| | | OFFLINE | | Post: 31.611
Post: 13.699 | Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009 | Administratore | Utente Gold | |
|
Two recent articles by Vaticanistas tackle the public ‘correction’ of Cardinal Sarah by Pope Francis…
Francis's slap at Cardinal Sarah:
Behind the scenes
Oct. 26, 2017
The letter with which Francis recently contradicted and humiliated Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, is the latest proof of how this pope exercises his magisterium. [I do not think the cardinal would have felt humiliated at all! He knows exactly who he is dealing with, what kind of person he is.]
When Francis wants to introduce innovations, he never does so in clear and distinct words. He prefers to open discussions, to set “processes” in motion, within which the innovations are gradually affirmed.
The most glaring example is “Amoris Laetitia,” for which contrasting interpretations and applications are in fact given, with entire episcopates lining up on one or the other side.
And when he is asked for clarification, he refuses. As in the case of the five DUBIA submitted to him by four cardinals, not deemed worthy of so much as a reply.
But when a cardinal like Sarah, an authority by role and responsibilities, weighs in to give a papal motu proprio on the liturgy the only interpretation he sees as correct and therefore to be implemented by the congregation of which he is prefect, Francis does not remain silent but reacts with harshness, in defense of those passages of the motu prorio - which in effect are anything but clear - that contain the liberalizations dear to him.
This is just what has happened in recent days.
Let’s recapitulate. On September 9, Francis publishes the motu proprio “Magnum Principium” concerning the adaptations and translations into vernacular languages of the liturgical texts of the Latin Church.
In defining the role of the Congregation for Divine Worship concerning the adaptations and translations of the liturgical texts prepared by the national episcopal conferences and submitted for the approval of the Holy See, the motu proprio distinguishes between “recognitio” and “confirmatio,” between review and confirmation.
But the distinction is by no means explained with clarity. And in fact, two sides took shape immediately among the experts.
There are those who maintain that the “recognitio,” meaning the advance review by Rome, concerns only the adaptations, while for the translations the Holy See need give simply a “confirmatio,” its approval.
And there are those who instead maintain that on the translations as well, Rome must carry out a careful review, before approving them.
In effect, this is what was done before and it is why various new translations of the missals have had a troubled life - like those of the United States, Great Britain, and Ireland - or are still awaiting approval from Rome: like those of France, Italy, and Germany.
In particular, the new translation of the missal in German was an object of criticism by Benedict XVI himself, who in 2012 wrote a letter to his fellow countrymen bishops to convince them to translate with more fidelity the words of Jesus at the last supper, at the moment of consecration:
> Vatican Diary / "For many" or "for all"? The right answer is the first
Getting back to the motu proprio “Magnum Principium,” it must be noted that when this was drafted, it was kept in the dark from Cardinal Sarah, prefect of a dicastery whose middle management has long been rowing against him.
On September 30, Sarah wrote to Pope Francis a letter of thanks accompanied by a detailed “Commentaire”, aimed at a correct interpretation and application of the motu proprio, one that was rather restrictive concerning its multi-purpose formulations.
In Sarah’s judgment, “recognitio” and “confirmatio” are in reality “synonymous” or in any case “interchangeable at the level of responsibility of the Holy See,” whose task of reviewing translations before approving them remains intact.
A couple of weeks later the cardinal’s “Commentaire” appeared on various websites, leading to the conclusion - given the position of the author of the “Commentaire” - that in Rom, the CDW would act according to its guidelines. This greatly irritated Pope Francis, who on October 15 signed a letter harshly repudiating Cardinal Sarah.
A letter in which the pope assigns the national episcopal conferences the liberty and authority to decide on translations themselves, with the sole condition that the CDW gives the final “confirmatio”. In any case - the pope writes - without any “spirit of ‘imposition’ on the episcopal conferences of a given translation made by the dicastery” in Rome, even for “significant” liturgical texts like the “sacramental formulas, the Credo, the Pater noster.”
The conclusion of the pope’s letter to the cardinal is barbed with venom: “Considering that the ‘Commentaire’ in question has been published on a number of websites, and erroneously attributed to your person, I graciously ask you to see to it that this response of mine be released on the same sites as well as being sent to all the Episcopal Conferences, to the Members and Advisors of this Dicastery.”
