Praytell is reporting that at the website of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments [CDW] is a very fine article on collaboration between the Curia and bishops’ conferences in the area of liturgical translations. It is by Fr. Giacomo Incitti, full professor of canon law at Urbaniana University and consultor of the Vatican’s Congregation for Clergy: “Magnum Principium: For a Better Mutual Collaboration between the Roman Curia and Bishops’ Conferences.” The Vatican website has it up in both Italian and English.
My questions have to do with the difference between recognitio and confirmatio in the sense that the Vatican can still withhold confirmatio, correct? Thus this implies that the bishops submitting a translation have to revise it, no?
Thus, given that Liturgiam Authenticum is not completely abrogated, let say the bishops submit the 1998 rejected Roman Missal English Translation again, much of which is an adaption, this could still be rejected either by not giving confirmatio or recognitio, no?
Thus given the highly politicized nature of the the Mass today and its translations, something which was not present in the pre-Vatican II Church and thus contributed to the unity of the Church when the liturgy isn't politicized and to the disunity of the Church when it is, just what is going on here given the fact the Vatican can withhold both recognitio or confirmatio. What am I missing?????? Perplexed in Richmond Hill!
The main take-away on the significance of Pope Francis’s motu proprio Magnum Principium [MP] is that vernacular translations require only confirmatio from Rome now, and no longer recognitio. Adaptations, on the other hand, still require the Roman recognitio.
|Before MP:||Now, since MP:|
|Translations required from Rome:||recognitio||confirmatio|
Adaptations require from Rome: