Sunday, October 22, 2017



BREAKING: Pope to Card. Sarah: Liturgical translations "no longer... must conform at all points to the rules of Liturgiam Authenticam, as it was done in the past." Rome will no longer need to approve Mass translations or approve their fidelity in accordance with the rules established by Benedict XVI. READ the entire letter here:

"Vatican City, October 15, 2017

Your Eminence is Reverendissima

Mr. Cardinal Robert SARAH

Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship
and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Vatican City


I received your letter of September 30, with which you wished to express your gratitude for the publication of Motu Proprio Magnum Principium and to send me a commentary aimed at a better understanding of the text.

In expressing my gratitude for the commitment and the contribution, I would simply like to express, some comments on the above mentioned note which I consider to be important, especially for the proper application and understanding of the Motu proprio and to avoid any misunderstanding.

First of all, it is important to point out the importance of the clear difference that the new MP establishes between recognitioand confirmatio, well enshrined in §§ 2 and 3 of the can. 838, to abolish the practice adopted by the Dicastery following the Authentic Liturgy (LA) and that the new Motu Proprio wanted to change. We can not therefore say that recognitio and confirmatio are "strictly synonymous (or) are interchangeable" or "they are interchangeable at the level of responsibility of the Holy See."

In fact the new can. 838, through the distinction between recognitio and confirmatio , asserts the different responsibility of the Apostolic See in the exercise of these two actions, as well as that of the Episcopal Conferences. The Magnum Principium no longer argues that translations must conform at all points to the rules of Liturgiam Authenticam, as it was done in the past. For this reason, individual LA numbers must be carefully re-understood, including nn. 79-84, in order to distinguish what is required by the code for translation and what is required for legitimate adaptations. It is therefore clear that some LA numbers have been abrogated or have fallen into the terms in which they were re-formulated by the MP's new canon (eg No. 76 and even No. 80).

On the responsibility of the Bishops' Conferences to translate " fideliter ", it should be pointed out that the judgment of Latin fidelity and any necessary corrections was the task of the Dicastery, while now the norm grants the Episcopal Conferences the right to judge the goodness and consistency of the 'one and the other term in the translation from the original, even if in dialogue with the Holy See. The confirmatio not supposed more, therefore, a detailed examination word for word, except in obvious cases that can be made to the present Bishops for their further reflection. This applies in particular to the relevant formulas, such as the Eucharistic Prayers and in particular the sacramental formulas approved by the Holy Father. The confirmatioIt also takes into account the integrity of the book, that is, verifying that all parties that make up the typical edition have been translated [1] .

Here it can be added that, in the light of the MP, the "fideliter" of § 3 of the canon implies a threefold fidelity: to the original text in the first ; to the particular language in which it is translated, and finally to the comprehension of the text by the recipients (see Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani Nos. 391-392)

In this sense, recognitio only indicates verification and preservation of conformity to the law and communion of the Church. The process of translating relevant liturgical texts (eg sacramental formulas, the Credo, the Pater Noster ) into a language - from which they are considered authentic translations - should not lead to a spirit of "imposition" at the Episcopal Conferences of a date translation made by the Dicastery, as this would undermine the right of the bishops sanctioned in the canon and already before SC 36 § 4. Moreover, keep in mind the analogy with the can. 825 § 1 about the version of Sacred Scripture that does not require confirmation by the Apostolic See.

It is wrong to attribute to confirmation the purpose of recognitio (ie to "verify and safeguard compliance with law"). Of course, confirmation is not merely formal, 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 aid to reflect if and when necessary, respecting their rights and duties, considering the legality of the process followed and its modalities [2] .

Finally, Eminence, I reiterate my fraternal gratitude for his commitment and note that the commentaire has been published on some websites and wrongly attributed to his person, I kindly ask you to provide this answer to the same sites as well as sending it to all Episcopal Conferences, Members and Consultors of this Dicastery.



[1] Magnum Principium: "The end of the translations of the liturgical texts and the biblical texts, for the liturgy of the Word, is to announce to the faithful the word of salvation in obedience to the faith and to express the prayer of the Church to the Lord. To this end, it is necessary to communicate faithfully to a particular people, through their own language, what the Church intended to communicate to another by means of the Latin language. Although fidelity can not always be judged by singular words, but it must be in the context of the whole act of communication and according to its literary genre, however, some peculiar terms should also be considered in the context of the Catholic faith. liturgical texts must be congruent with the sound doctrine. "

[2] Magnum Principium : "One must certainly pay attention to the usefulness and goodness of the faithful, nor should we forget the rights and burdens of the Episcopal Conferences which, together with the Episcopal Conferences of regions with the same language and with the Apostolic See, must make sure that the indole of each language is preserved, fully and faithfully rendered the meaning of the original text and that the liturgical books translated, even after the adaptations, always shine through the unity of the Roman Rite ".


Henry said...

