Documentation: Magnum Principium

Live links:

APOSTOLIC LETTER ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF FRANCIS

MAGNUM PRINCIPIUM

BY WHICH CAN. 838 OF THE CODE OF CANON LAW IS MODIFIED

The great principle, established by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, according to which liturgical prayer be accommodated to the comprehension of the people so that it might be understood, required the weighty task of introducing the vernacular language into the liturgy and of preparing and approving the versions of the liturgical books, a charge that was entrusted to the Bishops.

The Latin Church was aware of the attendant sacrifice involved in the partial loss of liturgical Latin, which had been in use throughout the world over the course of centuries. However it willingly opened the door so that these versions, as part of the rites themselves, might become the voice of the Church celebrating the divine mysteries along with the Latin language.

At the same time, especially given the various clearly expressed views of the Council Fathers with regard to the use of the vernacular language in the liturgy, the Church was aware of the difficulties that might present themselves in this regard. On the one hand it was necessary to unite the good of the faithful of a given time and culture and their right to a conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations with the substantial unity of the Roman Rite. On the other hand the vernacular languages themselves, often only in a progressive manner, would be able to become liturgical languages, standing out in a not dissimilar way to liturgical Latin for their elegance of style and the profundity of their concepts with the aim of nourishing the faith.

This was the aim of various Liturgical Laws, Instructions, Circular Letters, indications and confirmations of liturgical books in the various vernacular languages issued by the Apostolic See from the time of the Council which was true both before as well as after the laws established by the Code of Canon Law.

The criteria indicated were and remain at the level of general guidelines and, as far as possible, must be followed by Liturgical Commissions as the most suitable instruments so that, across the great variety of languages, the liturgical community can arrive at an expressive style suitable and appropriate to the individual parts, maintaining integrity and accurate faithfulness especially in translating some texts of major importance in each liturgical book.

Because the liturgical text is a ritual sign it is a means of oral communication. However, for the believers who celebrate the sacred rites the word is also a mystery. Indeed when words are uttered, in particular when the Sacred Scriptures are read, God speaks to us. In the Gospel Christ himself speaks to his people who respond either themselves or through the celebrant by prayer to the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

The goal of the translation of liturgical texts and of biblical texts for the Liturgy of the Word is to announce the word of salvation to the faithful in obedience to the faith and to express the prayer of the Church to the Lord. For this purpose it is necessary to communicate to a given people using its own language all that the Church intended to communicate to other people through the Latin language. While fidelity cannot always be judged by individual words but must be sought in the context of the whole communicative act and according to its literary genre, nevertheless some particular terms must also be considered in the context of the entire Catholic faith because each translation of texts must be congruent with sound doctrine.

It is no surprise that difficulties have arisen between the Episcopal Conferences and the Apostolic See in the course of this long passage of work. In order that the decisions of the Council about the use of vernacular languages in the liturgy can also be of value in the future a vigilant and creative collaboration full of reciprocal trust between the Episcopal Conferences and the Dicastery of the Apostolic See that exercises the task of promoting the Sacred Liturgy, i.e. the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, is absolutely necessary. For this reason, in order that the renewal of the whole liturgical life might continue, it seemed opportune that some principles handed on since the time of the Council should be more clearly reaffirmed and put into practice.

Without doubt, attention must be paid to the benefit and good of the faithful, nor must the right and duty of Episcopal Conferences be forgotten who, together with Episcopal Conferences from regions sharing the same language and with the Apostolic See, must ensure and establish that, while the character of each language is safeguarded, the sense of the original text is fully and faithfully rendered and that even after adaptations the translated liturgical books always illuminate the unity of the Roman Rite.

To make collaboration in this service to the faithful between the Apostolic See and Episcopal Conferences easier and more fruitful, and having listened to the advice of the Commission of Bishops and Experts that I established, I order, with the authority entrusted to me, that the canonical discipline currently in force in can. 838 of the C.I.C. be made clearer so that, according to what is stated in the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, in particular in articles 36 ยงยง3.4, 40 and 63, and in the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam, n. IX, the competency of the Apostolic See surrounding the translation of liturgical books and the more radical adaptations established and approved by Episcopal Conferences be made clearer, among which can also be numbered eventual new texts to be inserted into these books.

