Francis corrects Sarah: Liturgical translations not to be 'imposed' from Vatican

[CMTV]

Oct 23,2017

ROME — Pope Francis has issued a public correction to an article by Cardinal Robert Sarah about the changes the pontiff made last month to how the Catholic Church's liturgies are to be translated from the original Latin into local languages.

In the correction, which takes the form of a letter to Sarah but the pope asks to be posted at the same websites where the cardinal's article first appeared, Francis makes clear the Vatican is no longer to undertake a "detailed word-by-word exam" of translations they receive from the world's local bishops' conferences.

Francis says the new motu proprio Magnum Principium ("The Great Principle"), released Sept. 9, "grants the episcopal conferences the faculty to judge the worth and coherence of one or another phrase in the translations from the original."

"The process of translating relevant liturgical texts into a language ... must not bring a spirit of 'imposition' over the episcopal conferences with a translation handed down from the Dicastery, as that would betray the right of bishops as set forth in canon law," the pope tells the cardinal.

Sarah is the prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which traditionally has had authority over liturgical translations.

Francis' correction, sent out by the Vatican press office Oct. 22, is a response to an article by Sarah that appeared in the Oct. 14 edition of the French magazine L'Homme Nouveau and was then posted in Italian on several other websites.

In his article, Sarah had claimed that the pope's motu proprio did not change his congregation's authority to impose new translations on bishops' conferences when the congregation decided the bishops' efforts did not match the original Latin texts closely enough.

Francis says in his correction to Sarah that Magnum Principium presumes that portions of a 2001 instruction from the cardinal's congregation, known as Liturgiam Authenticam, will need to be "re-considered" and that some paragraphs of the instructed have been "abrogated" by the new motu proprio.

The 2001 instruction specified that translations from Latin were to be made "in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content."

"Magnum Principium no longer supports [the idea] that translations must conform at all points to the norms of Liturgiam Aauthenticam, as was done in the past," states the pope in the correction. He says specifically that paragraphs 79-84 of the 2001 document need to be "re-considered." 

Francis also tells Sarah that liturgical translations should have a "triple fidelity:" to the original Latin text, to the language into which it is being translated, and "to the comprehensibility of the text for those who will use it."

Magnum Principium went into effect Oct. 1 and moves most responsibility for liturgical translation from the Vatican to local bishops' conferences.

Francis said in the document that he made the change to translation procedure so that the Second Vatican Council's call to make the liturgy more understandable to people is "more clearly reaffirmed and put into practice."

[Joshua J. McElwee is NCR Vatican correspondent. His email address is jmcelwee@ncronline.org. Follow him on Twitter: @joshjmac.]

[CMTV]

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/10/22/pope-francis-rebukes-cardinal-sarah-liturgy

Pope Francis rebukes Cardinal Sarah on liturgy



Pope Francis has publicly corrected Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in a letter released by the Vatican on Oct. 22, 2017. In that letter, the pope informs the cardinal that the commentary attributed to Sarah on the motu proprio "Magnum Principium," regarding the translation of liturgical texts, is not a faithful and correct interpretation of that papal decree.

The motu proprio (an edict issued by the Pope personally), released on Sept. 15, 2017, restored to bishops' conferences the authority given to them by the Second Vatican Council to "recognize" or approve the translations of liturgical texts from the Latin Missale Romanum into the language of their respective countries. That authority was taken away by "Liturgiam Authenticam," an instruction on the implementation of Vatican II's constitution on the liturgy, approved by John Paul II in March 2001 and subsequently issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship.

In "Magnum Principium," Pope Francis distinguished between the "recognition" (recognitio in Latin) of a translation, authority over which is now given to the bishops' conferences, and the "confirmation" (confirmatio in Latin) of the translation by the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship. The return of authority to the bishops' conferences was a restoration and development of what Vatican II's constitution on the liturgy had granted them, and was widely welcomed by bishops' conferences on all continents.

Cardinal Sarah published a commentary in L'Homme Nouveau in France on Oct. 1, 2017 (the day "Magnum Principium" came into force), in which Sarah asserted that in reality nothing had changed. He claimed that "recognition" and "confirmation" are interchangeable, even synonymous terms, and that the congregation which he heads still has the decisive authority given to it by "Liturgiam Authenticam" and retains final word on the question of translations.

