MAGNUM PRINCIPIUM:

FOR A BETTER MUTUAL COLLABORATION

BETWEEN THE ROMAN CURIA AND BISHOPS’ CONFERENCES

GIACOMO INCITTI

The adaptation and translation of liturgical books have been an object of constant concern,

not only to safeguard the substantial unity of the Roman Rite1, but also because it is through the

language of the liturgy that our common encounter with God is effected by means of prayer. We

propose here an approach to the recent ‘motu proprio’2 , also with the aim of presenting aspects

of this legislative intervention in a way which presents it within the vision of Pope Francis for

renewal.

In the context of problematic issues concerning the liturgical books, the modifications that

are introduced into can. 838 of the Code of Canon Law (CIC) also concern a significant theme of

ecclesiology: the vital and fundamental relationship between Primacy and Episcopacy. Among the

presuppositions of the ‘motu proprio’, there predominantly appears the necessity of clarifying a

matter in which, according to the proemium (introduction), “quaedam difficultates exortae sunt in

hoc longo itinere laboris inter Conferentias Episcoporum et hanc Apostolicam Sedem”3.

Even before the existence of the new formulations of the canon, it is possible to read most

explicitly in the same introduction the aim of the legislative provision. It is the pope himself who

affirms the peremptory character of this legislation: «decernimus quod disciplina canonica nunc

vigens in can. 838 C.I.C. clarificetur, ut, ad mentem Constitutionis Sacrosanctum Concilium,

praesertim in nn. 36, §§ 3-4, 40 et 63 expressam, necnon Litterarum Apostolicarum Motu Proprio

datarum Sacram Liturgiam, n. IX, evidentior appareat competentia Apostolicae Sedis»*.

It is timely, however, to begin with ecclesiological basis which justifies the presence and the service

of the Roman Curia.

1. The Roman Curia and the munus petrinum

The Council4 several times identifies the raison d’être of the Roman Cuia in its link with the

munus petrinum and with the ministry of the Bishops5. In its service to Peter, the Curia is at the

1 Cf. Sacrosanctm Concilium, 38.

2 FRANCISCUS, Litterae apostolicae motu proprio datae Magnum principium, quibus nonnulla in can. 838 Codicis Iuris

Canonici immutantur, (3 sept. 2017), L’Osservatore Romano, 10 september 2017, 4-5. 3 As the object of our Motu Proprio, the Roman Curia and Apostolic See is to be understood as the Congregation for

Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the practices used in this Dicastery, which for the sake of

convenience in this paper we will continue to call the Congregation for Worship. (…difficulties have arisen between

the Episcopal Conferences and the Apostolic See in the course of this long passage of work). 4 See for example Christus Dominus n. 9 where it deals with the Pope and the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia and

affirms that they “nomine et auctoritate illius munus suum explent in bonum Ecclesiarum et in servitium Sacrorum

Pastorum” (perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of

the sacred pastors).

2

service of the Bishops, and by means of this service it finds its own ecclesiological substance and

the reason for its existence.

From this springs the diaconal ministry of the Curia and above all its close link with the

Bishops, a dimension which not only impedes any form of barrier between the episcopate and the

pope6, but it also identifies the Bishops as the first beneficiaries of the work of the Curia

7.

Moreover, the Roman Curia is called upon to position itself with regard to the Episcopate in

an analagous way to which the Pope himself is called to funtion. From the time of the Council,

theological reflection has always evidenced the collegial dimension of the exercise of supreme

authority, underlining its diaconal nature8. The Code did not fail to take this into consideration, not

only adding a canon to legislation regarding the Pope which concerns the College of Bishops9, but

also affirming the intrinsic limits of primacy by ennumerating them definitively within the

communion with the other Bishops and indeed with the whole of the Church, and simultaneously, in

its consideration of the needs of the Church herself10

.

2. The Conferences of Bishops and the recognitio of the Roman Curia

From the earliest days of the Council, reliable and certain teaching was evidenced whereby

the sense of collegiality is that which “asserts and identifies churches again within the Church, and

therefore, if so desired, promotes ‘particular collegiality’ that is of course, precisely of central

* “I order … that the canonical discipline currently in force in can. 838 of the CIC be made clearer so that, according to

what is stated in the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, in particular in articles 36 §§ 3.4, 40 and 63, and in the

Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam, n. IX, the competency of the Apostolic See … be made clearer”.

