope Francis himself makes this clear in a letter to the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments, a letter we are publishing in full at the explicit request of the pope himself.
It was our news outlet that had published Cardinal Sarah’s note last Oct. 12 in which, taking note of already manifested reactions, he proposed the right interpretation of the motu proprio.
Having done that, we are now being asked by the pope to publish his own letter – an unprecedented gesture on the part of a pope.
Beyond the questions of merits discussed below, we are honored and thankful for this attention from the Holy Father which objectively confers on LNBQ the authority to host a debate on subjects fundamental to the life of the Church in which it has been a protagonist along with some cardinals.
But let us get to the point of the controversy – which has to do with the translations from the official Latin editions of liturgical texts used in different countries. Till now, the translations (versions and eventual adaptations) have been
prepared by each national bishops’ conference which then seek the approval of the Holy See. This is done through two instruments –
confirmatio and
recognitio – which, however, the motu proprio seeks to redefine.
At this point, here are the existing interpretations:
Cardinal Sarah says that
confirmatio and
recognitio are different and distinct in their effects, in which
confirmatio refers to approval of a translation from the
editio typica Latina of the missal [in Church language, the
editio typica is the official source text of a particular document or book, and it always used to be in Latin, from which all translations should be made], whereas
recognitio refers to approval of new texts and ritual modifications that are not substantial, yet they are identical acts from the point of view of the responsibility of the Holy See.
Thus, in both cases, the Vatican can analyze every request for translation approval – translations from the typical Latin edition, changes in ritual, and new texts.
Cardinal Sarah’s concern, as CDW Prefect, is evident:
to keep the unity of the Church even in the liturgy, while respecting the autonomy of bishops in each country to elaborate their own local liturgy [in conformity with the universal Church].
But now the pope has let it be known that this is not the spirit of
his motu proprio, which must instead be seen as a true and proper liturgical ‘devolution’. He argues that
confirmatio and recognitio are not identical [Sarah did not say that!], and that in the exercise of these two actions, the responsibility is different for the Holy See from the responsibility of the bishops’ conferences. [But it looks like he is taking away any responsibility from the Holy See regarding liturgical translations.]
He makes these distinctions:
a)
Recognitio “only refers to the verification and preservation of conformity to canon law and to the communion of the Church”. It is a rather hermetic term, but it should probably be interpreted in the words used by Mons. Arthur Roche, CDW secretary, which accompanied the publication of Magnum Principium: “
Recognitio… implies the process of acknowledgment on the part of the Apostolic See of legitimate liturgical adaptations, including ‘more profound’ ones, that the episcopal conferences can establish and approve for their territories,
within allowed limits. On this ground of encounter between liturgy and culture,
the Apostolic See is therefore called on to recognize – that is, to review and evaluate such adaptations by way of preserving the substantial unity of the Roman rite.
[Is that not precisely what Cardinal Sarah is saying???]
b)
Confirmatio is the act on which the pope’s letter chooses to focus. In which he says very clearly that
the judgment regarding the faithfulness of liturgical translations to the typical Latin edition belongs to the bishops’ conferences “in dialog with the Holy See”, which, in conceding the confirmation, will no longer carry out a “detailed word-by-word examination” of such translations, with the exception of evident questions in important formulations such as the Eucharistic Prayers or the formulas used in sacramental rites. In short, much more freedom is allowed to the bishops’ conferences.
[But any examination of any ‘official’ translation ought to be ‘word by word’ – it can’t be a generic examination - “Well, it looks like, in general, it is saying what it ought to say, so it should be OK”, and has nothing to do with whether the part examined has ‘substantial’ or ‘insubstantial’ content.]
In his letter to Cardinal Sarah, the pope points out that
his motu proprio effectively re-interprets or abrogates some part of Liturgiam Authenticam (2001), which has been the normative document for liturgical translations till now. Nos. 79-84 of LA regarding the approval and recognition of translations by the Apostolic See must be ‘re-understood’; while Nos. 76 and 80 have been abrogated. The latter is about recognition, and has obviously been re-formulated in MP, while No. 76 called on the CDW to participate “very closely in the work of translating into the principal languages”
[So now the pope is saying that this has been abrogated - there is no longer going to be any close collaboration on translation? I'm not being 'discriminatory' but would the very small dioceses that the pope has been honoring with new cardinals really have people competent enough to translate from liturgical Latin to say, the vernacular in Myanmar? I'm not even sure we have such competent clerical translators in the Philippines where there are like 70 million Catholics!]