Therefore, in the future can. 838 will read as follows:

Can. 838 – ยง1. The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely upon the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See and, as provided by law, that of the diocesan Bishop.

  • 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. Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan Bishop to lay down in the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all.

Consequently this is how art. 64 ยง3 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus as well as other laws are to be interpreted, particularly those contained in the liturgical books concerning their revision. Likewise I order that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments modify its own โ€œRegulationsโ€ on the basis of the new discipline and help the Episcopal Conferences to fulfil their task as well as working to promote ever more the liturgical life of the Latin Church.

Everything that I have decreed in this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio must be observed in all its parts, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, even if it be worthy of particular mention, and I hereby set forth and I dispose that it be promulgated by publication in the daily newspaper Lโ€™Osservatore Romano, that it enter into force on 1 October 2017, and thereafter be published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Given in Rome, at St. Peterโ€™s, on 3 September of the year 2017, the fifth of my Pontificate

FRANCISCUS PP.

* ย  ย  ย  ย  ย *ย ย  ย  ย  ย  ย *ย ย  ย  ย  ย  ย *ย ย  ย  ย  ย  ย *

Note on canon 838 of the Code of Canon Law

CANON 838 IN THE LIGHT OF CONCILIAR AND POST CONCILIAR SOURCES

On the occasion of the publication of the Motu Proprio Magnum principium , by which Pope Francis makes variations to can. 838 ยงยง2 & 3 of the C.I.C., the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments offers, in the following note, a commentary on the underlying sources of these paragraphs, taking into consideration the formulation in force until now as well as the new formulation.

The current text

Until now can. 838 ยงยง2 & 3 read as follows:
ยง2. 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.
ยง3. 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. 1

The references for ยง2 are the Instruction Inter Oecumenici (26 Sept 1964), n.21 and can. 1257 of the 1917 C.I.C.ย For ยง3 they are Sacrosanctum concilium n.22 ยง2 and n.36 ยงยง3-4; S. Congr. Pro Sacramentis et Cultu Divino, Epist. Decem iam annos (5 June 1976); S. Congr. Pro Doctrina Fidei, Ecclesiae pastorum (19 March 1975), art. 3.

Although the sources have a merely indicative value and are not exhaustive it is possible to make some remarks in their regard.

This is so above all regarding can. 838 ยง2. Inter Oecumenici n.21 is found in cap. I,VI. De competenti auctoritate in re liturgica (ad Const. art. 22) and reads as follows: โ€œApostolicae Sedis est tum libros liturgicos generales instaurare atque approbare, tum sacram Liturgiam in iis quae universam Ecclesiam respiciunt ordinare, tum Acta et deliberationes auctoritatis territorialis probare seu confirmare, tum eiusdem auctoritatis territorialis propositiones et petitiones accipereโ€. 2 A clear presupposed equivalence appears between the verb โ€œrecognoscereโ€ used in can. 838 ยง2 and the expression โ€œprobare seu confirmareโ€ used in Inter Oecumenici .ย  This latter expression was desired by the Liturgical Commission of the Second Vatican Council to substitute the terminology derived from the verb โ€œrecognoscereโ€ (โ€œactis recognitisโ€), referring to can. 250 ยง4 (cf. can. 304 ยง2) of the 1917 C.I.C., as was explained to the Council Fathers in the Relatio and voted on by them in Sacrosanctum concilium n.36 ยง3 in the form โ€œactis ab Apostolica Sede probatis seu confirmatisโ€.ย  It is also possible to note that Inter Oecumenici n.21 covers all acts of the territorial authorities, while the Code applies it specifically to the โ€œinterpretationes textum liturgicorumโ€, material that Inter Oecumenici n.40 deals with explicitly.