Francis revealed today that the cardinal had sent him a letter on Sept. 30, 2017, in which Sarah thanked the pope for "Magnum Principium" and provided him with his commentary, which the cardinal had already sent for publication in L'Homme Nouveau the next day.

In his letter, written in Italian and dated Oct. 15, 2017, Pope Francis explains that his motu proprio establishes "a clear difference" between what is meant by "recognition" and "confirmation," and states clearly that the two acts are not "synonymous" or "interchangeable," as the cardinal had asserted in his commentary. The pope explained further that his motu proprio abrogated the practice adopted by the congregation following the publication of "Liturgiam Authenticam."

As a result of his motu proprio, Pope Francis explained, the bishops' conferences now have the responsibility "to translate faithfully" the liturgical texts from the Latin into the language of their respective countries. He said the translation has to be faithful both to the original Latin text and to the language into which it is translated, and also must be comprehensible to those for whom it is destined. The motu proprio also grants bishops' conferences "the right to judge the authenticity and consistency" of the translations, and verify if the translation is faithful to the original Latin text. They can do so in dialogue with the Holy See, if necessary. This recognition was previously a task of the congregation.

The pope explained that "recognition" means "the verification and preservation of conformity to the law and to the communion of the church" of the translation. He insisted that "the process of translating relevant liturgical texts (that is, sacramental formulas, the Creed, Our Father) into a language—from which they are considered authentic translations—should not lead to the 'imposition' on the bishops' conference of a given translation made by the dicastery (congregation), as this would undermine the right of the Bishops."

For this reason, he stated, "it is incorrect to attribute to confirmation the purpose of recognition."

Pope Francis then clarified what "confirmation" means. He said "it is not a purely formal act but necessary for the edition of the liturgical book translated. It is granted after the version has been submitted to the Apostolic See for the ratification of the Bishops' approval in a spirit of dialogue and help to reflect if and when necessary, respecting their rights and duties, considering the legality of the process being followed and its ways. "

Importantly, Francis clarified that "confirmation" does not necessarily mean a detailed word-by-word examination, except in the obvious cases that can be brought to the bishops for their further reflection, noting that this "is particularly valid for the relevant formulas, for example with the Eucharistic Prayers and especially the sacramental formulas approved by the Holy Father."

Cardinal Sarah, who was appointed prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by Pope Francis on Nov. 23, 2014, originally released his commentary in French, but it was rapidly made available in English and other languages on websites and blogs known to be sympathetic to his way of viewing the liturgy. Significantly, Pope Francis asked him explicitly in his letter "to provide for the dissemination of my reply to the same sites" on which Sarah's commentary was originally published. He also asked Sarah to send his letter "to all Episcopal Conferences" and to "the members and consultors" of the congregation that he heads.

The Vatican had intended to publish the pope's letter tomorrow, but it had to move up its release after an Italian website close to Sarah's liturgical position published the entire text this morning. Many in Rome are asking the question: who gave the letter to the website?

This is the third time that Pope Francis has publicly corrected Cardinal Sarah for giving an alternative interpretation to his instructions on the liturgy. On previous occasions, the pope corrected the cardinal after Sarah misrepresented the pope's instruction on the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday, and again after Sarah publicly advocated that the Eucharist should be celebrated with the priest facing east ("ad orientem").

Pope Francis asked Sarah explicitly in his letter "to provide for the dissemination of my reply to the same sites" on which Sarah's commentary was originally published.

Cardinal Sarah's divergence from the pope has become a cause of embarrassment, several Vatican officials told America. They said they find it difficult to reconcile his public statements with his role as head of a congregation that is meant to be at the service of the papacy.

[CMTV]

The letter in original Italian:

Città del Vaticano, 15 ottobre 2017

A Sua Eminenza Reverendissima

il signor Card. Robert SARAH

Prefetto della Congregazione per il Culto Divino
e la Disciplina dei  Sacramenti
Città del Vaticano

Eminenza,

ho ricevuto la sua lettera del 30 settembre u.s., con la quale Ella ha voluto benevolmente esprimermi la sua gratitudine per la pubblicazione del Motu Proprio Magnum Principium e trasmettermi una elaborata nota, "Commentaire", sullo stesso finalizzata a una migliore comprensione del testo.

