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.
[…]
Finally, some common sense out of the Vatican. It is indeed time for a cease-fire and for peace.
Ukraine will undoubtedly have to give up the Donbass and Crimea, but that is the best and most organic solution in these circumstances. The peoples of those regions are already spiritually alienated from the Kiev regime–and rightly so.
May they now attain political/geographical independence from Ukraine and therefore from Ukraine’s overlords in the US.
Jews remember the Holocaust. Ukraine remembers the Holodomor. Zelensky, Ukraine’s Jewish president, remembers both. No sane and decent person would want to be subject to the perpetrators of ether horror. Stalin’s forced mass starvation that killed seven million Ukrainians was followed up by Russian colonization. Putin, who glorifies Stalin, now pretends that these colonists were always there and that he must conquer the rest of Ukraine to protect them. Pope Francis has been calling for cease fires and negotiations since the war began. I remember an interview with him where he was asked why he did not speak more forcefully against Putin. The pope replied that everyone knows who started this war but he wanted to let the Russians save face if they stopped it.
The holodomor was carried out by Stalin’s Jewish henchman Lazar Kaganovich. Many Russian Jews favored the Holodomor–seeing in it revenge against the goyim of Ukraine. Stalin was a philo-semite throughout the bulk of his career. His Russia even had laws punishing anti-semitism with death. The rape of Germany was encouraged by Jewish propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg.
Putin has not glorified Stalin–but, yes, he does honor the Russian army because it defended Russia, was essential to defeating Nazism, and liberated the eastern camps.
Putin is liberating Eastern and Southern Ukraine from malevolent thugs masquerading as Ukrainian patriots.
Sure. All of Russia’s numerous crimes against humanity are singularly traceable to Jews, none of it to atheistic “Christians”.
Your use of “overlords” suuggests you are not disinterested but clearly pro-Russian.
Nothing you said was remotely true. It seems to indicate you have simply swallowed the Russian propaganda line.
it SHOULD be a flag of surrender…Ukraine is outnumbered and should know when to quit.
Ukraine’s Holodomor was indeed perpetrated by a paranoid Stalin dealing with starvation and growing rebellion throughout the Soviet Union due to collectivization and consequent failure of Russia’s grain crops. Fear of losing Ukraine the politburo decided on extermination of the Ukrainian people [the Irish potato famine exacerbated by British arrogance and greed is a milder comparison]. When Nazi Germany invaded the USSR 1942 many Ukrainians turned to Germany, Hitler stupidly still considered them subhumans. Nevertheless many Ukrainians fought alongside the Germans. The wounds are so deep that it would take a miracle for reconciliation, Putin’s decision to invade and this current war makes that virtually impossible.
On the other hand Zelenskiy is a corrupt dictator. US funds have poured into Ukraine with little if any accountability. War in Ukraine and the continued support of a Ukrainian victory, whatever that is supposed to be, seems beyond any realistic assessment. Only continued suffering and enormous casualties. Negotiation and compromise are the apparent solution. On this I support Pope Francis. Chris Albrecht’s assessment for a negotiated settlement is probably the right one.
Justice defines a Christian perspective to war. Analyzing the interests of a beleaguered Ukraine, a concerned West, Russia, a settlement granting Ukraine universal sovereignty satisfies Western interests, achieves Ukraine independence, its freedom of association with the West, grants Russia its strategic interests in Crimea and the Donbas, limits its expansionist capacity.
Russia invaded Ukraine and has killed a huge number of innocent people including children and has also kidnapped innumerable children and has taken them to Russia for enslavement and brainwashing. And you and the Pope say, hey, just negotiate and compromise.
Unfortunately you both have a lot of Putin-appeasing colleagues in the Republican Party, which is why I have abandoned it.
It is true that the Catholic Church has been persecuted by Russia even after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Priests and sisters arrested, many murdered. Similarly according to Catholic sources during the Ukraine war under Russian occupation. My comments are directed at a possible solution to the conflict, not appeasement. Limiting Russia to the Donbas and Crimea, and the withdrawal from all other territory is a reasonable compromise.
This is one of the hairy chestnut from the left. Do YOU have sons you want to sacrifice in a foreign war? Many of us with sons will opt out of that one. Republicans are NOT Putin appeasers, nor is Trump a Putin lover, which is yet another DEM slander accepted by credulous followers of the left. Republicans ARE however, concerned about ACCOUNTABILITY for where our aid money is being spent. WE are concerned that OUR soldiers not be killed in a war which at this moment in time should more rightfully be the responsibility of Europe. Maybe if western NATO countries spent fewer dollars on social freebies for it’s citizens and MORE on their military, they would be able to make their NATO payments and protect themselves instead of dragging us into their own continental altercations.What Republicans dont want is yet another endless war conducted on a timid social services basis. Thats good for our enemies and ALWAYS bad for us.
For example, we are now going to build a port for GAZA???? REALLY??? Brilliant!! (sarcasm).Suppose we actually return to the past war model and have a war where we pound our enemies into the ground?? Instead of slapping them with kid gloves, instead of rebuilding their infrastructure, which would never had been destroyed in the first place had they behaved like actual human beings. While I am at it, I observe some of our OWN infrastructure could afford to be rebuilt with that money, instead of funding wars which should be fought by others—the principals involved. “Republicans, they dont want to fight other people’s wars!!!” Whew!! That quite an accusation!! NOT.
LJ, you’re among the few who speak common sense.
I say we should return to a country based on our Constitution. Our Constitution states that only Congress can declare war. To fund a conflict anywhere in the world is to participate in an undeclared war. This madness needs to stop. Korea was a “police action” and not a war declared by our Congress. Viet Nam which killed 50,000 soldiers was not a war declared by Congress. If we as Americans believe an armed war is in our national interest, then let a president petition Congress to declare war. The madness needs to stop. If anyone here has not noticed, we now have a government that operates almost wholly by fiat and not accoding to our Constitution. That’s not a democracy; that’s anarchy and totalitarianism.
I’m amazed you can say this with a straight face while Putin’s armies tried to assassinate Archbishop Shevchuk, kidnap Catholic priests, burn and confiscate Catholic churches, rape Catholic women, and place Catholic children in reeducation centers to beat their language, culture and faith out of them. The Church was always free to operate in Zelenskyy’s Ukraine; it is practically an underground institution in Putin’s Russia.
Correction, Germany invaded the Soviet Union June of 1941.
Could anyone imagine Christ weighing in on issues pertaining to the Roman empire, or Herod’s administrative acts as an agent of the Romans, or what the governor of Judea was up to? Yet the Vicar of Christ seems to think that he’s just another Caesar. I think not. He should stick to the salvation of souls and the Faithful conforming their wills to God will.
Popes have intervened in the affairs of nations and empires throughout the church’s history. There are papal nuncios around the world. Saint Pius X tried to head off world war I and his successor Benedict XV tried to arrange peace talks. Saint John Paul II made things hot for the Soviet Union. Corruption? Zalenski lives in bunkers, Putin stays in palaces. Billion dollar yachts are for Russian oligarchs. Trying to expose Putin’s vast wealth has gotten a lot of people murdered. The overwhelming priority on spending for Ukraine right now is on artillery ammunition which is either bought from third parties or diverted from our own scanty production.
I am saying that Popes ought to stay out of politics. That the bailiwick of Catholic laymen. They can pontificate about Christian virtuous living but the specifics ought to be left to the laity. This Pope can hardly get his theology right but geopolitics is certainly not his area of expertise.
Actually, St. Pope John Paul II didn’t “make things [literally] hot for the Soviet Union.” Instead, he counseled Poland on a different path, which in the precise circumstances (!) of the 1980s, enabled the dismantling of the Soviet Union with almost zero shots being fired (I think limited mostly to Estonia and maybe a dozen fatalities).
From the back bleachers, four points to ponder:
FIRST, said John Paul II:
“Instead, it [the world after the geographic concessions at Yalta] has been overcome by the non-violent commitment of people [Polish Solidarity] who, while always refusing to yield to the force of power, succeeded time after time in finding effective ways of bearing witness to the truth. This disarmed the adversary, since violence always needs to justify itself through deceit, and to appear, however falsely, to be defending a right or responding to a threat posed by others” (Centesimus Annus, CA, 1991, n. 23).
Are the “circumstances” today in Ukraine anywhere near equivalent to Poland and the world in the 1980s? Or, instead, more like the Sudetenland in 1938: Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” at Munich? Or, something else?
SECOND, about the Holy See engaging in temporal matters beyond its competence or direct commission and responsibility:
Yes, “[t]he Church has no models to present, models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework [circumstances] of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one another.” (CA n. 43, citing Gaudium et Spes n. 36). And, yet, is moral witness adavailability doomed to be gagged in the back room?
THIRD, for the United States, is the precarious choice whether we have the chops to resist, both at the same time, Russian expansionism in Europe and Chinese expansionism in the Pacific? Lessons from recent European history might teach us something about a two-front war.
FOURTH, and then there’s the question whether mutually respected mediators, if there are any, still include a Vatican which signed “not the best possible deal [!]” for the Church itself in China, and which by studied ambiguity seems to many to have surrendered its grip on moral clarity.
Editorially harmonizing of “polarities” doesn’t really get at the presence of real evil in the world.
Concerning the expression “putting the heat on the Soviets” was meant to mean the communist leaders were in political hot water so I apologize for the confusion. Still the reference was to the political involvement of Saint John Paul II which in no way suggests any violent methods. There was plenty of potential for violence on the communist side both in Poland and the USSR. I will discuss Peter D Beaulieu’s list of possible historical comparisons tomorrow . He as usual is very through but still misses several very relevant periods and influences that relate very much to today. God bless.