One other part of the pope’s letter demands attention. He says,
“Magnum Principium no longer sustains that translations should conform in all points to the norms of Liturgiam Authenticam, as required in the past”. This statement, along with the statement that a ‘faithful’ liturgical translation ‘implies a three-fold faithfulness’ (to the text, to the language of translation, and to the comprehensibility of the translation to those who will use it) – tells us that MP is intended as the start of a process that can go very far indeed.
And here is the significance of this new ‘conflict’ in which the pope corrects Cardinal Sarah, who has only acted along the lines laid down by Benedict XVI on the liturgy. Indeed, there is no doubt that
the spirit of MP, as defined and stressed in Pope Francis’s letter to Cardinal Sarah, is to move towards ‘national’ Missals that will inevitably be increasingly different among themselves, rather than a shared ‘spirit of the liturgy’.
The issue goes beyond the merely liturgical aspect, as Cardinal Ratzinger (and later as Benedict XVI) insisted repeatedly, about the very idea of ‘Church’ and the Church’s own understanding of what she is.
The larger issue here is the role and powers of the bishops’ conferences, to whom Pope Francis intends to give ‘authentic doctrinal authority’, as he wrote in Evangelii Gaudium No, 32.
But on the contrary, as early as his 1985 book-length interview with Vittorio Messori,
Rapporto sulla Fede (pubished in English as 'The Ratzinger Report'), Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, while commenting positively on the proper appreciation of “the role and responsibility of a bishop” as defined by Vatican-II, lamented a negative post-conciliar drift in this respect:
“The idea of reaffirming the role of a bishop has in fact been diluted or even outright suffocated by the assertiveness of prelates in bishops’ conferences that are increasingly organized and heavily bureaucratic.
"But we must not forget that bishops’ conferences do not have a theological basis, they do not form part of the Church’s ineliminable structure as Christ wished it, and that they only have a practical, concrete function. [Principally, to coordinate actions of the different diocesan bishops in each country, and to provide them with a locus of interaction with one another.]
He was saying that the collective cannot replace the individual bishop.
“This is a decisive point, because it has to do with preserving the very nature of the Catholic Church, which is based on an episcopal structure, not on some kind of federation of national churches. The ‘national’ level is not an ecclesial dimension.
"It is necessary to make clear once more that in every diocese, there is but one pastor and teacher of the faith [the bishop as a successor to the Apostles], in communion with other bishops and with the Vicar of Christ.”
BTW, call it quibbling over 'trivia', but please note how the pope signs himself in the letter - simply as 'Francesco'.
Should not any communication from the pope qua pope (he is not writing an informal personal note to Sarah here, from one friend to another, but an official 'correction' of a curial dicastery head) be formally signed, in this case, "Francesco PP", as all other popes have signed themselves officially with the qualificative PP?
Since I have not really been following the minutiae of his pontificate, I do not know if he has ever signed himself 'Francesco PP', or if it has always been just 'Francesco', as if he were the only 'Francesco' in the world or in history. I do not know whether to say he is doing an ego trip a la popstar one-namers like Madonna and Cher, or the ultimate ego trip as in "God" who requires no prefix, suffix or qualifier.
I shall post a translation of the pope's letter itself later - not so much for what he says but for how he says it, and the tone of the letter, in general. Its ending is particularly sarcastic.
P.S. Before I go into a translation of the Pope's letter, I must post earlier material for proper backgrounding. On Oct. 13, Edward Pentin had this article:
Cardinal Sarah confirms that Vatican
retains last word on translations
The prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship discusses
the effects of the Pope’s recent revisions to canon law
governing the translation of liturgical texts
by Edward Pentin
VATICAN CITY, Oct. 13, 2017 — Cardinal Robert Sarah has weighed in on Magnum Principium, Pope Francis's motu proprio on liturgical translations, reassuring the faithful that the Vatican will continue to safeguard any changes or new liturgical translations to ensure they remain faithful to the original Latin.
In an article in the French Catholic journal
L’Homme Nouveau, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW) confirmed that the motu proprio’s changes to Canon 838 — which shifts some responsibility for translating liturgical texts away from the Vatican to local bishops — will still require the Vatican to give approval to any such changes or translations.
The article, officially dated Oct. 1 — the day on which Magnum Principium (The Great Principle) came into effect — bolsters the guidance issued with the motu proprio by Archbishop Arthur Roche, secretary of the CDW.
Archbishop Roche stressed that the Vatican’s role in confirming texts remains an “authoritative act” presupposing “fidelity” to the original Latin.
Cardinal Sarah’s statements on the matter contradict those who see the motu proprio as a gateway to more liberal vernacular interpretations of liturgical texts, inconsistent with their Latin original.