Nel ringraziarla sentitamente per l'impegno e il contributo, mi permetto di esprimere semplicemente, e spero chiaramente, alcune osservazioni sulla sopramenzionata nota che ritengo importanti soprattutto per l'applicazione e la giusta comprensione del Motu Proprio e per evitare qualsiasi equivoco.

Innanzitutto occorre evidenziare l'importanza della netta differenza che il nuovo MP stabilisce tra recognitio e confirmatio, ben sancita nei §§ 2 e 3 del can. 838, per abrogare la prassi, adottata dal Dicastero a seguito del Liturgia authenticam (LA) e che il nuovo Motu Proprio ha voluto modificare. Non si può dire pertanto che recognitio e confirmatio sono "strettamente sinonimi (o) sono intercambiabili" oppure "sono intercambiabili a livello di responsabilità della Santa Sede".

In realtà il nuovo can. 838, attraverso la distinzione tra recognitio e confirmatio, asserisce la diversa responsabilità della Sede Apostolica nell'esercizio di queste due azioni, nonché quella delle Conferenze Episcopali. Il Magnum Principium non sostiene più che le traduzioni devono essere conformi in tutti i punti alle norme del Liturgia authenticam, così come veniva effettuato nel passato. Per questo i singoli numeri di LA vanno attentamente ri-compresi, inclusi i nn. 79-84, al fine di distinguere ciò che è chiesto dal codice per la traduzione e ciò che è richiesto per i legittimi adattamenti. Risulta quindi chiaro che alcuni numeri di LA sono stati abrogati o sono decaduti nei termini in cui sono stati ri-formulati dal nuovo canone del MP (ad es. il n. 76 e anche il n. 80).

Sulla responsabilità delle Conferenze Episcopali di tradurre "fideliter", occorre precisare che il giudizio circa la fedeltà al latino e le eventuali correzioni necessarie, era compito del Dicastero, mentre ora la norma concede alle Conferenze Episcopali la facoltà di giudicare la bontà e la coerenza dell'uno e dell'altro termine nelle traduzione dall'originale, se pure in dialogo con la Santa Sede. La confirmatio non suppone più dunque un esame dettagliato parola per parola, eccetto nei casi evidenti che possono essere fatti presenti ai Vescovi per una loro ulteriore riflessione. Ciò vale in particolare per le formule rilevanti, come per le Preghiere Eucaristiche e in particolare le formule sacramentali approvate dal Santo Padre. La confirmatio tiene inoltre conto dell'integrità del libro, ossia verifica che tutte le parti che compongono l'edizione tipica siano state tradotte[1].

Qui si può aggiungere che, alla luce del MP, il "fideliter" del § 3 del canone, implica una triplice fedeltà: al testo originale in primis; alla particolare lingua in cui viene tradotto e infine alla comprensibilità del testo da parte dei destinatari (cfr. Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani nn. 391-392)

In questo senso la recognitio indica soltanto la verifica e la salvaguardia della conformità al diritto e alla comunione della Chiesa. Il processo di tradurre i testi liturgici rilevanti (ed es. formule sacramentali, il Credo, il Pater Noster) in una lingua – dalla quale vengono considerati traduzioni autentiche -, non dovrebbe portare ad uno spirito di "imposizione" alle Conferenze Episcopali di una data traduzione fatta dal Dicastero, poiché ciò lederebbe il diritto dei Vescovi sancito nel canone e già prima dal SC 36 § 4. Del resto si tenga presente l'analogia con il can. 825 § 1 circa la versione della Sacra Scrittura che non necessita di confirmatio da parte della Sede Apostolica.

Risulta inesatto attribuire alla confirmatio la finalità della recognitio (ossia "verificare e salvaguardare la conformità al diritto"). Certo la confirmatio non è un atto meramente formale, ma necessario alla edizione del libro liturgico "tradotto": viene concessa dopo che la versione è stata sottoposta alla Sede Apostolica per la ratifica dell'approvazione dei Vescovi, in spirito di dialogo e di aiuto a riflettere se e quando fosse necessario, rispettandone i diritti e i doveri, considerando la legalità del processo seguito e le sue modalità[2].