There is an abyss between this letter from Francis and the warm words of esteem expressed in writing to Cardinal Sarah a few months ago by “pope emeritus” Benedict XVI. Who said he was sure that with Sarah “the liturgy is in good hands,” and therefore “we should be grateful to Pope Francis for appointing such a spiritual teacher as head of the congregation that is responsible for the celebration of the liturgy in the Church.”
Needless to say, the object of the clash between Francis and Cardinal Sarah is not a marginal one, but touches the foundations of the Church’s life, according to the ancient maxim: “Lex orandi, lex credendi.”
Because the “process” that Francis wants to set in motion is precisely that of changing, through a devolution of liturgical adaptations and translations to the national Churches, the overall structure of the Catholic Church, turning it into a federation of national Churches endowed with extensive autonomy, “including genuine doctrinal authority.” These last words come from “Evangelii Gaudium,” the agenda-setting text of Francis’s pontificate. These words too were enigmatic when they were published in 2013. But now a bit less so. [They were never ‘enigmatic’, because there was nothinawdropg equivocal about the intention expressed to ‘convert the papacy’ by devolving even doctrinal authority to bishops’ conferences, which, as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI do not have any theological basis at all and are merely bureaucratic structures. I think the general reaction – other than from so-called ‘conservative’ Catholics – to the jawdropping intentions spelled out in EG was to sweep them under the rug as too unprecedentedly audacious and even objectionable that they seemed unreal and therefore unlikely.
Remember it was only November 2013, just seven months into Bergoglio’s pontificate, and to most people, including Catholics, he was still bathed in the glow of the media’s instant myth that this was the greatest pope ever, if not the greatest man ever to walk the earth. Yet EG was, in fact, Bergoglio’s manifesto of his hubris. But even did not think at the time that his hubris would run to thinking of himself as Jesus II (and let not the fact that he said it in jest made it any less offensive for him to even verbalize his inner illusion – or better, self-delusion).]
Andrea Gagliarducci’s article is, as usual, maddening in parts…
Why Pope Francis ‘corrected’ Cardinal Sarah publicly
By Andrea Gagliarducci
Vatican City, Oct 24, 2017 (CNA/EWTN News).- To understand the recent publication of a letter sent by Pope Francis to Cardinal Robert Sarah, it is helpful to understand the wider discussion into which it fits.
The letter was sent as a reaction to a commentary the cardinal wrote on the Pope’s motu proprio ‘Magnum Principium’ (MP issued last month by which Pope Francis changed and amended those parts of the Code of Canon Law governing the translations of liturgical books into “vernacular languages.” The document gave more flexibility to bishops’ conferences to propose and draft [and approve!] their translations, leaving it for the Apostolic See only to “confirm” such translations.
At the time the motu proprio was issued, Archbishop Arthur Roche, Secretary of the Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments, released an official commentary, explaining that “the confirmatio of the Apostolic See is 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.”
Roche’s commentary went on to say that, “obviously, this presupposes a positive evaluation of the fidelity and congruence of the texts produced, with 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.”
If things were so clear, why did Cardinal Sarah draft an additional commentary, and why Pope Francis react so strongly to it? [Because for all his obsessive micromanagement of those changes which he arrogantly deems will forever be irreversible, this pope seems not to have read the rather straightforward text of the amendments made to Canon 838.2 and 838.3, nor, for that matter, the commentary he obviously asked Mons. Roche to prepare, otherwise he would not seem to be contradicting his own motu proprio in the ‘correction’ he made to Cardinal Sarah’s own commentary to MP.]
These questions have no definitive answers [of course, they have definitive answers – or rather, obvious self-explanatory answers – just that the answers would be given and/or received differently depending on which side of the liturgical war you are on], , but there are some clues as to why these things happened. [Prior indications, or omens, if you will, rather than clues.]
First of all, Pope Francis wants to reiterate that this reform is intended to fit the de-centralizating goals of his papacy.
In 'Evangelii Gaudium', widely considered the playbook for Pope Francis’s pontificate, he wrote that “it is not advisable for the Pope to take the place of local bishops in the discernment of every issue which arises in their territory. In this sense, I am conscious of the need to promote a sound ‘decentralization’.”
The letter to Cardinal Sarah pursues such “sound decentralization”, in this case, with regard to the liturgy. The Pope’s letter stressed that “the judgment of fidelity to Latin and any necessary corrections had been the task of the dicastery, but now the norm grants to episcopal conferences the right to judge the quality and consistency between one term and another in the translation from the original, even if this is in dialogue with the Holy See”.
So, the Pope said, “confirmatio no longer supposes a detailed word-by-word examination, except in the obvious cases that can be brought to the bishops for their further reflection.”
The letter to Sarah can also be understood best in light of his amendments to Liturgiam Authenticam (LA). Issued in 2001, LA was the fifth of a series of instructions delivered by the Congregation for the Divine Worship, intended to implement the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. A note from the Holy See Press Office in 2001, when the instruction was issued, helps to fully understand the instruction.
LA was presented as “a new formulation of principles of translation with the benefit of more than thirty years’ experience in the use of the vernacular in liturgical celebrations.” Among these guidelines was the need “not to extend or restrict the meaning of the original terms” and to avoid “terms that recall publicity slogans or those that have political, ideological or similar overtones” since the secular ‘handbook on styles’ cannot be applied because “the Church has distinctive things to say and a style of expression that is appropriate to them.”
The note also stressed that “the preparation of translations is a serious charge incumbent in the first place upon the bishops themselves,” and so “at least some of the bishops should be closely involved” in the process of translations. Procedures for the approval of texts from bishops and the presentation of those texts for review and confirmation from the Congregation of the Divine Worship were clearly established, ensuring that translations done by bishops’ conferences would be vetted for fidelity at the Holy See.
In his letter to Cardinal Sarah, the Pope clarified that “recognition” and “confirmation” are not interchangeable [which Sarah did not claim – what he said was that the effects of both processes as exercised by the Holy See are interchangeable] and stressed that “Magnum Principium no longer argues that translations must conform in all points to the norms of Liturgiam authenticam, as was previously the case.”
The Pope specifically cited n. 76 and n. 80 of LA that “the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments will be involved more directly in the preparation of the translations into these major languages,” and that “the required recognitio of the Apostolic See is intended to ensure that the translations themselves, as well as any variations introduced into them, will not harm the unity of God’s people, but will serve it instead” as points on which MP has stepped back.
Francis’s decision can be understood as a shift in focus to bishops’ conferences, which are entrusted with making faithful translations on their own, although a confirmation from the Holy See is still required.
The Pope wrote to Cardinal Sarah that “confirmatio is not merely a formality, but necessary for publication of the translated liturgical book: it is granted after the version has been submitted to the Apostolic See for ratification of the bishops’ approval, in a spirit of dialogue and aid to reflection, if and when necessary respecting their rights and duties, considering the legality of the process followed and its various aspects.” [In other words, his default position is that such ratification, dialogue and aid is not necessary at all!]
Can these clarifications be read as an attack on Cardinal Robert Sarah? [No, it’s actually a eulogy of him! What a question to ask! It is obvious that Cardinal Sarah’s approach to liturgy is not that of Pope Francis. Cardinal Sarah often speaks about a ‘reform of the [liturgical] reforms’, as did Benedict XVI, referring to some liturgical practices and norms developed after the Second Vatican Council, without changing the Council’s teaching on liturgy. [No, Mr. Gagliarducci! The best-known misuses of the liturgical reform intended by Vatican II, as laid down in its Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), have to do with violating SC itself, such as the virtual elimination of Latin from the liturgy (when use of the vernacular was only intended for certain common prayers and Latin was encouraged to be kept on, and in fact, for its study and use to be promoted) and what music is allowable in the Mass (no guitars, no pop songs, but strictly sacred music with piano, organ and voice); plus the add-ons that are nowhere found in SC, such as turning the altars around so the priest faces the people and receving communion in the hand in a standing position. These are such obvious points that for more than 50 years now, progressivists and all the Catholics who have simply settled into and with these misuses and abuses without question, have simply ignored.]
On July 5, 2016, Cardinal Sarah delivered a speech at the Sacra Liturgia conference in London urging priests to start celebrating Masses ad orientem, often seen as a hallmark of the “reform of the reform” movement, and his words were interpreted as new liturgical directives. [ [To be fair to the cardinal, he very clearly said it was his personal suggestion and exhortation to all priests.]
A statement from the Holy See Press Office some days later said that the Pope and Cardinal Sarah had discussed the issue, but that Sarah’s remarks did not constitute a new liturgical directive.
Despite this difference of views, Pope Francis’s letter to Sarah seems mostly a reaction to the fact that Cardinal Sarah’s “commentary” was leaked to several magazines. The letter ends with the Pope’s request to “provide this response to the same sites” where the Cardinal Sarah’s commentary was published, “and also to send it to all episcopal conferences, and the members and consultors of your dicastery.” [What’s the problem with Gagliarducci? Did he not read the pope’s letter at all? It starts out saying this:
“Eminence, I received your letter dated Sept. 30 in which you wished to express benevolently your gratitude for the publication of the motu proprio Magnum Principium and to transmit to me an elaborate nore entitled ‘Commentaire’ intended for a better understanding of the text.
In thanking you sincerely for your commitment and your contribution, allow me to express simply, and I hope clearly, some observations about the abovementioned note which I consider important [the observations, not the note] above all for the application and right understanding of the Motu Proprio and to avoid any equivocation…”
[See what I meant in an earlier post about the tone of the letter? Which I still have not gotten around to translate, but which I ought to complete doing. It starts out with a load of sarcasm (‘you wished to express benevolently your gratitude’ – as though Sarah’s letter were condescending - and ‘to transmit to me an elaborate note…for a better understanding of the text.’ (i.e., ‘How dare you explain to me my own motu proprio!’) Then follows that authoritarian and uncompromising second paragraph…]
The Pope recognized that the commentary’s leak [Not the leak but the commentary itself] was “erroneously attributed” to Cardinal Sarah; it seems clear that Pope Francis does not consider Cardinal Sarah to be the “leaker” of the letter. [[Once again, Mr. Gagliarducci, let us refer to the pope’s letter (my translation from the Italian) which ends as follows:
“Finally, Eminence, I reiterate my fraternal gratitude for your commitment and noting that the ‘Commentaire’ has been published on some websites and erroneously attributed to your person, I respectfully ask you to take steps so that my response may be published on the same sites, and send the same to all the episcopal conferences, and the members and consultants of your dicastery.”
The pope must have known very well that the Commentaire was not ‘leaked’ but openly sent by Cardinal Sarah to three major websites by the very fact that it was entitled ‘A humble contribution to towards a better and more correct understanding of Magnum Principium’, so it was quite unworthily disingenuous and hypocritical for him to pretend that the ‘Commentaire’ was ‘erroneously attributed to your person’. That comment was then followed by the papal demand – a punishment, really - not only that Sarah make sure the papal reply is published by the websites that published his Commentaire, but that he should also send the pope’s letter to all episcopal conferences and to the members and consultants of the CDW. But once again, the pope was being disingenuous, because according to La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, one of the sites that originally published the Commentaire, the newspaper received the papal reply directly from the Vatican with the express request ‘from the pope’ that it be published in full. Surely, the Vatican must have done that too with the two other outlets.]
Cardinal Sarah’s commentary was first published in French, in the magazine L’Homme Nouveau, and then translated into several languages. [ [Tut-tut. As I understand it, the commentary was sent out simultaneously to three outlets – one French, one Italian, one Spanish, and obviously in the corresponding language.] A source within the Congregation for the Divine Worship shared with CNA that the commentary was initially sent only to the Pope, and shared by Sarah only with some high-ranking officials.
Once more, it is important to go back to the beginning of the story, in January, when veteran Vatican watcher Sandro Magister reported that “directed by the secretary of the Congregation (for Divine Worship), the English archbishop Arthur Roche, a commission has been set up within the dicastery at the behest of Francis” with the goal of demolishing “one of the walls of resistance against the excesses of the post-conciliar liturgists,” namely “the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam issued in 2001, which sets the criteria for the translation of liturgical texts from Latin into the modern languages.”
According to Magister, the agenda of the commission was established in an article drafted by the theologian Andrea Grillo, which apparently had the support of Pope Francis. Grillo’s article criticized the way the instruction addressed the issue of the “too liberal translations,” and suggested that it contained the groundwork for Benedict XVI’s motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum,” which liberalized the use of the so-called “Extraordinary Form.”
According to Grillo, the fact that the phrase Summorum Pontificum is already present within Liturgiam Authenticam, together with the “new season of renewal” called for by the instruction suggests that it was the framework for the “reform of the reform” Cardinal Sarah advocated.
Grillo, however, said that “it is evident that a new season of renewal will be possible only overcoming the contradictions and nostalgic naivete of this act of interruption of the pastoral turn began with the Second Vatican Council.”
Apparently, the Pope felt he had to make sure that his understanding of liturgical reform is not sidelined by any other possible interpretations.
Though reaffirming the need for a confirmation of the Apostolic See, the Pope intended to show that he really aims for a decentralization, giving more responsibility to local bishops in the area liturgy. More, the Pope intended to show that there is no way to reverse the liturgical reforms he understands to be required by the Second Vatican Council.
In the end, the Pope himself, speaking Aug. 24 to the participants of the 68th Italian Liturgical Week, stated, “After this magisterium, and after this long journey, we can assert with certainty and magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible.”
The concern that some of those advocating a “reform of the reform” might really be reversing Vatican II’s liturgical reforms is ultimately – at least in part – the reason why Pope Francis reacted with an unprecedented public letter to Cardinal Sarah’s commentary.
Here, finally, is my translation of the pope’s letter to Cardinal Sarah:
Vatican City, 15 October 2017
To his Eminence the Most Reverend
Cardinal Robert SARAH
Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship
and the Discipline of Sacraments
Vatican City
Eminence,
I received your letter dated Sept. 30 in which you wished to express benevolently your gratitude for the publication of the motu proprio Magnum Principium and to transmit to me an elaborate nore entitled ‘Commentaire’ intended for a better understanding of the text.
In thanking you sincerely for your commitment and your contribution, allow me to express simply, and I hope clearly, some observations about the abovementioned note which I consider important [the observations, not the note] above all for the application and right understanding of the Motu Proprio and to avoid any equivocation…”
First of all, it is important to point out the importance of the clear difference that the new MP establishes between ‘recognitio’ and ‘confirmatio’ as set forth in sections 2 and 3 of the revised Canon 838, in order to abrogate the practice adopted by the dicastery pursuant to Liturgiam authenticam (LA), which the new MP meant to change. Nonetheless, one cannot say that between ‘recognitio’ and ‘confirmatio’ are ‘closely synonymous or interchangeable’ nor that they are ‘interchangeable at the level of the Holy See’s responsibility’.
In fact, the new Canon 838, in distinguishing between ‘recognitio’ and ‘confirmatio’, asserts the different responsibilities between the Apostolic See and the episcopal conferences in the exercise of these two actions. Magnum Principium no longer sustains that translations should conform in all points to the norms of LA, as it was required in the past. That is why the individual points of LA must be scrupulously re-interpreted, including Nos. 79-84, in order to distinguish what is required by canon law on traduction and that which is called for by legitimate adaptations. It is therefore clear tat certain paragraphs in LA have been abrogated or have lapsed as they have been reformulated in the new canon under MP (e.g., No. 76 and No. 80).
On the responsibility of the bishops’ conferences to translate ‘[liturgical texts] ‘fideliter’, it must be specified that the judgment on faithfulness to Latin and eventual corrections necessary, were once the task of the dicastery, whereas now the new law grants the bishops’ conferences the faculty to judge the rightness and the consistency of specific terms in the translation from the original, but in dialog with the Holy See.
Therefore, ‘confirmatio’ no longer implies a detailed word by word examination [of the translation compared to the original text], except in cases that could be presented to the bishops for further reflection. This goes particularly for the relevant [ritual] formulas, like the Eucharistic Prayers, and especially, the sacramental formulas approved by the Holy Father. ‘Confirmatio’ must also consider the integrity of the [liturgical] book, by verifying that all the parts of the editio typica have been translated.
Here, we might add that, in the light of MP, the ‘fideliter’ in Sec. 3 of the canon implies a three-fold faithfulness: first, to the original text; to the language into which it is translated; and finally, on the comprehensibility of the text by those for whom it is destined (cfr. Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani nn. 391-392).
In this sense, ‘recognitio’ only means verification and vigilance over the [translation’s] conformity to the law and to the communion of the Church. The process of translating liturgical texts (e.g., sacramental formulas, the Credo, the Pater Noster) in a language – from which they are to be considered authentic translations - should not lead to a spirit of ‘imposition’ on the episcopal conferences of a given translation made by the Dicastery, since this would violate the bishops’ right allowed by the [revised] canon as well as by Sacrosanctum Concilium 36.4.
Moreover, one must bear in mind the analogy with Canon 825.1 on versions of Sacred Scripture that do not need ‘confirmatio’ on the part of th0 Apostolic See.
It would not be right to attribute to ‘confirmatio’ the finality of ‘recognitio’ (i.e., ‘to verify and safeguard conformity with the law’). Certainly, ‘confirmatio’ is not a mere formality but necessary to the publication of the translated liturgical text: it is granted after the translation has been sent to the Holy See so it can ratify the approval of the bishops [Sounds like ‘putting a rubberstamp’ on the bishops’ translation!] in a spirit of dialog and to help in reflection if and when this should be necessary, respecting their rights and duties, and with due consideration of the legality of the process they followed and its modalities.
Finally, Eminence, I reiterate my fraternal gratitude for your commitment and noting that the ‘Commentaire’ has been published on some websites and erroneously attributed to your person, I respectfully ask you to take steps so that my response may be published on the same sites, and send the same to all the episcopal conferences, and the members and consultants of your dicastery.
And in asking you to pray for me, I assure you of my prayers for you.
Fraternally,
FRANCISCO
It is useful to look at Fr. Scalese's initial reaction to Magnum Principium at the time it was released:
Wiping the slate clean
on liturgical translations
Translated from
Sept. 11,2017
On Sept. 9, the Vatican released Pope Francis’s motu proprio Magnum Principium (MP), which modifies Canon 838 of the Code of Canon Law in regard to the respective competencies of the Holy See, bishops’ conferences and diocesan bishops in the matter of liturgy, specifically, the translation of liturgical texts.
Tje Vatican Press Office published MP with a “Note about Canon 838 of the Code of Canon Law” and commengay on the motu proprio by the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship.
Canon 838 has four paragraphs – the first of a general character; the second defining the responsibility of the Holy See in the matter of liturgical translations; the third on the corresponding role of bishops’ conferences; and the fourth indicates that of the diocesan bishop. MP modifies paragraphs 2 and 3, leaving 1 and 4 unchanged.
Here is the text of Canon 838 as it was, and as it has been modified :
Here is the translation of the canon, in the old and new formulations (I took the liberty of touching up the translation of 838.3 provided by the Bulletin of the Holy See as it did not seem to me faithful enough to the original Latin) [There will be continuing problems like these for as long as we can no longer rely even on Vatican translations. Is there a separate translation team working on press bulletins and non-papal documents and another one at the Secretariat of State reserved only for papal text translations? Obviously, liturgical translations ought to be done and overseen for purposes of final approval by special teams of competent translators named and supervised by the CDW.]
Previously:
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, publish 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 into vernacular languages, adapted appropriately within the limits defined 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.
In the new formulation:
838.1 No change.
838.2 It is the competence of the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish the liturgical books, review the adaptations approved, according to the norm of law, by the episcopal conferences, as well as to exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.
838.3 It pertains to the bishops’ conferences to prepare and approve the versions of liturgical books in their national languages, faithfully and conveniently adapted within defined limits, and publish the liturgical books for the region that pertains to them, after confirmation by the Apostolic See.
838.4 No change.
In the older law, the tasks of the Apostolic See were:
- Ordering the liturgy at the universal level
- Publishing the liturgical books
- ‘Recognitio’ of the translations into vernacular languages
- Exercising vigilance that liturgical regulations are followed everywhere.
