Pope Francis: "I meant what I said!"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Proverbs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow! That’s a very public rebuke in response to a very public stand by the cardinal.
 
He is dealing specifically with translation of texts. If there is ever any area in which subsidiarity is wise, language has to be it. Think about it. Who would know more about what English means in American, those who speak it as a first language, or a Pope who may know a little? In the past the Pope has relied on advisers, so why not cut out the functionaries and simply rely on the bishops in that country?
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure if I am clearly understanding this. Wouldn’t leaving translation authority to Bishops in different areas of the world lead to a Mass that is not “universal” in form? Also, how would mistranslation, or say the insertion of inclusive language be avoided?
 
Some loss ofniversality of translation occurred already when, after Vatican 2, the Mass was translated from Latin into the language of various nations.
The Pope’s response to your question appears to be in the guidelines as noted in the article sharing his letter.

“Magnum Principium does not sustain anymore that translations must conform in all points to the norms of Liturgicam Authenticam,” Francis wrote.

Liturgicam Authenticam had established fidelity to the Latin originals of texts as the chief concern in the evaluation process. Francis, however, says there are three key forms of fidelity:
Code: 
To the Latin original.
To the specific language into which a text is being translated.
To the understanding of the text by the target audience of the translation.
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/10/22/pope-tells-sarah-power-indeed-shifting-rome-bishops/

God bless you
 
Last edited:
This is how it was for most of Church history. The centralization of liturgy under Roman authority is a modern (post-Trent) trend.
 
Modern post Trend trend. Unless you are about 600 years old I’m a little confused on how you would call it modern.

With that said before Trent there was radically different translations of the mass and liturgy with very little structure overall. The lack of structure and oversight is most likely a prime example of what led to the Protestant Reformation.
 
The “modern era” starts with the Reformation by any definition I’m familiar with, so yes it is a modern trend that was not in place for the first 3/4 of Church history. I don’t think the lack of liturgical uniformity had anything to do with the Reformation… that was due to political considerations and ecclesiastical abuses more than anything.
 
Hmmm… so the pope is capable of issuing a clarification. But even his clarification seems contradictory to his motu proprio. For instance, Catholic World News reported the following:

"The Pope’s letter also contradicts Cardinal Sarah’s claim that the Vatican’s existing norms for liturgical translations remain in force. Here the papal rebuke seems clearly to contradict the text of Magnum Principium, which states: “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…” But now the Pope writes that “one can no longer hold that translations must conform in every point to the norms of Liturgiam Authenticam as was done in the past.” In fact the Pope indicates for the first time, in his letter to the cardinal, that Liturgiam Authenticam, the landmark 2001 instruction on liturgical translations, “must be carefully reconceived,” and indeed that some aspects of the Vatican’s guidance for translators “have been abrogated.” " How was this supposed to be obvious since abrogation of LA was not mentioned within the motu proprio? Also, which parts?
 
Last edited:
Quite fascinating what issues the pope is exceedingly quick to offer “corrections” on, while ignoring formal question from his closest collaborators.

It is of course his privilege and prerogative to answer anyone he wishes. But in the long view, all he may really be doing is ensuring that the next conclave will be marked by a spirit of, “Never again.”
 
I agree. Pope Francis is not a very good manager, and for one who advocates decentralization of authority, certainly governs autocratically when it suits him. Cardinal Sarah did what anyone in his position with the authority of his Congregation would have done, and his interpretation was indeed reasonable. Pope Francis’ “clarification” seemed to go beyond his own motu proprio.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top