Regarding can. 838 ยง3 the reference to Sacrosanctum concilium n.22 ยง2 is pertinent.ย  By referring to Sacrosanctum concilium n.36 ยงยง3-4 (ยง3 deals with โ€œde usu et modo linguae vernaculae statuere, actis ab Apostolica Sede probatis seu confirmatisโ€ and ยง4 deals with โ€œconversio textus latini in linguam vernaculam in Liturgia adhibenda, a competenti auctoritate ecclesiastica territoriali, de qua supra, approbari debetโ€) it is clear how, for translations, neither a probatio seu confirmatio nor a recognitio in the strict juridical sense of can. 455 ยง2 is required.

The story of the Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam n. IX (25 Jan 1964), which had to be corrected in Acta Apostolicae Sedis because of the reaction of the Council Fathers, seems not to have been adequately taken into consideration. When Sacram Liturgiam appeared in Lโ€™Osservatore Romano on 29 January 1964 it read: โ€œโ€ฆpopulares interpretationes, a competente auctoritate ecclesiastica territoriali propositas, 3 ab Apostolica Sede esse rite recognoscendas 4 atque probandasโ€ 5 . However in Acta Apostolicae Sedis the conciliar terminology was adopted: โ€œโ€ฆpopulares interpretationes, a competente auctoritate ecclesiastica territoriali conficiendas et approbandas esse, ad normam art. 36, ยงยง3 et 4; acta vero huius auctoritatis, ad normam eiusdem art. 36, ยง3, ab Apostolica Sede esse rite probanda seu confirmandaโ€ 6 . Thus the Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam distinguished the approval of translations as such on the part of territorial authorities with a decree that rendered them obligatory, and the fact that such an act had to be โ€œprobatus seu confirmatusโ€ by the Apostolic See.ย  Moreover, one must note that Sacram Liturgiam adds: โ€œQuod ut semper servetur praescribimus, quoties liturgicus quidam textus latinus a legitima, quam diximus, auctoritate in linguam vernaculam converteturโ€. 7 This ordinance regards both of these distinct moments, namely the conficere et approbare of a translation and the act of making it obligatory with the publication of the book that contains it.

The reference to the Epist. Decem iam annos (5 June 1976) of the S. Congr. Pro Sacramentis et Cultu Divino is relevant but it must be noted that it never uses the term โ€œrecognoscereโ€ but only โ€œprobare, confirmare, confirmatioโ€.

Turning to Ecclesiae pastorum of the S. Congr. Pro Doctrina Fidei, art.3 (made up of three numbers), only n.1 is relevant to our material.ย  It reads: โ€œ1. Libri liturgici itemque eorum versions in linguam vernaculam eorumve partes ne edantur nisi de mandato Episcoporum Conferentiae atque sub eiusdem vigilantia, praevia confirmatione Apostolicae Sedisโ€. 8 N. 2 concerns reissues and n. 3 prayer books.ย  However it must be noted that the oversight and the mandate are attributed to the Episcopal Conferences while the โ€œpraevia confirmatioโ€, concerning the book that is published, is attributed to the Apostolic See.ย  This is not precisely a โ€œrecognitioโ€ of the version like that found in can. 838.

The new text

With the changes decided by the Motu Proprio Magnum principium can. 838 ยงยง2 & 3 read as follows:

ยง2. Apostolicae Sedis est sacram liturgiam Ecclesiae universae ordinare, libros liturgicos edere, aptationes, ad normam iuris a conferentia Episcoporum approbatas, recognoscere, necnon advigiliare ut ordinationes liturgicae ubique fideliter observentur.
ยง 3. Ad Episcoporum Conferentias spectat versions librorum liturgicorum in linguas vernaculas fideliter et convenienter intra limites definitos accommodatas parare et approbare atquae libros liturgicos, pro regionibus ad quas pertinent, post confirmationem Apostolicae Sedis edere. 9

ยง2 now relates to the โ€œaptationesโ€ (โ€œversionesโ€ are no longer mentioned, such material is dealt with in ยง3), namely the texts and elements that do not form part of the editio typica latina , as well as the โ€œprofundiores aptationesโ€ foreseen by Sacrosanctum concilium n.40 which are regulated by the Instruction Varietates legitimae on the Roman Liturgy and Inculturation (25 January 1994); after approval by the Episcopal Conference the โ€œaptationesโ€ must have the โ€œrecognitioโ€ of the Apostolic See.ย  The reference here is to Sacrosanctum concilium n.36 ยง3.ย  The adjustment to ยง2 maintains can. 1257 of the 1917 C.I.C. among its sources, and adds the reference to the Instruction Varietates legitimae which deals with the application of nn.39 & 40 of Sacrosanctum concilium for which a full โ€œrecognitioโ€ is required.

ยง3 relates to the โ€œversionesโ€ of the liturgical texts, which it more clearly specifies must be done โ€œfideliterโ€ and approved by the Episcopal Conferences. The reference is to Sacrosanctum concilium n.36 ยง4 and analogously to can. 825 ยง1 concerning the version of Scared Scripture. These versions are published in liturgical books after receiving the โ€œconfirmatioโ€ of the Apostolic See, as laid down by the Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam , n. IX.

The previous formulation of can. 838 ยง3 โ€œintra limites in ipsis libris liturgicis definitos aptatasโ€, comes from Sacrosanctum concilium n.39 (โ€œIntra limites in editionibus typicis librorum liturgicorum statutosโ€ฆaptationes definireโ€), concerning the โ€œaptationesโ€ and not the โ€œversionesโ€ which are now dealt with by this paragraph so it is now rendered with the expression โ€œintra limites definitos accommodatasโ€, drawing on the terminology of the Istitutio Generalis Missalis Romani n.392; this allows an opportune distinction to be made in respect of the โ€œaptationesโ€ mentioned in ยง2.

Therefore, the readjusted ยง3 continues to be founded on Sacrosanctum concilium n.22 ยง2; n.36 ยงยง3-4; S. Congr. Pro Sacramentis et Cultu Divino, Epist. Decem iam annos (5 iun. 1976); S. Congr. Pro Doctrina Fidei, Ecclesiae pastorum (19 mart. 1975), art. 3, with the addition of the reference to the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (ed. typica tertia) nn.391 & 392, avoiding, however, the term โ€œrecognoscere, recognitisโ€ in such a way that the act of Apostolic See relative to the versions prepared by the Episcopal Conferences with particular fidelity to the Latin text (see the addition of the word fideliter ) cannot be equated to the discipline of can. 455, but once again forms part of the action of a confirmatio (as expressed in both Decem iam annos and Ecclesiae pastorum , art.3).

The โ€œconfirmatioโ€ is an authoritative act by which the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments ratifies the approval of the Bishops, leaving the responsibility of translation, understood to be faithful, to the doctrinal and pastoral munus of the Conferences of Bishops.ย  In brief, the โ€œconfirmatioโ€, ordinarily granted based on trust and confidence, supposes a positive evaluation of the faithfulness and congruence of the texts produced with respect to the typical Latin text, above all taking account of the texts of greatest importance (e.g. the sacramental formulae, which require the approval of the Holy Father, the Order of Mass, the Eucharistic Prayers and the Prayers of Ordination, which all require a detailed review).
As the Muto Proprio Magnum principium itself recalls the changes to can. 838, ยงยง2 & 3 have consequences for the Apostolic Constitution Pastor bonus art. 64 ยง3 as well as for the Istitutio Generalis Missalis Romani and for the Praenotanda of the liturgical books in the places that touch on material related to translation and adaptations.
__________________________________________________

1 ยง2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books and recognise their translations in vernacular languages, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.
ยง3. 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 limits defined in the liturgical books themselves.
2 โ€œThe Holy See has the authority to reform and approve the general liturgical books; to regulate the liturgy in matters affecting the universal Church; to approve or confirm the acta and decisions of the territorial authorities; and to accede to their proposals and requests.โ€
3 Art. 36 ยง4 of SC uses the verb โ€œapprobareโ€.
4 Art 36 ยง3 of SC says: โ€œactis ab Apostolica Sede probatis seu confirmatisโ€. โ€œenactments approved, that is, confirmed, by the Holy See.โ€
5 Lโ€™Osservatore Romano 29 January 1964, 1. โ€œโ€ฆvernacular versions proposed by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority must always be recognised and approved by the Holy See.โ€
6 Cf. AAS 56 (1964), 143. โ€œโ€ฆvernacular versions must be drawn up and approved by the competent, territorial ecclesiastical authority, as provided in art. 36 ยงยง3 & 4; and that, as provided in art. 36 ยง3, the acts of this authority require due approval, that is, confirmation, of the Holy See.โ€
7 Cf. ibidem . โ€œThis is the course to be taken whenever any Latin liturgical text is translated into the vernacular by the authority already mentioned.โ€
8 โ€œ1. Liturgical books, including vernacular translations or parts thereof, are to be published only by mandate of the Conference of Bishops and under its supervision, after confirmation by the Holy See.โ€
9 ยง2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books, recognise adaptations approved by Conferences of Bishops according to the norm of law , and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.
ยง3. It pertains to the Conferences of Bishops 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 .

* ย  ย  ย  ย  ย *ย ย  ย  ย  ย  ย *ย ย  ย  ย  ย  ย *ย ย  ย  ย  ย  ย *

Comment on the Motu Proprio by the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

A key to reading the Motu Proprio โ€œMagnum principiumโ€

The new Motu Proprio Magnum principium has altered the formulation of some norms of the Codex iuris canonici regarding the translation of liturgical books into modern languages.
Pope Francis has introduced some modifications to the text of canon 838 in this Motu Proprio, dated 3 September 2017 and entering into force from 1st October 2017. The reason for these changes is explained in the papal text itself, which recalls and explicates the principles which underlie translations of the Latin typical editions as well as the delicacy required by those who undertake such work. Because the Liturgy is the prayer of the Church it is regulated by ecclesial authority.

Given the importance of this work, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council had already considered the question of the roles of both the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences in this regard (cf. Sacrosanctum concilium , nn.36, 40 & 36). In effect the great task of providing for liturgical translations was guided by norms and by specific Instructions from the competent Dicastery, in particular Comme le prรฉvoit (25 January 1969) and then, after the Codex iuris canonici of 1983, by Liturgiam authenticam (28 March 2001), both published at different stages with the goal of responding to concrete problems which had become evident over the course of time and which had arisen as a result of the complex work that is involved in the translation of liturgical texts. The material relating to the whole field of inculturation was, on the other hand, regulated by the Instruction Varietates legitimae (25 January 1994).

Taking into account the experience of these years, the Pope writes that now โ€œit seemed opportune that some principles handed on since the time of the Council should be more clearly reaffirmed and put into practiceโ€. Thus, taking account of the experience during the course of these years and with an eye to the future based on the liturgical constitution of Vatican II, Sacrosanctum concilium , the Pope intends to clarify the current discipline by introducing some changes to canon 838 of the Codex iuris canonici .

The object of the changes is to define better the roles of the Apostolic See and the Conferences of Bishops in respect to their proper competencies which are different yet remain complementary. They are called to work in a spirit of dialogue regarding the translation of the typical Latin books as well as for any eventual adaptations that could touch on rites and texts. All of this is at the service of the Liturgical Prayer of the People of God.

In particular, in the new formulation of the said canon, there is a more adequate distinction, as far as the role of the Apostolic See is concerned, between the scope of the recognitio and that of the confirmatio in respect of what belongs to the Episcopal Conferences, taking account of their pastoral and doctrinal responsibility as well as the limits to their actions.