Unfortunately, due to history beyond his control, the Pope wears two hats-head of State and head of Church and he must juggle both at same time! 😰James Connor
I hardly consider the Vatican as a State and the Pope as a Head of State – no more than Christ would be the Head of any State. When the leader of our Church insinuates himself into politics, it usually means that we have serious mission drift going on. I know one thing for certain: I am not a citizen of the Vatican and the Pope is not my temporal leader. The Pope is Christ’s Vicar and Christ was not, is not nor ever will be the head of any State.
More careless language from PF. I am under the impression that “white flag” is universally interpreted as surrender.
Vatican “damage control department” on call again.
It’s embarrassing/infuriating.
Cleo, you are under the wrong impression. The white flag signals a parley for various purposes. I could cite many examples from many conflicts. For example, in both world wars brief truces were arranged to tend each others wounded and evacuate them. This was possible if the opponent was sane and minimally civilized but otherwise no. With Germans this was possible if the foe were ordinary line units but definitely not so with SS fanatics.
It appears that his expertise is deficient not only in matters of meteorology but in international relations as well. Who can forget his embrace of Communist China?
Less interviews.
JJR – Oh. Thanks for the correction.
Obama did nothing when Russia invaded the Krim. Biden offered Zelenski asylum but he stayed in Kiev to fight for his nation’s freedom. It’s a miracle that he is still alive.
Corrupt means nothing anymore in politics. If Russia wins Ukraine, Putin will invade more European nations and we have Eastern European countries under Russian dictatorship again or war against Europe including Nato members or WWIII. Putin needs to be defeated now. Zelenski is a freedom fighter against communist Russia and the freedom of the world. May God bless Ukraine and President Zelenski.
Russia is not a communist nation. Russia believes in private property and is friendly to Christianity. Their military even has a Cathedral in honor of the Resurrected Christ.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=russia%27s+military+cathedral&mid=25F7952CF66DECF7820C25F7952CF66DECF7820C&FORM=VIRE
By contrast, Zelensky represents the trashy Judeo-Western culture of globo-homo (in all senses of that word), transgenderism (see for instance, the Ukie army “spokesperson”), pornography, sexual “freedom”, hedonism, atheism/agnosticism, child trafficking, wokeism, liberal “democracy”, usury, graft, and all manner of corruption–and (lousy) Starbucks coffee.
When the war is over, this clown will no doubt flee to one of his villas and live the high life.
I wish we did not have THAT cathedral. Speaking as an iconographer, it is truly dreadful – I mean the concept and its execution.
It is the war or a natural evil (Putin etc.) and unnatural evil (Biden etc). I give those names as mere representations of different kinds of evil. The first does not destroy the primary building blocks of humanity: the notions of man and woman as such. The second seeks to destroy those blocks. Dugin, an ideologist of Putin, ecstatically speaks of “the fairy nuclear Apocalypse” as “an ultimate purification” while gender ideologists work on creating bloodless chaos.
Hence, we have two possibilities, or an ancient chaos of a total straightforward destruction and the new, more sophisticated way of destruction, where there is nothing certain, even “gender”.
Personally, I prefer a natural evil to an in natural evil but both are Antichrist so we (Christians) cannot join either.
Even if one believes in (which I emphatically do not) the justice of Ukraine’s cause, Catholic ethical doctrine does not believe in fighting to the last man (or, nowadays, non-binary entity?). At a certain point, it is clear that one side has the upper hand and that a nation must ask for peace terms, for the sake of their own citizenry.
Russia is winning. They captured Bakhmut, crushed the Ukie counteroffensive, and now they have captured Avdiivka. They have neutralized every western supplied “game-changer”–from HIMARS to the Abrams tank.
Yes, they take their time in war as they do in chess. But they are not interested in the propaganda war–only in the facts on the ground and the eventual result, which will come very soon when the reserve army of 300, 000 is unleashed!
That is what a tough, persistent, martial nation does.
Drink the bitter waters of defeat, O ye forces of Antichrist!
“against communist Russia”
This is funny.
if you would have lived in the Eastern nations of Europe under the Russion oppression for 40 years and East Germany behind the wall under Putin the top agent of the KGB communist rule you would not think it is funny at all. A dangerous thing that young people do not know history.
I was born in the USSR )).
You give Putin too much significance (at that time in Germany).
Speaking of history, I found it funny that you call the current Russia “communist” while the USSR fell apart in 1991.
Putin wants to restore the evil power of the USSR. He has anyone in his way who is opposing him killed. We have the testimony of those who escaped in tunnels under the wall that they built. I was born in Germany.
The Pontiff Francis, who has committed himself to thwarting justice when his friends are exposed as sex abusers (such as “Rev.” Julio Grassi from his earlier days in Argentina, and “Rev.” Rupnik, to bring us up to date), has publicly appealed for “a just and lasting peace.”
That is, he appeals to tyrants for what he refuses to the victims of his friends.
For the sake of insurance, he ought not be standing outside under cloud-cover, lest lightning strike.
As King of a tiny utopia, snuggled inside the EU and NATO, complete with a clown army and countless treasures, take my advice…
Long live dialogue. Human beings are privileged to be journeying through life in an era of dialogue and more dialogue.