The Relationship between Magnum Principium and Liturgicam Authenticam

by Bishop Brian Dunn, Antigonish, member of the episcopal commission of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL)

In his Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio, Magnum Principium [MP], Pope Francis has once again raised the topic of the translation, approval and adaptation of liturgical books. He has taken the extraordinary step of modifying canon 838, §§2 & 3 of the Code of Canon Law. He focused on the necessity of balancing two essential goods: “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” and the good of vernacular languages standing out “for their elegance of style and the profundity of their concepts with the aim of nourishing the faith” of those who gather for worship. This new balancing act requires an investigation into the role of conferences of bishops, the role of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and the translation principles required in reaching a text that can be helpful to the faithful.

The Motu Proprio raises a variety of questions:

• How does the conference of bishops guarantee faithfulness to the Latin text?
• How does the conference of bishops give due consideration to the literary characteristics of its particular language?
• How does the conference of bishops fulfill its responsibility of “faithfully preparing versions of the liturgical books in vernacular languages”?
• What does it mean for the conference of bishops to “approve and publish the liturgical books”?
• What does it mean that the Apostolic See has to provide confirmatio for the translation of liturgical books and recognitio for the adaptations from the conferences of bishops? [1]
• How does the Apostolic See safeguard the substantial unity of the Roman Rite?
• What does it mean that the Apostolic See will provide recognitio for adaptations according to the law?
• What are the principles of translation that must be used by those who do the translations from Latin texts and what does it mean to translate faithfully?
• What are the issues that arise when dealing with a language that is used in a widespread manner throughout the world and which might have regional nuances?
• When a canon has been modified, what are the consequences for documents and texts that have been reordered or abrogated because of the modification of the canon?
• While many of these questions need to be addressed, I would like to focus on the principles of translation that must be used when translating from Latin texts and consider what it means to translate faithfully from these Latin texts.

In the wake of the Motu Proprio, Cardinal Sarah, Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, published a commentary on Magnum Principium in the French Catholic publication L’Homme Nouveau, stating that Liturgiam authenticam [LA] remains “the authoritative text concerning liturgical translations.”  [2] In an unusual response, Pope Francis issued a public letter stating:

Magnum Principium no longer argues that translations must conform in all points to the norms of Liturgiam authenticam, as was previously the case. For this reason,individual numbers of Liturgiam authenticam must be carefully reconceived, including nos. 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 of Liturgiam authenticam’s numbers have been abrogated or are taken up into the terms in which they were reformulated by the Motu Proprio’s new canon (eg. no. 76 and also no. 80).  [3]

Pope Francis is quite clear that some of Liturgiam authenticam’s provisions, particularly those dealing with the recognitio, have been abrogated or reformulated according to his Motu Proprio. This means that the norms of Liturgiam authenticam demanding the recognitio of the Apostolic See are no longer binding as such; now it is a confirmatio of the translations that is to be sought from the Apostolic See, not a recognitio. Pope Francis also called for the modification of the “Regulations” of the Congregation, thus showing the need to have these revised in light of the new Motu Proprio.  [4] However, what about the principles of translation found in Liturgiam authenticam? I would like to focus on the issue of translation principles and more specifically the status of some of the provisions of Liturgicam authenticam, for Liturgiam authenticam is the only document with translation principles that are in force at present (with one exception).  [5] Some have argued that the Motu Proprio has used language that is similar to Comme le prévoit, and thus Liturgicam authenticam is not longer in effect; others state that conferences should no longer use the principles of Liturgicam authenticam, but should reconsider the 1998 text of the Sacramentary that was rejected by the Apostolic See.  [6] In fact, this entire issue must be examined critically to see how the Motu Proprio has in fact reordered Liturgicam authenticam.

To consider the issue of the reordering of a liturgical law, one must consider a number of principles.  [7] The general norm for the revocation of law is found in canon 20: “A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law.” Magnum Principium clearly derogates from canon 838, §2 and §3. It also derogates from nos. 79-84 of Liturgiam authenticam regarding the issue of the recognitio, as clarified by Pope Francis is his letter to Cardinal Sarah. Tacit revocation occurs when no mention is made that any previous law is being revoked, but the later law is directly contrary to an earlier law or the later law reorders the matter of the earlier. Tacit revocation may effect some of the norms governing a particular topic.