The recognitio, mentioned in canon 838 ยง2, implies the process of recognising on the part of the Apostolic See legitimate liturgical adaptations, including those that are โ€œmore radicalโ€ (Sacrosanctum concilium 40), which the Episcopal Conferences can establish and approve for their territories within defined limits. In the encounter between liturgy and culture the Apostolic See is called to recognoscere , that is, to review and evaluate such adaptations in order to safeguard the substantial unity of the Roman Rite: the references for this material are Sacrosanctum concilium nn. 39-40; and its application, when indicated in the liturgical books and elsewhere, is regulated by the Instruction Varietates legitimae.

The confirmatio โ€“ terminology already adopted in the motu proprio Sacram Liturgiam n. IX (25 January 1964) โ€“ pertains instead to the translations of liturgical texts which, on the basis of Sacrosanctum concilium (n.36, ยง4), are within the competency of the Episcopal Conferences to prepare and approve; canon 838 ยง3 clarifies that the translations must be completed fideliter according to the original texts, thus acknowledging the principal preoccupation of the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam. Indeed, recalling the right, and the grave responsibility of translation entrusted to the Episcopal Conferences, the motu proprio also points out that the Conferences โ€œmust ensure and establish that, while the character of each language is safeguarded, the sense of the original text should be rendered fully and faithfullyโ€.

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.

Naturally, this modification to the Codex iuris canonici entails an adjustment to the Apostolic Constitution Pastor bonus n.64 ยง3, as well as to the norms surrounding translations. This means, for example, that it will be necessary to readjust some numbers of the Institutio generalis missalis Romani and of the Praenotanda of the liturgical books. The Instruction Liturgiam authenticam itself, which is to be appreciated for the attention it brings to bear on this complicated work and its implications, must be interpreted in the light of the new formulation of canon 838 when it speaks about seeking the recognitio . Finally, the motu proprio provides that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments will also โ€œmodify its own Regolamento on the basis of the new discipline and help the Episcopal Conferences to fulfil their taskโ€.

Arthur Roche Archbishop
Secretary Congregation for Divine Worship & the Discipline of the Sacraments

Editor


Posted

in

,

by

Comments

14 responses to “Documentation: Magnum Principium

  1. Paul Inwood

    The explanatory note on the Canon, and Archbishop Roche’s commentary on the Motu Proprio, both on the Vatican website, need to be read in conjunction with the document. See http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2017/09/09/0574/01279.html. Archbishop Roche even mentions Comme le prรฉvoit, which had been studiousy ignored by Liturgiam Authenticam !

    It seems clear that, without actually repudiating the latter document, the change to the canon returns control of liturgical translations to Bishops’ Conferences, who will prepare them faithfully, with the SCDWDS “recognizing” them. There is a difference between this and “liturgical adaptations”, which will still need approval from the SCDWDS.

  2. Thanks for the links, Paul. Also, a shout out to Fr. Anthony – this only reinforces his repeated explanations of the word – Confirmatio – in prior documents. Appears that Roche, Francis, etc. agree with what Fr. Anthony’s had outlined.

    1. Paul Inwood

      Thanks, Bill. When I posted this, the thread only contained the text of the MP itself, without the explanatory note on can. 838 and ++Arthur’s commentary on the MP. Now the thread not only has both of those but live links to them.

  3. Rev. Scott McCarthy

    Thanks be to God!

  4. Devin Rice

    Based on the MP and the accompanying commentary by Archbishop Roche, it seems Rome will give greater scrutiny to the Eucharistic Prayers and the Order of Mass but more leeway with the collects and prefaces. That may make Fr. Ruff’s previous attempt on compromise (slightly) more likely to occur. https://praytell.blog/index.php/2014/04/09/a-unifying-solution-for-the-missal-situation/

    1. Paul Inwood

      The question is whether “greater scrutiny” will also include an evaluation of whether the text is actually in an English that people would recognize as such, whether it is proclaimable by presiders, whether it is prayable by presiders, and whether it is leading people towards God.