5 The Conciliar directives then found their application in the documents concerning the Curia: “Patet igitur Romanæ

Curiæ munus, etsi ad propriam Ecclesiæ constitutionem, iure divino conditam, non pertinet, indolem tamen vere

ecclesialem habere, quatenus ab universalis Ecclesiæ Pastore suam et exsistentiam et competentiam trahat. Ea enim in

tantum exstat atque adlaborat, in quantum ad ministerium Petrianum refertur in eoque fundatur. Quoniam autem Petri

ministerium, utpote «servi servorum Dei», sive erga universam Ecclesiam sive erga totius Ecclesiæ Episcopos

exercetur, Romana etiam Curia, Petri successori inserviens, ad universam Ecclesiam atque ad Episcopos iuvandos

pariter spectat”, IOANNES PAULUS II, Constitutio ap. Pastor Bonus, 28 giugno 1988, in AAS 80 (1988), 841-930, qui

introd., n. 7. (Consequently, it is evident that the function of the Roman Curia, though not belonging to the essential

constitution of the Church willed by God, has nevertheless a truly ecclesial character because it draws its existence and

competence from the pastor of the universal Church. For the Curia exists and operates only insofar as it has a relation to

the Petrine ministry and is based on it. But just as the ministry of Peter as the "servant of the servants of God" is

exercised in relationship with both the whole Church and the bishops of the entire Church, similarly the Roman Curia,

as the servant of Peter’s successor, looks only to help the whole Church and its bishops.) 6 «Quam ob causam non modo longe abest ut Romana Curia personales rationes ac necessitudines inter Episcopos atque

Summum Pontificem quoddam veluti diaphragma impediat vel condicionibus obstringat, sed contra ipsa est, atque

magis magisque sit oportet, communionis atque sollicitudinum participationis administra», Pastor Bonus, introd., n. 8.

(For this reason, not only is the Roman Curia far from being a barrier or screen blocking personal communications and

dealings between bishops and the Roman Pontiff, or restricting them with conditions, but, on the contrary, it is itself the

facilitator for communion and the sharing of concerns, and must be ever more so.) 7 «Ratione igitur suæ diaconiæ, cum ministerio Petriano coniunctæ, eruendum est tum Romanam Curiam cum totius

orbis Episcopis arctissime coniungi, tum eosdem Pastores eorumque Ecclesias primos principalioresque esse veluti

beneficiarios operis Dicasteriorum. Quod eiusdem Curiæ etiam compositione probatur», Pastor Bonus, introd., n. 9.

(By reason of its diaconia connected with the Petrine ministry, one concludes, on the one hand, that the Roman Curia is

closely bound to the bishops of the whole world, and, on the other, that those pastors and their Churches are the first

and principal beneficiaries of the work of the dicasteries. This is proved even by the composition of the Curia.) 8 Cf. amongst other recent studies S. PIÉ-NINOT, Verso un “Ordo Communionis Primatus” come primato diaconale, in

A. SPADARO-C.M. GALLI (edd.), La riforma e le riforme nella Chiesa, Editrice Queriniana, Brescia 2016, 293-308. 9 Can. 330 (CCEO can. 42) which directly quotes the text of Lumen Gentium 22.

10 Cf. can. 333., CCEO, can. 45.

3

importance for the whole, bringing the conciliar structure of the Church alive, so that it can act at

particular times, and becomes, in ecumenical councils, the highest form of collegial activity in the

Church of God”11

.

It obviously falls beyond the scope of our essay to offer a deeper study of the theological

and juridical nature of the Conferences of Bishops and the doctrinal development which is still

ongoing. Insofar as it lies within the limited parameters of our reflection, we draw attention to the

fact that developing the relationships between Conferences of Bishops and the Apostolic See was

the subject of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in 196912

in which, among other things, the need

for collaboration was forcefully underlined13

, requesting that practical strategies be adopted in this

regard.