Infine, Eminenza, ribadisco il mio fraterno ringraziamento per il suo impegno e constatando che la nota "Commentaire" è stata pubblicata su alcuni siti web, ed erroneamente attribuita alla sua persona, Le chiedo cortesemente di provvedere alla divulgazione di questa mia risposta sugli stessi siti nonché l'invio della stessa a tutte le Conferenze Episcopali, ai Membri e ai Consultori di codesto Dicastero.

Fraternamente

Francesco

[Prayerful]

A lot of Conciliar ultras (a large minority of Conciliar bishops) strongly dislike the 2001 Liturgiam Authenticam and finally 2011 revisions to the typical edition of the Conciliar Roman Missal, the Editio Typica Tertia Emendat which corrected the most egregious translation errors to Concilium's already defective, and barely valid 68-70 effort at a Mass. The words of the Centurion and the Mass offered for 'all' rather than 'many' were just two, ICEL's efforts are the most easy to follow for most here, but deliberately loose translation was the rule, not exception. Many Conferences like that of Germany, funder and patron of Bergoglianism, or Italy ignore it, and even where corrected translations were mandated, some geriatric Fr Trendys still make sure to use the invalid translation in their old Missal.

The purpose of Magnum Principium is to reverse reforms, efforts at restoration by Benedict while he still lives, in some deniable fashion, when local Conferences have the resources to print new Missals or supplements for priests. Being the house conservative/trad-lite like Cardinals Sarah or Burke means having to accept routine humiliation. Maybe Cardinal Burke should reflect that the supposed 'schism' or distance from Bergoglianism of FSSPX has advantages.

Francis said in the document that he made the change to translation procedure so that the Second Vatican Council's call to make the liturgy more understandable to people is "more clearly reaffirmed and put into practice."

Defunct 60s and 70s practices of 'dynamic' translation, changing the meaning to the current Marxist-Leninist zeitgeist of banality, disorder, mass apostasy, secularism (given the influences of PF's handlers, that can be taken as a given) is back, and never entirely disappeared. One thing which particularly angers PF was that many bishops started to clean out the sodomitical and heretical filth which had long permeated the steadily emptying and closing seminaries. A priesthood targeting a subset of a subset, extra-narcissistic homosexuals with some religious mania, a flamboyant James Martin SJ type, is what is wanted again. That parody of a priesthood will only ever attract a tiny, often morally confused element.

[Archer]

Great look for the one with the phone taking a picture. Wonder if he got a #popeselfie, too.

[Prayerful]

Fr Z suggests it wasn't as reported that the Pope was asked Cardinal to set the record straight, acknowledgement that the Cardinal did not utter or write the words attributed to him.

At the end, the Pope thanks Card. Sarah for his "diligence", his having taken the time and effort, "impegno", presumably about making known to the Pope the contents of the "Commentaire".  Then the Pope acknowledges that Card. Sarah did not write the "Commentaire", and that he understands that it was erroneously attributed to the Cardinal.   That's what the Pope says: "Thanks for letting me know about this Commentaire, which you did not write and which some out there on the internet have incorrectly said that you wrote."

Hence, the Pope asks that, since that "Commentaire", wrongly attributed to the Cardinal, was on websites, the Pope asked that Card. Sarah set the record straight by sending the Pope's letter also around to sites and members and consultors of the Congregation, just to make things clear.  The language about the Cardinals "diligence" smacks of a followup after a meeting.  It is as if to say, you brought these things to my attention, and here's what we determined to do about it.

And yet the catholic Left has gone into grand mal nutty about how Pope Francis beat down Card. Sarah.  But that's not what the letter does.

Letters like this tend to be have something other a literal meaning, maybe a post meeting thing, maybe a slapdown, yet it is still clear enough that PF is using the latest motu proprio[/url] as a means to 'make a mess' and to help his loyalists who hate minimally valid NOMs that appears with the Missal revisions between 2001 and 2011. The NOM is a failed liturgy, a destroyer of Faith, which is probably its purpose.