      Given that the answer to all those questions at present is “No”, and that numerous bishops have made their protests known, both privately and publicly, one wonders what changes can or will be made. In Rome, the rule of brutta figura still runs: nothing can be changed if someone loses face over it…. The answer, of course, is to quietly drop those people. Now that Messrs Anthony Ward, Cuthbert Johnson, and their friends are no longer present (or deceased), it should in theory make it easier.

  5. Allen F Corrigan

    At 60, will I live long enough to see a correction to the Vox Clara 2010 product?

    1. Karl Liam Saur

      Possibly. If you make it into your late 70s with your cognitive aptitude intact.

  6. Robert ADDINGTON

    As I have argued before, the conferences of bishops should have full authority over liturgical translations, with appeals to the Holy See allowed only on points of doctrine, not style.

    English is not a Romance language. Why should English-speaking Catholics be told by Italian or Spanish-speaking prelates in Rome how to pray in our own language? Imagine what would happen if English-speaking prelates tried to tell the Italians how to pray in their language.

  7. Ben Kalafut

    It’s going to be difficult to move forward when many are still claiming that there was nothing wrong with 1998’s translation which still, for example, glossed over “Hostiam puram, Hostiam sanctam, Hostiam immaculatam” in the Roman Canon, took away from the people the threefold “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa” in the Confiteor, gave a coarsely interpretive rendering of “hominbus bonae voluntatis” that obliterated the scriptural reference, and just plain omitted the preferred and most common memorial acclimation from the normative Latin.

    On the one hand we have reactionary dead-enders for the Good News Bible-style parody/paraphrase approach of 1973 and on the other a bunker mentality that has any adjustment of 2011 being a capitulation to the reactionaries. Fr Ruff may be the only public figure in the Anglophone part of the Church who has put forth serious proposal for compromise. It is difficult to see how this new bureaucratic change provides a way forward. If nothing else it has poked the hornets’ nest. The reactionaries are boasting of a renewed possibility of imposing 1998 and the 2011 proponents are in turn proclaiming doom and gloom.

    1. Alan Hommerding

      … and 1998’s curious omission of any translation for “benedicimus te” in the Gloria – as did ICEL’s previous translation. It’s curious, given the importance of blessing God as part of our Judaic spiritual heritage.

    2. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      Ben, I’m not sure who these supposed “reactionary dead-enders for the Good News Bible-style parody/paraphrase approach of 1973” are – I don’t know any such people, but I do know more people who like the accomplishment of 1998.

      And it is true that 1998 didn’t translate every phrase literally, but this is because it had a different translation theory than Liturgiam of 2001. You could argue that a literal rendering of the “hostiam” thing is inaccurate in its own way because it completely glosses over the rhythm and rhyme of the Latin, which is surely an integral part of the Latin text. The point is, there are many different ways to translate, many different ways of being accurate, and every way comes with its own price and drawbacks. Translation is an art, and it’s not a black and white issue.

      awr

      1. Karl Liam Saur

        “โ€œreactionary dead-enders for the Good News Bible-style parody/paraphrase approach of 1973โ€ ”

        I think they do exist, based on my memory of the years of conversations over the translation wars, but the active constituency is not especially well represented among liturgical movers and shakers, as I alluded to in a comment on the other related thread.

  8. Alan Griffiths

    I can’t see that any Bishops Conference will want to re-open the can of worms that is the story of the current English Missal, not least because the books themselves are still viable and haven’t yet fallen to pieces.

    However, it might give the hint to some of us that we can at least rectify some of the more obvious howlers, such as the conclusion of the Eastertide prefaces, (‘overcome with paschal joy’) the Preface of the Annunciation (no mention of ‘a caelesti nuntio’) etc.

    The Liturgy of the Hours awaits a revison of the ICEL translation and it is high time that the English Bishops’ version of 1974 was at least republished with a better collection of hymns and a new translation of the Intercessions. Can it still be the case that the primary users of phrases such as ‘Lord Jesus we are your brothers’ are female religious ?!

    AG

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *