Vatican City, Oct 24, 2017 / 04:45 pm (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.”
With that motu proprio, issued this September, 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 their translations, leaving to the Apostolic See to “confirm” their drafts.
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?
These questions have no definitive answers, but there are some clues as to why these things happened.
Pope Francis’ push for decentralization
First of all, Pope Francis wanted to reiterate that his reform is intended to fit the de-centralizating goals of his papacy.
In Evangelii Gaudium, widely considered the playbook for Pope Francis’ pontificate, Francis 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’.”
With the letter to Cardinal Sarah, the Pope continued to pursue “a sound decentralization,” in this case, with regard to the liturgy.
The Pope’s letter stressed that “it should be pointed out 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.”
Pope Francis and Liturgiam Authenticam
Pope Francis’ letter can also be understood best in light of his amendments to Liturgiam Authenticam.
Issued in 2001, Liturgiam Authenticam 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 delivered by the Holy See Press Office in 2001, when the instruction was issued, helps to fully understand the instruction.
Liturgiam Authenticam 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, there 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 handbook on styles” cannot be uncritically used as “the Church has distinctive things to say and a style of expression that is appropriate to them.”
The presentation of Liturgiam Authenticam 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, 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 mentioned n. 76 and n. 80 of Liturgiam Authenticam, which said 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.”
Francis’ 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.”
Was the Pope attacking Cardinal Sarah?
Can these clarifications be read as an attack on Cardinal Robert Sarah?
It is no mystery that Cardinal Sarah’s approach to liturgy is not that of Pope Francis. Cardinal Sarah often spoke about a “reform of the reforms,” as did Benedict XVI, that would reform some liturgical practices and norms developed after the Second Vatican Council, without changing the Council’s teaching on liturgy.
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.
A statement from the Holy See Press Office some days later explained that the Pope and Cardinal Sarah had discussed the issue, and that Sarah’s remarks did not constitute new liturgical directives.
Despite this difference of views, Pope Francis’ 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.”
The Pope recognized that the commentary’s leak was “erroneously attributed” to Cardinal Sarah; it seems clear that Pope Francis does not consider Cardinal Sarah to be the “leaker” of the letter.
Cardinal Sarah’s commentary was first published in French, in the magazine L’Homme Nouveau, and then translated into several languages. 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.
If this account is true, why was the letter leaked, and why was the Pope’s reaction so strong?
A debate that started long ago
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 by 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.
[…]
With respect to migrants, given that the majority are Muslim, why don’t they go to those countries where their faith members live in great wealth : Saudi Arabia, UAE?
I assume this is a rhetorical question?
They don’t go because their Muslim “faith members” don’t want them and because Saudi Arabia and UAE are sand kingdoms run by psychopathic thugs.
Impressionistic wisdom of the moment, regardless if it contradicts what he said last week or yesterday or one hour ago. Never any coherent thought or understanding of anything about civilizational and economic interdependence or how improved efficiencies are dependent on economic productivity and independence from central planning. The only thing he needs to care about, his narcissism will not allow him to care about, a morally guided soul that only the Catholic truth he ridicules can provide.
But never a mention of Humanae Vitae.
Then maybe Pope Francis shouldn’t make off the cuff comments about how we’re not meant to breed like rabbits. What’s next? Pope Francis expresses concern for priestly vocations among the young? This guy went from the Vicar of Christ to quasi leader of an NGO to the head of the the mean girls cliche in high school after his treatment of Bishops Strickland and Burke. How much longer will God chastise us for Benedict’s weakness?
As much of the industrialized world is at zero population growth. Not good. I’ve got my video games and a couple pets good enough?
Elon Musk recently was analyzed on this site; I believe he recently said to the effect that the USA will end up being a nation of old folks in diapers
Perhaps refraining from giving the Eucharist to abortion-promoting world leaders would go a long way toward giving us some confidence in his statement about concern for the lack of population growth.
First of all, it is absolutely nobody’s place to make demands of how unrelated people spend their time and money. If they don’t want to have children that is THEIR business. Not YOURS.
Don’t people have free will? I find it entirely despicable when other people think it is their place to start making demands of couples in the realm of marriage and children. You are concerned about the falling birthrate? Fine. YOU have children if that’s what you want to do.You don’t get to make demands on how other people live. You don’t get to spend the money that other people work for. And you definitely have no right to lay claim to any of their time.
Maybe all of the busybodies who spend all of their time disparaging young people for the same old tropes of owning pets and playing video games needto get a real hobby and stop trying to subject innocent people to their very evil and disturbing control issues.
Says the embittered poster who is telling everyone what to think 🤔. A little self-awareness goes a long way.
OK, I get the sarcasm! You are being satirical? Right? Unless you are one of the “new Catholics” who never had a shred of exposure to actual Catholicism, so bankrupt in thought, that there is not even a capacity for sufficient imagination to conceive of a social ethos and all the factors that affect a social ethos, which would include, obviously, the effects of personal commitments of living a self-sacrificing life of virtue, as Our Lord asks of us.
This, obviously, would not involve a life committed to such things like an adolescent misinterpretation of freedom as personal willfulness rather than the opportunity to do what is right.
The government tells us more and more what to spend our money on.
Who will support older folks?
My comments are actually mostly facts and not judgment one way or another.
Who are you to say whether or not you procreate? Don’t you want human life to continue after you’re gone?
First of all, it is absolutely nobody’s place to make demands of how unrelated people spend their time and money. If they don’t want to have children that is THEIR business. Not YOURS.
Don’t people have free will? I find it entirely despicable when other people think it is their place to start making demands of couples in the realm of marriage and children. You are concerned about the falling birthrate? Fine. YOU have children if that’s what you want to do.You don’t get to make demands on how other people live. You don’t get to spend the money that other people work for. And you definitely have no right to lay claim to any of their time.
Maybe all of the busybodies who spend all of their time disparaging young people for the same old tropes of owning pets and playing video games need to get a real job and stop trying to subject innocent people to their very evil and disturbing control issues.
As usual pope Francis is not a leader on this issue but an observer only.
It sounds like this Pope wants to have his cake and eat it too. He thrashes the US for attempting to stem the flow of migrants ( who commit crime and bring in drugs. The jury is still out on terrorism but label it probable). Italy is now full of Muslims who are changing the culture and other things in a way Italians dont like. Possibly there are changes to the degree that young Italians dont see a future with children there?? Its probably why Italian young people do not want babies. I dont think it will prevent Francis from adovcating for open borders.
Italy is a beautiful country blessed with industrious people, awesome architecture, marvelous singers, high culinary culture renowned for delicious pizzas, and pastas. May Italy, the land and her people, be blessed.