Unfortunately the promulgation of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus concerning the

Roman Curia did not bring about the appropriate assistance of the Congregation for Divine Worship

in the specific question of the translation of liturgical texts as the locus of such collaboration. After

having affirmed that the Dicastery «Episcopis dioecesanis adest, ut christifideles sacram liturgiam

magis in dies actuose participent»14

, the notion in the code which foresaw that «versiones librorum

liturgicorum eorumque aptationes ab Episcoporum Conferentiis legitime paratas recognoscit»15

was

restated.

The provision was inserted into a context of the Congregation’s work that was already

somewhat problematic, given the limits of the mutual responsibilities of both the Curia and the

Conferences16

.

Interesting documentation concening the Consultation Meeting of the Dicastery in 198817

,

shows that from the earliest times of this canonical norm being in force, the Congregation

encountered difficulties in applying a strict notion of recognitio, not wishing to present the

11

J. RATZINGER, Il nuovo popolo di Dio. Editrice Queriniana, Brescia 19924, 215.

12 Within the broader theme of episcopal collegiality in the Church see: SYNODUS EXTRAORDINARIA EPISCOPORUM,

Relatio Pastor aeternus de arctiore coniunctione Episcoporum Conferentias inter et Sedem apostolicam, lecta die 17

octobris 1969 in Synodo extraordinaria episcoporum et ab eadem Synodo die 27 octobris 1969 probata, Typis

Polyglottis Vaticanis 1969, in EV3/1653-1744. 13

It is interesting to note that the Congregation for Worship does not figure in the list of Dicsateries that had already

begun different forms of collaboration, cf. Pastor aeternus in EV3/1699. 14

Pastor Bonus, 64, § 1. (“It gives support to the diocesan bishops so that the Christian faithful may share more and

more actively in the sacred liturgy”.) 15

Pastor Bonus, art. 64, § 3. Magnum principium has also provided for substituting recognitio with confirmatio in this

article. (“It grants the recognitio to translations of liturgical books and adaptations of them that have been lawfully

prepared by conferences of bishops”.) 16

So, for example, it was already underlined at the time: “It is worthwhile to observe that the recognitio (from

recognoscere of PB 64, 2) includes two actions in its purview: to review and to approve. That it should be so results

from a far from academic dispute about the competencies surrounding the recognitio ongoing in this period of the

reform of liturgical texts and of the “review” and/or “approval” of the decisions taken by Episcopal Conferences”, A.M.

TRIACCA, L’assistenza ai Vescovi diocesani e la Congregazione del Culto divino e della disciplina dei sacramenti,

Notitiae 25 (1989), 119, nota 22. 17

The Congregation edited this worthwhile publication in fascicle 270-271 of volume 25 of the review Notitiae in 1989.

4

involvement of the Roman authorities as the external imposition of views which differed from those

of the Conference of Bishops18

.

3. The heart of the provision: from recognitio to confirmatio

As is more easily apprehended in the diagram which we propose below, the legislator has

introduced two modifications to can. 838, occuring in the second and third paragraphs respectively.

The first concerns the aptationes of liturgical books which, having received the approval of the

Conference of Bishops, must be subject to the recognitio of the Apostolic See. The second,

however, concerns the versiones in linguas vernaculas, for which Roman recognitio is not required

but rather its confirmatio19

. Furthermore, with reference to translations, there has also been a

simplification by way of clarfication in the two paragraphs cited. Here where the term versiones

appeared in the second and third paragraphs, the reference is now found only in the third paragraph

in which it is established that the preparation and approbation of these texts is the competence of the

Conference of Bishops, who will publish the text following the confirmatio of the Apostolic See.

The aptationes, however, which are not merely translations, but rather introduce variations or new

texts, remain subject to the full process of the recognitio.

CIC can. 838 Can. 838 modificato § 1. Sacrae liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate

unice pendet: quae quidem est penes Apostolicam Sedem

et, ad normam iuris, penes Episcopum dioecesanum.

§ 2. Apostolicae Sedis est sacram liturgiam Ecclesiae

universae ordinare, libros liturgicos edere eorumque

versiones in linguas vernaculas recognoscere, necnon

advigilare ut ordinationes liturgicae ubique fideliter

observentur.