While the role of the episcopal conferences consisted in
- Translating the liturgical books
- Adapting the translations to local circusmtances
- Publishing the liturgical books as translated after obtaining the recognitio of the Holy See
[Fr. S’s note: One must note that the Italian edition of the Code of Canon Law edited by Luigi Chiappetta (Edizioni Dehoniane, Naples, 1988) translates the Latin ‘recognoscere’ as ‘approvare’ (to approve), saying that, ”In Italian, the term ‘approval’ is more exact juridically for the process of ‘review, examination and checking”, whereas the Italian version of the new motu proprio adds the ff note: “In the version of the Code of Canon Law, commonly in use, the verb ‘recognoscere’ is translated as ‘authorize’”, but the explanatory note of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts has specified that recognitio “is not generic or summary approval, nor is it simply ‘authorization’. Instead, it also means a careful and detailed examination or revision [prior to the approval]”...(April 2, 2006.)]
So what has changed? In effect, the Holy See has renounced ‘recognitio’ of translations, whic[h responsibility is now entrusted exclusively to the bishops’ conferences (leaving it only with ‘confirmatio’ of liturgical books translated and approved by these conferences), and exercising ‘recognitio’ only for adaptations (the term used in a wider context than simply adaptations used in the translations) already approved by the bishops’ conferences.
What to say about these changes? Formally, they seem to be unexceptionable, being presented as largely conforming to the dispositions of Vatican II and making a clearer distinction between liturgical adaptations (i.e., of the rites themselves (which require the Holy See’s ‘recognitio’ in view of its duty to safeguard the unity of the Roman rite) and liturgical translations (which are now solely the competency of the bishops’ conferences and only require ‘confirmatio’ from the Holy See).
But beyond the formal correctness of the changes, it seems legitimate to raise some perplexing questions. Above all, regarding the Holy See’s ‘confirmatio’ required for the publishing of liturgical books as translated and approved by the bishops’ conferences. The CDW secretary, Mons. Arthur Roche, in his commentary accompanying the motu proprio, says specifically that it would not mean an ‘alternative translation’ (as often happened in the past, raising an outcry among liturgical experts) by the Holy See, but simply a ratification of whatever the bishops’ conferences have approved. As much as such a ratification is presented as an ‘authoritative action’, the impression is really that the Holy See’s ‘confirmatio’ is nothing but a notarial intervention.
It is true that the motu proprio presupposes “a positive evaluation of the faithfulness [of the translations] and the congruence of the texts produced with the editio typica of the Roman Missal i.e., the reference edition in Latin on which all translations must be based]”, but if that is so, then why has the previous act of ‘recognitio’ been withdrawn, which term includes, beyond just approval, also prior review and evaluation? Giving up the right of ‘recognitio’ gives the impression that the Holy See is declaring its own lack of competence with regard to liturgical traditions, since this competence is now attributed exclusively to the bishops’ conferences.
An aspect that seems to have been totally ignored in the revision of Canon 838 (it also was in the older version, but not in the practices followed by the CDW) is the fact that some languages (English, French, Spanish and Portuguese) cannot be considered only as national languages but are, in fact, international languages spoken in various territories (that are comparatively vast and global). The canon, as formulated then and now, assumes a correspondence between bishops’ conferences and languages, but such a correspondence exists more in the minds of those who drew up the canons rather than in reality.
[Let’s take my country as an example. I have not attended a Novus Ordo Mass in my country, the Philippines, for over 30 years now, so I do not know if the text currently used is the English translation (as it was in the 1970s) - English being the country’s second official language - or if there is now a translation in the national language, Pilipino, not to mention the other major indigenous Filipino languages like Cebuano, Ilongo and Ilocano. (Our archipelago has more than 93 distinct languages, not dialects, languages which only those born to the language or raised in the language can speak and understand; Pilipino is based on and is largely Tagalog, the language spoken in Manila and surrounding provinces, as decreed by a law in the 1930s, and it is mandatorily taught in all elementary schools throughout the country, disseminated even more conveniently by local movies which are exclusively in Pilipino and television, largely in English and Pilipino, although the language of instruction everywhere continues to be English, as it has been since the U.S. colonized the Philippines back in 1898.]
Aside from the fact that there are countries in which many local languages are spoken, which means that the bishops’ conferences should provide multiple translations (but with what competence, since not all of the bishops would speak all of the local languages), and in the case of the multinational languages cited above, which bishops’ conference would bear the responsibility for the translations?
[For the English-speaking countries, the so-called ICEL (International Commission on English in the Liturgy) was established in 2003 as a mixed commission of several bishops conferences in accordance with the CDW Instruction’ Liturgiam authenticam’, which ‘Magnum Principium’ implicitly and explicitly seeks to replace. Eleven bishops conferences are full members of ICEL, each of them represented by a bishop – those ofAustralia, Canada, England and Wales, India, Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Scotland, South Africa, and the United States of America. Another 15 countries in which English is widely spoken and/or is an official language are associate members: the Antilles, Bangladesh, CEPAC (Pacific islands), Gambia, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Kenya, Malaysia, Singapore, Malawi, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. The ICEL secretariat in Washington assists the member shiops and coordinates the work of specialists throughout the world who work on preparing the translations.]
According to the new formulation, one would conclude that each country would be responsible for its own translations. Resulting in multiple ‘approved’ translations in the same language! Which to me does not make sense. [Anarchy upon anarchy! Already, the updated ICEL translation which went into effect in Advent 2010 continues to be denounced if not rejected outright by many vociferous bishops, priests and liturgists who are perfectly happy with the haphazard as well as liturgically deficient and semantically compromised English translation imposed soon after the Novus Ordo became the Mass form practiced around the world, and who think that the current ICEL translation is much too ‘literal’ and ‘traditional’. Do those 26 member conferences of ICEL now intend to jettison ICEL-2 and impose their own national English translations, be it a return to the deficient ICEL-1?]
In my opinion, it is inevitable that in every major language, commissions or international committtees directly responsible to the Holy See would be formed to arrive at common translations valid for all the territories in which the specific language is spoken, as has been done by the English-speaking countries.
So now, what happens? Every English-speaking bishops’ conference will now think it is has the right to proceed to their own English translation. One is curious to see where all this will end. One thing is for sure: while the world proceeds towards progressive globalization, the Church has not succeeded in ridding itself of linguistic specificities.
[In short, the present ‘Church’ under Bergoglio is losing or deliberately renouncing its ‘catholicity’ or universality, which would be consistent with the anti-Catholicism and anti-Catholicity of Bergoglianism.]
But what leaves a bitter taste in the mouth is that the new motu proprio, in effect, serves to wipe out Liturgiam authenticam which was issued “on the use of vernacular languages in the publication of the liturgical books of the Roman rite” published in 2001, i.e., under John Paul II.
Is it just accidental that not even in MP nor in the “Note on Canon 838 of the Code of Canon Law”, LA is never cited? It is cited only by Mons. Roche in his accompanying commentary when he explains that the adverb ‘fideliter’ was inserted into 838.3 in order to recall “the principal concern” of the instruction LA.
It is true that LA has not been formally abrogated in full by MP, and that, theoretically, it should continue to guide Biblical and liturgical translations around the world. But since this is not explicitly stated, then anyone will feel authorized to interpret MP vis-à-vis LA as he pleases. [Typical for this laissez-faire pontificate!]
Of course, everyone will say that their translations are faithful to the original Latin text – but it remains to be seen what they mean by ‘faithful’: whether it is formal correspondence or ‘dynamic equivalence’. Meanwhile, the Holy See will limit itself, like a good notary, to simply ‘confirm’ the translations ‘self-certified’ by the individual bishops’ conferences as ‘faithful’.
The moral of the story: This motu proprio shows that the liturgical reform begun after Vatican II and which has gone on in the past 50 years as a process that has been progressively deepening and particularizing, is not at all…
irreversible. [I don’t know that anything has deepened or particularized in a positive way as far as the Novus Ordo is concerned, especially since it continues to be widely abused, and in new and different ways. About the only true liturgical ‘reform’, i.e., a reform of the reform, is Benedict XVI’s restoration of the traditional Mass to full legitimacy and equivalency with the NO, and perhaps, a far second, the new ICEL translation. One might add Cardinal Sarah’s recommendation that all Masses, in whatever form, be said ‘ad orientem’ even if the positive response to it has been numerically insignificant.]
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 28/10/2017 13:40] |