The Holy Father, who signed Magnum Principium Sept. 3, authorized changes to Canon 838 that decentralized the translation process, giving local bishops responsibility for translating liturgical texts,
while retaining the Vatican’s authority to approve or reject a proposed translation. [But the Pope's Oct. 15 letter directly contradicts what his Motu Proprio says, as follows (in the English version provided by the Vatican):
§2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books, recognise adaptations approved by the Episcopal Conference according to the norm of law, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.
§3. It pertains to the Episcopal Conferences to faithfully prepare versions of the liturgical books in vernacular languages, suitably accommodated within defined limits, and to ]b]approve and publish the liturgical books for the regions for which they are responsible after the confirmation of the Apostolic See.
[The boldface parts are in the original, the underscoring is mine.]
The CDW will no longer instruct bishops to make proposed amendments, but retains authority to confirm or veto the results at the end of the process.
Among other consequences, this means that the Vatican commission Vox Clara, which was established by Pope John Paul II in 2002 to help the CDW vet English translations, will no longer be needed.
The Pope said he made the changes because of “difficulties” that unsurprisingly have sometimes arisen between the Vatican and bishops’ conferences. He added that he wanted “a vigilant and creative collaboration full of reciprocal trust” between the Holy See and bishops’ conferences, so that the renewal of “the whole liturgical life might continue.”
It, therefore, “seemed opportune,” he said, “that some principles handed on since the time of the Council should be more clearly reaffirmed and put into practice.”
Pentin's article, however, unduly condenses what Cardinal Sarah wrote. I am translating from what was published in Bussola, one of the three media outlets to which Cardinal Sarah provided the following commentary on ‘Magnum Principium’. Its very title indicates his intention was to help in the correct understanding of the motu proprio…
A humble contribution towards a better and
more correct understanding of ‘Magnum Principium’
The ‘recognitio’ of adaptations and the ‘confirmatio’ of translations in Canon 838
by Cardinal Robert Sarah
Translated from
October 12, 2017
On September 2, 2017, the Holy Father promulgated the motu proprio Magnum Principium on liturgical translations, modifying Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Canon 838 in the Code of Canon Law. We welcome with respect and adknowledgment this initiative of the Supreme Pontiff which allows a clearer and more rigorous definition of the respective responsibilities of episcopal confeences and of the Holy See towards a collaboration of fraternal and utter trust in the service of the Church.
This point, which in some way constitutes the heart of the motu proprio, is amplified in depth by a letter sent on Sept.26 by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments to the various episcopal conferences. It is in this perspective that I have drawn up this humble contribution, starting from the following observation: on the part of our dicastery, collaboration in the work of adaptation and translation done by the episcopal conferences is totally included in tw words from Canon 838: recognitio and confirmatio. What do they mean exactly? The purpose of this simple text is to reply to that question.
Canon 838 before ‘Magnum Principium’:
Can. 838 — § 1. Sacrae liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet: quae quidem est penes Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, penes Episcopum dioecesanum.
§ 2. Apostolicae Sedis est sacram liturgiam Ecclesiae universae ordinare, libros liturgicos edere eorumque versiones in linguas vernaculas recognoscere, necnon advigilare ut ordinationes liturgicae ubique fideliter observentur.
§ 3. Ad Episcoporum conferentias spectat versiones librorum liturgicorum in linguas vernaculas, convenienter intra limites in ipsis libris liturgicis definitos aptatas, parare, easque edere, praevia recognitione Sanctae Sedis.
§ 4. Ad Episcopum dioecesanum in Ecclesia sibi commissa pertinet, intra limites suae competentiae, normas de re liturgica dare, quibus omnes tenentur.
Translation:
Can. 838 §1. The direction of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, according to the norm of law, the diocesan bishop.
§2. It is for the Apostolic see to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, piblish liturgical books and review their translations in vernacular languages, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.
§3. It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare and publish, after the prior review of the Holy See, translations of liturgical books in vernacular languages, adapted appropriately within the limitscdefined in the liturgical books themselves.
§4. Within the limits of his competence, it pertains to the diocesan bishop in the Church entrusted to him to issue liturgical norms which bind everyone.
Canon 838 after “Magnum Principium”:
Can. 838 - § 1. Idem
§ 2. Apostolicae Sedis est sacram liturgiam Ecclesiae universae ordinare, libros liturgicos edere, aptationes, ad normam iuris a Conferentia Episcoporum approbatas, recognoscere,necnon advigilare ut ordinationes liturgicae ubique fideliter observentur.
§ 3. Ad Episcoporum Conferentias spectat versiones librorum liturgicorum in linguas vernaculas fideliter et convenienter intra limites definitos accommodatas parare et approbare atque libros liturgicos, pro regionibus ad quas pertinent, post confirmationem Apostolicae Sedis, edere.