§ 3. Ad Episcoporum conferentias spectat versiones

librorum liturgicorum in linguas vernaculas, convenienter

intra limites in ipsis libris liturgicis definitos aptatas,

parare easque edere, praevia recognitione Sanctae

Sedis.

§ 4. Ad Episcopum dioecesanum in Ecclesia sibi

commissa pertinet, intra limites suae competentiae,

normas de re liturgica dare, quibus omnes tenentur.

§ 1. Sacrae liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate

unice pendet: quae quidem est penes Apostolicam Sedem

et, ad normam iuris, penes Episcopum dioecesanum.

§ 2. Apostolicae Sedis est sacram liturgiam Ecclesiae

universae ordinare, libros liturgicos edere, aptationes, ad

normam iuris a Conferentia Episcoporum approbatas,

recognoscere, necnon advigilare ut ordinationes

liturgicae ubique fideliter observentur.

§ 3. Ad Episcoporum Conferentias spectat versiones

librorum liturgicorum in linguas vernaculas fideliter et

convenienter intra limites definitos accommodatas parare

et approbare atque libros liturgicos, pro regionibus ad

quas pertinent, post confirmationem Apostolicae Sedis,

edere.

§ 4. Ad Episcopum dioecesanum in Ecclesia sibi

commissa pertinet, intra limites suae competentiae,

normas de re liturgica dare, quibus omnes tenentur.

Recognitio and confirmatio, in this way, assume in the new discipline, key roles which both

characterize and yet differentiate the two particular modes of intervention of the Roman Curia in the

matter of the preparation of liturgical books

18

“Sometimes, rather than helping the Episcopal Conferences to improve their decrees decisions are imposed within

their documents which the Conferences had never considered and which are not always required by the common law.

Is there no way of reviewing this ‘modus procedendi’?”, J. MANZANARES, Las relaciones entre la Congregación y las

Conferencias episcopales en la disciplína vigente, Notitiae 25 (1989), 109. 19

By eliminating the words: eorumque versiones in linguas vernaculas recognoscere from § 2, the modification takes

away the competency of the Dicastery for the “recognitio” of translations, which still, however, require the confirmatio.

For the sacramental formulas it should be borne in mind that the norms of 1973 remain in force.

5

4. Recognitio and confirmatio, an initial approach to the terminology

The heart of the modification of the legislation is to be found in the meaning of the two

notions used in the new norm to qualify the juridic nature of the respective competences of the

Roman Curia and the Conferences of Bishops. The declared desire of the modification is actually to

establish a distinction in the competence of the Congregation with regard to new texts,

modifications and adaptations of the liturgical books not foreseen by the same books and, on the

other hand, competence in the matter of translations. As for the rest, Pope Francis himself affirms

that “above all it is necessary to make clear the importance of the strict difference the Motu proprio

establishes between recognitio and confirmatio, as sanctioned clearly in §§ 2 and 3 of can. 838, in

order ot abrogate the praxis adopted by the Dicastery following Liturgia authenticam (LA) which

the new Motu Proprio modifies. One cannot say therefore that recognitio and confirmatio are

‘strictly synonymous or that they are interchangeable’ or ‘that are interchangeable at the level of

the responsibility of the Holy See’”20

.

What must be understood by the term recognitio has been amply explained by the Pontifical

Council for Legislative Texts, which in the course of an internal correspondence with the

Secretariat of State affirmed that: “The recognitio of these juridic or litugical texts is not a generic

or summary approbation and far less a simple ‘authorization’. It is rather an attentive and detailed

examination in order to judge the legitimacy and the conformity with the universal canonical and

liturgical norms of the relevant texts which the Conferences of Bishops desire to promulgate or

publish”21

. As one can easily see, it is an intervention that can be justified if one considers it as a

question of new norms or even of new texts which need to be evaluated in terms of their conformity

with the universal norms of the Church. It is with this prospect in view that the Dicastery has

clarified that the term recognitio would be translated in terms of revision rather than authorization.

On the other hand, what is the sense conveyed by the term confirmatio? The criteria of the

logic at work in the change that has been made has already appeared in “L’Osservatore Romano”

under the Signature of the Secretary of the Congregation: “The confirmatio of the Apostolic See is

therefore 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.

Obviously, this presupposes a positive evaluation of the fidelity and congruence of the texts

produced in respect to the typical editions on which the unity of the Rite is founded”22

. The

presumption is in favour of the Conferences of Bishops on which falls not only the duty but also the

repsonsibility for translations23

.

20

So Pope Francis writes in the Letter sent to Cardinal Sarah on 15 October 2017 with which he clarified some points

of Magnum Principium which had been the object of a “Commentaire” that appeared in L’Homme Nuoveau n. 1648 of

14 October 2017, and in an advance Italian version on the http://www.lanuovabq.it/it website. 21

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS, Nota esplicativa La natura giuridica e l’estensione della “recognitio”

della santa Sede, in Communicationes 38 (2006), 10-17. We do not dwell here on the authoritative interpretation given

by the Council, but limit ourselves to pointing out the non-correspondence of the citation of the minutes of the plenary

meeting referred to in n. 4 of the same note. 22

A. ROCHE, A Key to Reading the motu proprio Magnum principium, L’Osservatore romano, Sunday 10 September

2017, 5. 23

Liturgiam authenticam n. 80 was contrary to the Code and thus gave rise to an abusive practice, whereby it was

foreseen that “The practice of seeking the recognitio from the Apostolic See for all translations of liturgical books

accords the necessary assurance of the authenticity of the translation and its correspondence with the original texts. This

6

In this way, Conferences of Bishops obtain a rightful re-evaluation of their nature. The

praxis established in view of Liturgiam authenticam could be read as a reduction to a merely

executive role24

.

5. From recognitio to confirmatio: a return to the reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium

In order to understand the intrinsic significance of these two terms in the liturgical field it is

necessary to undertake a return to the sources, to the Council, to the Constitution on the Liturgy,

where the debate concerning the seeming contradiction of the two terms began.

Beyond a clear indication of the motivations of the Motu Proprio and an indication to whom

it is addressed, the Motu Proprio itself establishes its governing criteria: return to the Council. Not

only does it make reference in the introduction to the relevant paragraphs of the Constitution on the

Liturgy, it also adopts the particular terminology that the Council underwent considerable pains to

choose. The road indicated copuld appear other than it is but the emphasis of the document under

consideration indicates that the fundamental rule of interpretaion of new texts introduced into any

modification of the code, must be the Council and not recourse to other contexts where the terms

recognitio and confirmatio might appear. A return to the Council means above all re-reading the

text with the purpose of identifying its deepest mens or mind.

Aside from paragraphs 40 and 63, which are cited in the introduction of the ‘motu proprio’

but turning our attention rather more toward translations, let us concentrate our thoughts on n. 36 of

the Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36 §1. Linguae latinae usus, salvo particulari iure, in Ritibus latinis servetur. §2. Cum tamen, sive in Missa, sive in Sacramentorum administratione, sive in aliis Liturgiae partibus, haud

raro linguae vernaculae usurpatio valde utilis apud populum exsistere possit, amplior locus ipsi tribui valeat,

imprimis autem in lectionibus et admonitionibus, in nonnullis orationibus et cantibus, iuxta normas quae de

hac re in sequentibus capitibus singillatim statuuntur. §3. Huiusmodi normis servatis, est competentis auctoritatis ecclesiasticae territorialis, de qua in art. 22 § 2,

etiam, si casus ferat, consilio habito cum Episcopis finitimarum regionum eiusdem linguae, de usu et modo

linguae vernaculae statuere, actis ab Apostolica Sede probatis seu confirmatis. §4. Conversio textus latini in linguam vernaculam in Liturgia adhibenda, a competenti auctoritate

ecclesiastica territoriali, de qua supra, approbari debet.

The four paragraphs have different objects. To the general principle outlined in the first

paragraph is added the affirmation of the value and possibility of translations in vernacular

languages in the second paragraph. The norms, on the other hand, are contained in the third and

practice both expresses and effects a bond of communion between the successor of blessed Peter and his brothers in the

Episcopate. Furthermore, this recognitio is not a mere formality, but is rather an exercise of the power of governance,

which is absolutely necessary (in the absence of which the act of the Conference of Bishops entirely in no way attains

legal force); and modifications – even substantial ones – may be introduced by means of it. … For these reasons, 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”. 24

Cf. A. MONTAN, Liturgiam authenticam: problemi giuridici relativi al tema delle traduzioni, Rivista Liturgica 92

(2005), 211-223.

7

fourth paragraphs, usefully cited in Magum Principium. The third paragraph has the purpose of

establishing what is required of the competetnt territorial authority in determining the use and the

extent of use of the local language (cf art. 22)25

. Such a decision must be submitted to the Apostolic

See for approval. Very helpfully, in the “Note” which appeared in “L’Osservatore Romano” by

way of a commentary on the ‘motu proprio’, one reads that the expression probatis seu

confirmatis, “was desired by the Liturgical Commission of Vatican Council II in order to replace

the term derived from the verb ‘recognoscere’ (‘actis recognitis’), with reference to can. 250 § 4

(cf. can. 304 § 2) of the C.I.C. of 1917, as the Council fathers explained in the Relatio and in their

voting concerning no. 36 § 3 of Sacrosanctum Concilium in the form ‘actis ab Apostolica Sede

probatis seu confirmatis’”26

. It is certainly not without merit if we return to that relatio for it is

there that we see the motivations which explain the mind of the Council in contrast to the

work and the concept of recognitio. But first it is good to read the texts given here below,

presented in a way which facilitates the comparison necessary to understand the emendations:

Textus in Schemate propositus Textus a Commissione emendatus

24. [Lingua liturgica]. Latinae linguae usus in Liturgia

occidentali servetur.

Cum tamen “in non paucis ritibus vulgati sermonis

usurpatio valde utilis apud populum existere” possit,

amplior locus ipsi in Liturgia tribuatur, imprimis autem in

lectionibus et admonitionibus, in nonnullis orationibus et

cantibus.

Sit vero Conferentiae Episcopalis in singulis regionibus,

etiam, si casus ferat, consilio habito cum Episcopis

finitimarum regionum eiusdem linguae, limites et modum

linguae vernaculae in Liturgiam admittendae Sanctae Sedi

proponere

36. § 1. Linguae latinae usus, SALVO PARTICULARI IURE,

in Ritibus latinis servetur.

§ 2. Cum autem, SIVE IN MISSA, SIVE IN

SACRAMENTORUM ADMINISTRATIONE, SIVE IN ALIIS

LITURGIAE PARTIBUS, haud raro linguae vernaculae

usurpatio valde utilis apud populum existere possit,

amplior locus ipsi tribui valeat, imprimis autem in

lectionibus et admonitionibus, in nonnullis orationibus et

cantibus, IUXTA NORMAS QUAE DE HAC RE IN

SEQUENTIBUS CAPITIBUS SINGILLATIM STATUUNTUR.

§ 3. Huiusmodi normis servatis, est competentis

auctoritatis ecclesiasticae territorialis, de qua in art. 22 §

2, etiam, si casus ferat, consilio habito cum Episcopis

finitimarum regionum eiusdem linguae, de usu et modo

linguae vernaculae STATUERE, ACTIS AB APOSTOLICA

SEDE PROBATIS SEU CONFIRMATIS.

§ 4. CONVERSIO TEXTUS LATINI IN LINGUAM

VERNACULAM IN LITURGIA ADHIBENDA, A COMPETENTI

AUCTORITATE ECCLESIASTICA TERRITORIALI, DE QUA

SUPRA, APPROBARI DEBET.

Where do problems concerning the recognitio originate? It is always the relationship

between the two terms which provides the explanation. We have to consider the observations

which the Council Fathers made in relation to the final version of no. 24 of the “textus propositus”:

Sanctae Sedi proponere which was substitued with: statuere, actis ab Apostolica Sede recognitis27

.

The question had been raised by many and concerned the limits of the power of the Bishops in this

25

The expression “competent territorial authority” reflects the then uncertain juridical configuration of Episcopal

Conferences. 26

Canon 838 in the Light of Conciliar and Post Conciliar Sources, in L’Osservatore romano, Sunday 10 September

2017, 4-5, below, here referred to as Note. The text begins: “On the occasion of the publication of the Motu Proprio

Magnum principium, by which Pope Francis makes variations to can. 838 §§2 & 3 of the C.I.C., the Secretary of the

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments offers, in the following note, a commentary on

the underlying sources of these paragraphs, taking into consideration the formulation in force until now as well as the

new formulation”, ibidem, 4. 27

«Emendatio vero a valde numerosis Patribus proposita loco “Sanctae Sedis proponere”, scribit: “statuere, actis ab

Apostolica Sede recognitis», AS, I/IV, 288.

8

regard28

. It was necessary, however, to find the right balance which took into consideration and

quantified episcopal authority in relation to that of the Apostolic See. The solution was found in

bringing forward the “textus emendatus” modifying the second and third paragraphs29

. Clearly

affirming the meaning of recognitio, it thereby avoided the pitfalls of the notion of the term

explained in the same relatio. It was affirmed, above all, that “verbum ‘recognitis’ aliquo modo

ambiguum est, ac proinde substitutum est verbis ‘probatis seu confirmatis’”30. In place of any

ambiguity in the term recognitio, the Commission substituted the phrase probatis seu confirmatis,

a phrase which better expressed the mind of the Council Fathers. In particular, it specified why it

was decided to put together two verbs: probatis seu confirmatis recognizing that “verbum enim

‘probatis’, de se genericum, specificatur seu explicatur verbo ‘confirmatis’”. The approval –

probatio – of the Apostolic See, was furthermore explained rather more in terms of confirmation.

The thought of the Council in relation to the concept of confirmatio was likewise clarified in terms

of the intervention of the Apostolic See in the midst of the collegial process as the act of a higher

authority to bestow on the text the fulness of authority as it had been produced fully in communion.

It is the language of the relatio, however, exemplary in its juridical terminology, which serves to

explain this recognizing that “nam hac locutione ostenditur ius quod ab auctoritate inferiore

legitime statuitur et ab auctoritate superiore agnoscitur ac completur. Inde via media obtinetur, cum

auctoritas inferior ius condat et auctoritas superior novam vim iuridicam addat”31

. It does not

require a great effort to understand that the terminology chosen by Pope Francis takes up that of the

Council.

We must not fail to mention, however, the fact that the third paragraph is not concerned with

translations but rather the prior decision to introduce the vernacular: de usu et modo linguae

vernaculae statuere. It is in fact this final verb – statuere – which causes us to reflect on how the

Council had refused to attribute to the Roman Curia the “recognitio” which is by means of the

deliberative vote of the Conference of Bishops.

It is in the fourth paragraph32

that the competent authority for the approval of translations is

identified and defined; that this is not the Aposotolic See one can deduce, not only from the

formulations of the text but also from the very particular history of the examination of the “Modi”.

A Council father asked whether “Conversio textus latini in linguam vernaculam proponatur a

28

«Haec emendatio attente considerari meretur, tum quia a multis proposita est, tum quia respondet exspectationi

plurium ut amplior de hac re potestas committatur coetibus episcoporum», ibidem. 29

«Attamen ut haec emendatio unanimi consensu recipi valeat, necesse est ut in paragrapho secunda, ut iam dictum est,

clare enuncientur limites intra quos versatur facultas auctoritati territoriali concredita, et ut hi limites revocentur uno

verbo in hac tertia paragrapho. Prior conditio videtur impleta, cum emendationem vobis proposuerimus in paragrapho

secunda. Ad alteram conditionem implendam, vobis proponimus ut initio tertiae paragraphi dicatur: “huiusmodi normis

servatis”», ibidem. 30

AS, I/IV, 288. The reasons for the ambiguity could also lie in the fact that the term recognoscere in Sacrosanctum

Concilium is used to configure the work of reforming the liturgy. See for example recognitio e recognoscere in

numbers 62-81 on the reform of the sacramental rites or the revision – recognitio – of the Psalter, etc. It was difficult

therefore to use the same terminology to denomenate the competency of the Apostolic See. 31

Ibidem. 32

The insertion of the fourth paragraph happened in the same context and was so motivated in the report: «postulante

iure meritoque uno ex Patribus, addendam censuimus quartam paragraphum, quae sic sonat: “Conversio textus latini in

linguam vernaculam in Liturgia adhibenda, a competenti auctoritate ecclesiastica territoriali, de qua supra, approbari

debet.”. Etenim vitanda est illa perniciosa in versionibus libertas et varietas quae verum sensum et textuum decorem

interdum minari videatur», AS, I/IV, 288.