Quoted by Fr. Z today:

"Our faith in the indefectibility of the Church is soon going to be tested and good people will legitimately choose different sides. I am neither an alarmist nor a conspiracy theory cook, but these people are evil. … It’s going to get SO much worse before it gets better. Brace yourselves and cling to your beads, catechism, Breviary and Mass."

We internet sophisticates know that imprudent or even heretical statements or actions of a pope do not suffice to disprove the indefectibility of the Church, but such subtle distinctions may be lost on the average Catholic.

Anonymous said...

I guess good old Francis does take time to respond to some of his cardinals. Cardinal Sarah should just remain silent and not respond to Francis’ letter and keep doing what he is doing. Who does Francis think he is sitting on the judgement seat of Moses laying down commands? I think Cardinal Sarah should make a mess.

TJM said...

either this is a poor translation or he sounds like an idiot

Dialogue said...

Perhaps the Holy Father could privately discuss with his cardinals his intentions and expectations before publicly issuing new directives. Unless, of course, unending uncertainty and public humiliation are now the preferred administrative tools of the See of Peter.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I do think that cardinals in the Curia work for the pope and his agenda. I would only hope cardinals have easy access to the pope, run things by him, etc, before speaking publicly. I felt that way about the ad Orientem debacle too. With that said, though, I wish corrections were private and not public including corrections of the pope.

If there is heresy concerning any pope, I simply don't know what mechanism there is in the Church apart from the See of Peter becoming vacant.

We see anew how liberalizing forces in the Church causes so much confusion resulting in the loss of Catholic Faith . It happenened prior to JPII and is being renewed under Francis. It is very sad.

Dialogue said...

It's my understanding that Cardinal Sarah asked Pope Francis what he wanted him to do as prefect of the worship office, and the Holy Father told him to continue the work of the Pontiff Emeritus. But it's now hard to see in what possible way Sarah can do this.

Victor said...

The letter speaks of a "commentary" that was sent to the Holy Father with the letter. Is this the commentary published in L’Homme Nouveau that was attributed to Cardinal Sarah in which Liturgicam Athenticam was said to still apply to all translations, and that the Discastry still has considerable control over the translation, which Cardinal Marx was fuming about?

If so, was this commentary by Cardinal Sarah or not? This papal letter says that it was not. Something is bizarre here. Is the Holy Father here trying to give Cardinal Sarah a way out of this commentary so as not to be sacked? Doing this publicly like this is in very bad taste, although effective- a passive aggressive reign of terror.

After reading this letter, I suspect that things will get much worse once Benedict XVI dies. The rumours of suppressing Summorum Pontificum immediately following Benedict XVI's death are probably true.

John Nolan said...

Paul VI might have been weak, misguided, badly advised; he may well have acted ultra vires with regard to the liturgy; yet no-one except a few sedevacantists ever accused him of heresy.

Francis, in some of his statements (notably the latest one on capital punishment) is coming dangerously close to it.

A fraternal correction cannot be ruled out (as Cardinal Burke has noted). Should a pope persist in obdurate heresy he can be deposed.

As for liturgical translations, thank God I no longer have to suffer them!

Anonymous said...

One is the pope, one is not.

I know the difference. It seems some of you do not.

John Nolan said...

The opening scene of Serge Bondarchuk's epic film 'Waterloo' (1970), starring Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer, shows the Marshals of France in full dress marching through the Tuileries, their gleaming boots and jingling spurs echoing on the marble floor, to confront their Emperor and demand his abdication.

In my imagination I see red-robed cardinals striding through the marble halls of the Vatican to confront a pope with evidence of his heresy. The pope, like Steiger's Napoleon, reacts with angry petulance before succumbing to the inevitable.

This is not 1814, but 2018.

Anonymous said...

Read this concerning the subject matter of this posting.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 7:37 10/22

Spoken like an ultramontanist heretic.

rcg said...

I tend toward optimism in most situations and this is one. I am unhappy that the Church may be humiliated in this particular episode, but I firmly believe we will see bad theaching measured clearly along side sound teaching and be better for it. Another concern is that we experience a sort of coup that distracts the laity from our mission of praying, eyes on God.

Another concern is that when the two sides are finally in the open it is not clear which one will be ejected. But this only proves that battles are not always fun.

Anonymous said...

Oh, there's nothing modernist or heretical in pointing out that Francis is Pope and Sarah is not.

If there is, please advise.

TJM said...

Anonymous (Kavanaugh) at 7:03 AM

Did you run to Benedict XVI's defense like you do Francis?

Anonymous said...

So, what's "heretical" or "modernist" about pointing out that Francis is pope and Sarah is not?

(I ask again knowing full well that the answer is "nothing." And I ask again having full confidence that no answer will even be attempted. Rather, there will be some kind of an imaginarily witty riposte and much back-slapping and hearty congratulatory chortles among the unwashed.)