§ 4. Idem
Translation:
Can. 838 - §1. [Remains the same]
§2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books,
recognise adaptations approved by the Episcopal Conference according to the norm of law, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.
§3. It pertains to the Episcopal Conferences to faithfully prepare versions of the liturgical books in vernacular languages, suitably accommodated within defined limits, and to approve and publish the liturgical books for the regions for which they are responsible after the confirmation of the Apostolic See.
§4. [Same as before]
NOTE: c 838 § 3: the word ‘aptatas’ (in the old canon) and ‘accomodatas’ (in the new canon) are synonyms, thus, the only translation is ‘suitably accommodated within defined limits’. The word change is justified in Latin by its context, because of the elimination of the reference to ‘in ipisis libiris liturigicis’ (in the same liturgical books) in the new Canon 838.3.
Comment:
1. It must be stressed that the reference text for liturgical translations remains the Instruction ‘ Liturgiam authenticam’ (LA) of March 28, 2001. Faithful (
fideliter) translations that are realized and approved by the episcopal conferences must consequently conform in every point to the norms of that Instruction. Therefore, there is no change to the necessary requirements and mandatory result for every liturgical book.
As will be seen later, given that the words
recognitio and
confirmatio, though not strictly synonyms, are nonetheless interchangeable, it is enough to simply replace the first with the second in LA, particularly for numbers 79-84.
2. The changes to Canon 838 only affect Sections 2 and 3, in particular these two points:
a. The distinction between ‘adaptation’, for which
recognitio is requested, and ‘translation’, for which
confirmatio is requested, from the Apostolic See.
b. As for liturgical translations, it is explicitly stated that the episcopal conferences must faithfully (
fideliter) prepare the translations (versions in the vernacaular) of liturgical books, and to approve and publish these books
after obtaining the confirmation of the Apostolic See.
It is important to underscore this: The novelty only concerns Point A – the distinction made between
recognitio and
confirmatio. Point B is the inscription ‘in stone’ by the Code of Canon Law of the habitual and constant practice that has been followed since the first Instruction on liturgical translations, ‘Comme le prevoit,’ in January 25, 1969, and a fortiori, by the promulgation of ‘Liturgicam authenticam’ in 2001.
3.
Recognitio was defined by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts in a 2006 document as “a
conditio iuris (juridical condition) which, by the will of the Supreme Legislator, is requested
ad valitatem (as a condition of validity)
(Cf. Communicationes 38, 2006, 16).
Consequently, if recognitio is not granted, the liturgical book cannot be published. The purpose of recognitio is to verify and safeguard conformity to the law and to the communion of the Church (i.e., her unity).
4.
Confirmatio is uised in the Code of Canon Law in different circumstances. Here are three examples:
a. In the case of an election that needs to be confirmed by a superior authority
(cf. c. 147, 178, 179)
b. Confirmation of the decrees of an Ecumenical Council by the Roman Pontiff before they are promulgated
(c. 341 § 1).
c. The decree of expulsion of the member of a religious order which can only take effect after a confirmation by the Holy See or the diocesan bishop, depending on wheher the institute is one of pontifical right, or of diocesan right
(c. 700).
In all these cases, there is a responsible person who acts according to the authority vested in him, and
a superior authority who must confirm that person’s decision with the end of verifying and safeguarding its conformity to the law.
Consequently, if an episcopal conference has prepared and approved the translation of a liturgical book, it cannot publish it without previous confirmatio by the Apostolic See. In the cases cited that require
confirmatio, the superior authority, before granting it, is bound to verify conformity with the law in current force. Likewise, the Apostolic See should grant a
confirmatio only after having duly verified that the translation is
fideliter (faithful), namely, conforming to the text of the
editio typica Latina, based on the criteria enunciated in LA on liturgical translations.
5. Like
recognitio,
confirmatio is in no way a mere formality, namely, a kind of approval given after a rapid examination of the translation approved by the episcopal conference on the basis of a priori favorable presumption that the translation is indeed
fideliter. Moreover, just as in the old C838.3,
confirmatio presupposes and implies
a detailed verification on the part of the Holy See, and
the possibility for the latter of making it a condition sine qua non for the confirmatio to be given, to require changes in some points that may be considered non-conforming to the criterion for ‘faithfulness’ (of translation) as previously provided in the Code of Canon Law.
Therefore, the decision of the Holy See is imposed on the episcopal conference. Note that, in this regard, this is the spirit of this norm (838.3) which corresponds to the interpretation given by Mons. Arthur Roche, secretary of the CDW, in his comment accompanying the motu proprio (MP).
The confirmatio of the Apostolic See is therefore not to be considered as an alternative intervention in the process of translation, but rather as an authoritative act by which the competent Dicastery ratifies the approval of the bishops. Obviously, this presupposes a positive evaluation of the fidelity and congruence of the texts produced in respect to the typical editions on which the unity of the Rite is founded and, above all, taking account of the texts of greatest importance, in particular the Sacramental formulae, the Eucharistic Prayers, the prayers of Ordination, the Order of Mass and so on.
Thus, for example, if in the Credo of the Mass, the expression ‘consubstantialem Patri’ is translated in French as
«de même nature que le Père» (“of the same nature as the Father”), the Holy See can – and should – impose the translation
«consubstantiel au Père» («consubstantial with the Father”), as a condition sine qua non for confirmation of the French translation of the Roman Missal in its entirety.
[I wish the example given had been the ‘pro multis’ in the Consecration of the wine, as that has been such a messy – and totally unnecessary – controversy.]
It must be noted however that the change in Canon 838.3 (
recognitio is replaced by
confirmatio) does not in any way change the responsibility of the Holy See, nor consequently, its competences with respect to liturgical translations:
the Apostolic See is bound to verify that the translations made by the episcopal conferences are fideliter to the typical Latin edition in order to guarantee, safeguard and promote communion in the Church, i.e., Church unity.
7. The words
recognitio and
confirmatio are not strictly synonymous for the ff reasons:.
a. The wordr
recognitio is reserved for adaptations approved by the episcopal conferences according to the law
whereas the word
confirmatio refers to liturgical translations (C838.3). This differentiation is positive since it has the merit of distinguishing, from hereon, and in a clear way, two very different areas: adaptation and translation.
Although they are interchangeable insofar as the level of responsibility exercised by the Holy See (cf No. 6), the two words are not strictly synonymous with respect to their effect on the typical edition [of the liturgy].
Above all, the adaptations realized
ad normam iuris modify the
editio typica in certain cases determined by law (cf. for the Roman Missal, by the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani – General Order of the Roman Missal, Chap. 9, nos. 386-399), thus the necessity for a
recognitio. But translations do not modify the
editio typica – on the contrary, they must be faithful to it (
fideliter), thus the need for a
confirmatio.
It is necessary to underscore anew this important point: far from being a kind of attenuated or weakened
recognitio, the weight of
confirmatio is as strong as the
recognitio referred to in the old C838.3.
b. In the second place, compared to
recognitio,
confirmatio seems to have a more unilateral character, since it comes at the end of the iter (process) of preparation/approval by the episcopal conference. In fact, one may say that since, by its nature,
recognitio, which like
confirmatio, comes into play a posteriori,
it presupposes a prior agreement during the process of the translation work, which would allow the preparation of a text that is acceptable to both sides. [Yet Bergoglioo implies that the Vatican should keep hands off the translation process.]
In C838.3, as modified by MP, the
confirmatio on the part of the Holy See must be paced in perpective with
fideliter and
approbatio on the part of the episcopal conferences. To the degree in which the episcopal conference is called on explicitly, by Canon Law norm, to ‘approve’ translations ‘faithful’ to the Latin
editio typica, the Holy See trusts the episcopal conference a priori. Thus, usually, the Holy See intervenes in the work of the episcopal conference only at the time of
confirmatio which constitutes a final or conclusive act (nonetheless, see No. 5 in this regard). It is evident that the procedure of confirmation can also involve preliminary exchanges when the episcopal conference sends a question to the Holy See, or when a process of coming to a mutual agreement by both parties is foreseen, which is to be desired.
Conclusion
The reality of
recognitio and
confirmatio is inscribed in our daily life: indeed, aware of our limitations, we naturally ask someone else to ‘verify’ the work we have done to the best that we can. In this way, based on that other person’s observations, or corrections if need be, we can improve our work. This is the responsibility of a professor to a student working on a thesis, or more simply, of parents overseeing their children’s homework, and in general, that of academic or guardian authorities.
Our life is woven out of
recognitio and
confirmatio which allows us to progress towards greater faithfulness to the demands of reality and all the areas of knowledgedin the service fo God and our neighbor (cf the parable of the talents, Mt 25,14-30).
Recognitio and
confirmatio on the part of the Holy See, which presupposes
a collaboration of fraternal and intense trust with the episcopal conferences, enter into this purview. As the Holy Fahter’s motuo proprio says admirably, it is about rendering more easy and more fruitful the collaboration between the Apostolic See and the episcopal conferences”.
Vatican City
Oct. 1, 2017