When one considers Magnum Principium, several issues become clear. The Motu Proprio uses the general revoking formula “notwithstanding anything to the contrary” thus implicitly revoking contrary universal laws. One must ask whether the translation principles of Magnum Principium are contrary to those of Liturgiam authenticam. The following table provides a comparison of the translation principles of Magnum Principium and Liturgiam authenticam. See the following table for the similarities between the two documents. See also the striking similarities between paragraphs 6 and 7 of Magnum Principium and Comme le prévoit.  [8]

What can be said of the comparison of these two texts? First, Pope Francis sees the liturgical text as a ritual sign and a means of oral communication (MP, par. 6), while Liturgiam authenticam states that “liturgical texts by their very nature are intended to be proclaimed orally” (LA, n. 59). Both Pope Francis (MP, par. 6) and Liturgiam authenticam (LA, n. 19) recognize the presence of the Lord in the liturgical responses of the Church. Both Pope Francis (MP, par. 7) and Liturgiam authenticam (LA, n. 7) state that the goal of the translation of liturgical texts is to express the prayer of the Church. Both Pope Francis (MP, par. 7) and Liturgiam authenticam (LA, n. 20) make statements about fidelity to the text: Pope Francis speaks of judging fidelity not just by individual words but within the context of the whole communicative act (MP, par. 7), while Liturgiam authenticam speaks of “rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language … in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer” (LA, n. 20). Both want to maintain integrity and accurate faithfulness (MP, par. 5), stating that texts “must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner” (LA, n. 20), so that “the sense of the original text is fully and faithfully rendered” (MP, par. 9). Both see that vernacular languages themselves can become liturgical languages with the aim of nourishing the faith (MP, par. 3) and can be comprehensible to the faithful because the translations are characterized by a kind of language which is easily understandable (LA, n. 25).

While the Motu Proprio seems to have a greater appreciation for the mystery of language, the translation principles of both seem to be able to be harmonized. However, Pope Francis makes it very clear that fidelity in the translation process involves a threefold fidelity: first, to the original text; then to the particular language in which it is translated, and finally to the comprehension of the text by the recipients. [9] This last element of fidelity is newly emphasized, for Magnum Principium emphasizes that “attention must be paid to the benefit and good of the faithful” (par. 9) and his opening principle is that “liturgical prayer [must] be accommodated to the comprehension of the people.” At the same time, Liturgiam authenticam does try to ensure the comprehensibility of the text for the hearers (LA, nos. 25, 27, 31). Undoubtedly, this is the new emphasis that Pope Francis makes in the translation of liturgical texts.

This reflection on the appropriate translation principles now to be used has consequences for ICEL and for individual conferences of bishops. The International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL) with the support of the Holy See as required by Liturgiam authenticam, [10] is a group of English speaking conferences of bishops, working together to ensure the provision of high quality liturgical texts. These texts of translation provide the basis for the texts that are voted upon by each conference of bishops before they are sent to the Holy See for the appropriate approval. Each conference has great respect for the expertise of the staff of ICEL and as a result, conferences of bishops depend almost entirely on the ICEL text. This occurs because most conferences do not have the expertise necessary to translate and produce vernacular translations. In the wake of the new Motu Proprio, some have requested that conferences take up the full task involved in producing liturgical translations. This is highly unrealistic for conferences of bishops. Therefore, it seems that the work of ICEL must continue as it is, seeking base translators, producing a text through the help of the editorial committee, reviewing the text by the ICEL bishops, seeking the comments from conferences of bishops and making the appropriate changes to texts before they are submitted to conferences as grey books. All of these tasks must be governed by the new emphasis that Pope Francis highlights regarding the great principle that “liturgical prayer [must] be accommodated to the comprehension of the people.”

Furthermore, over the past several years, ICEL has worked closely with the conferences of bishops, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments as well as the consultative body for the Congregation, Vox Clara. This is witnessed in a particular way when all bodies involved provide comments on the various texts as they evolve into the liturgical translation that eventually gets issued by ICEL. Thus, the call by Pope Francis to have easier and more fruitful collaboration seems to have been developing over the past few years, as he seeks 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” (Magnum Principium, par. 8).

What can be said about the recommendations that the Conferences of Bishops should reconsider the 1998 text of the Sacramentary that was rejected by the Apostolic See? Neil Xavier O’Donoghue made a suggestion, before the publication of Magnum Principium, that “the publication of an edited version of the 1998 Sacramentary be used side by side with the current 2011 Roman Missal.” [11] He acknowledged the issue of the financial outlay in publishing a new Missal and he called for a long period of stability while the two Missals could be used. This suggestion would be contrary to the will of Pope Francis who has been calling for one translation for each language group, illuminating the unity of the Roman Rite. Perhaps this suggestion could be used when the Missal is ready for a new translation. This would take into consideration the present practice of ICEL which has been trying to ensure a “flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer” (Liturgiam authenticam, n. 20) as well as the renewed emphasis of Pope Francis seeking that “attention must be paid to the benefit and good of the faithful” (Magnum Principium, par. 9).

Conclusions

It seems that the principles of translation found in Magnum Principium can be harmonized fairly easily with those of Liturgiam authenticam, with the acknowledgment that Pope Francis seems to have given a renewed emphasis to the importance of the comprehension of the text by the recipients. Moreover, Magnum Principium has certainly abrogated the sections of Liturgiam authenticam that dealt with the recognitio by the Congregation for the translation of texts. As a result, the Congregation must revise the provisions for the confirmatio for translated texts and issue new provisions for the recognitio for the adaptation of liturgical texts. At the same time, conferences of bishops need to be diligent in presenting texts that are for “the benefit and good of the faithful.” In the meantime, ICEL must continue to translate texts that are “intended to be proclaimed orally and to be heard in the liturgical celebration” (LA, n. 59; MP, par. 6), are the “authentic voice of the Church of God” (LA, n. 7; MP, par. 7), are “flowing vernacular texts suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer” (LA, n. 20; MP, par. 7), are “translated integrally” (LA, n. 20; MP, par. 5), render “the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language” (LA, n. 20; MP, par. 9), with a “kind of language which is easily understandable” (LA, n. 25; MP, par. 3). Through these translations, the great principle of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council will be followed so that liturgical prayer will be “accommodated to the comprehension of the people” (Magnum Principium,
par. 1).

[1] For a discussion of the nature of the recognitio and the confirmatio see, Giacomo Incitti, “Magnum Principium: For a Better Mutual Collaboration Between the Roman Curia and Bishops’ Conferences” <http://www.cultodivino.va/content/cultodivino/it/documenti/motu-proprio-/-magnum-principium—3-settembre-2017-/articoli/giacomo-inciti/english.html&gt;. See also John J.M. Foster, The Nature and Use of the Recognitio of the Apostolic See with a Consideration of Select Normative Decisions of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Canon Law Studies 565 (Washington: Catholic University of America, 2007).

[2] Cardinal-Robert-Sarah, Humble Contribution for a Better and Accurate Understanding of the Motu Proprio Magnum Principium, October 1, 2017 < https://www.scribd.com/document/361279576/Cardinal-Robert-Sarah-s-Commentary-on-Magnum-Principium&gt;.

[3] Pope Francis, Letter to Cardinal Robert Sarah, October 15, 2017 <http://lanuovabq.it/storage/docs/lettera-papa.pdf&gt;.

[4] For example, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Ratio Translationis for the English Language. Vatican City: Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2007.

[5] When Liturgiam authenticam was published, it revoked previous documents of executive power (no. 8). It stated that the norms set forth in Liturgiam authenticam are to be substituted for all norms previously published on the matter of liturgical translations, with the exception of the 1994 Instruction on the Roman Liturgy and Inculturation. There are no footnotes indicating which previous documents are intended, so the wording of no. 8 must be taken at face value. All previous norms are revoked, that is, norms of executive power, not legislative norms, since the congregation lacks the power to revoke laws. The well known collection, Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal and Curial Texts, has an entire section with 26 documents on the vernacular in the liturgy (nn. 108-133), including the most important one, the instruction Comme le prévoit of 1969. None of these documents is legislative, so all were revoked.

[6] Gerald O’Collins with John Wilkins, Lost in Translation. The English Language and the Catholic Mass, Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2017. See also an article by Neil O’Donoghue that was submitted before the promulgation of Magnum Principium: Neil Xavier O’Donoghue, “Effectively Communicating the Divine: A Proposed Rehabilitation of the 1998 Sacramentary,” Irish Theological Quarterly 2017, Vol. 82(4), 284-302.

[7] For a discussion of these principles, see John M. Huels, Liturgy and Law. Liturgical Law in the System of Roman Catholic Canon Law (Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur, 2006), 111-117.

[8] Magnum Principium par. 6 is similar to Comme le prévoit: “A liturgical text, inasmuch as it is a ritual sign, is a medium of spoken communication. It is, first of all, a sign perceived by the senses and used by men to communicate with each other. But to believers who celebrate the sacred rites a word is itself a “mystery”. By spoken words Christ himself speaks to his people and the people, through the Spirit in the Church, answer their Lord[d]” (Comme le prévoit, n. 5).
Magnum Principium par. 7 is similar to Comme le prévoit: “The purpose of liturgical translations is to proclaim the message of salvation to believers and to express the prayer of the Church to the Lord … A faithful translation, therefore, cannot be judged on the basis of individual words: the total context of this specific act of communication must be kept in mind, as well as the literary form proper to the respective language” (Comme le prévoit, n. 6).

[9] This is similar to the provisions of Comme le prévoit: “Translations, therefore, must be faithful to the art of communication in all its various aspects, but especially in regard to the message itself, in regard to the audience for which it is intended, and in regard to the manner of expression” (Comme le prévoit, n. 7). For a reflection on translating fideliter, see Mario Lessi Ariosto, S.J., “Rights and Duties Arising from the Nature of the Liturgy. Considerations in the light of the Motu proprio Magnum principium,” 8-11 <http://www.cultodivino.va/content/cultodivino/it/documenti/motu-proprio-/-magnum-principium—3-settembre-2017-/articoli/mario-lessi-ariosto–s-j-/english.html&gt;.

[10] See Liturgiam authenticam, nn. 92-103.

[11] Neil Xavier O’Donoghue, “Effectively Communicating the Divine: A Proposed Rehabilitation of the 1998 Sacramentary,” Irish Theological Quarterly 2017, Vol. 82(4), 284-302, at 301.

Brian Dunn, JCD, MA (Liturgical Studies), is Bishop of Antigonish, Nova Scotia.