9

competenti auctoritate ecclesiastica territoriali Sanctae Sedi, quae sola potest probare istam

conversionem”33

. The response of the Commission was: “Paragraphus quarta, quam iste modus

respicit, iam a Concilio adprobata est (Emend. 7)”34

. And so the text remained unchanged in the

Constitution which furthermore in this fourth parargraph establishes that the exclusive competence

lies with the local church authority, no intervention on the part of the Apostolicn See being

foreseen35

.

Certainly it was not only prudence that suggested that things should move forward

gradually, taking into consideration a praxis already underway, but also that the provisions of the

Council were immediately modified with the ‘motu proprio’ Sacram Liturgiam to which we now

turn our attention.

6. The motu proprio Sacram Liturgiam and analogies with the situation of the present time

The process of the passage from the decisions of the Council to their implementation,

which was to be managed by the Curia, had brought to light a number of problems by the time of

the ‘motu proprio’ of Paul VI Sacram Liturgiam36

, promulgated on 25 January 1964, at which point

the Council was already underway. Helpfully this document is cited as a source in the introduction

to Magnum Principium. Although the material in n. IX initially treats of the “Divine Office”, the

passage contains a more generic norm in relation to translation into vernacular languages:

Here below is the text in question:

Motu proprio Sacram Liturgiam,

IX. Quoniam vero ex Constit. Art. 101, iis, qui divinum Officium recitare obstringuntur, aliter aliis facultas

fit, pro latina, usurpandi linguam vernaculam, opportunum ducimus significare, varias huiusmodi populares

interpretationes, a competente auctoritate ecclesiastica territoriali conficiendas et approbandas esse, ad

normam art. 36, §§ 3 et 4; acta vero huius auctoritatis, ad normam eiusdem art. 36, § 3, ab Apostolica Sede

esse rite probanda seu confirmanda. Quod ut semper servetur praescribimus, quoties liturgicus quidam

textus latinus a legitima, quam diximus, auctoritate in linguam vernaculam convertetur.

This immediately appears as a significant new development as the motu proprio unites the

subject of the two paragraphs of Sacrosanctum Concilium 36, when it affirms: varias huiusmodi

populares interpretationes, a competente auctoritate ecclesiastica territoriali conficiendas et

approbandas esse, ad normam art. 36, §§ 3 et 4 going on immediately to add that acta vero huius

auctoritatis, ad normam eiusdem art. 36, § 3, ab Apostolica Sede esse rite probanda seu

confirmanda. In reality, Sacrosanctum Concilium did not establish that the translations, which are

referenced in § 4, should be subject to the Apostolic See, as we have observed above. The scope of

33

AS, II/V, 526. 34

Ibidem. 35

The above cited Note of commentary on Magnum Principium can do no other than take note of this reality when it

writes: “it is clear how, for translations, neither a probatio seu confirmatio nor a recognitio in the strict juridical sense

of can. 455 §2 is required”, Nota, 4. 36

PAULUS VI, Litterae apostolicae motu proprio datae, Decernitur ut praescripta quaedam Constitutionis de Sacra

Liturgia a Concilio Oecumenico Vaticano II probatae vigere incipiant, Sacram Liturgiam, 25 Ianuarii 1964, in AAS

LVI (1964), 139-144.

10

the legislation expands considerably with the statement of the final phrase, which establishes that in

general Quod ut semper servetur praescribimus, quoties liturgicus quidam textus latinus a legitima,

quam diximus, auctoritate in linguam vernaculam convertetur.

It is important to review the details of this matter since the difficulties of the present day

concerning the “recognitio” are analogous to those of that time. “In the preparation of the document

the desire of the Roman Curia for centralisation regarding liturgical translations became clear. Paul

VI himself did not immediately realise the difference between the text of the Motu proprio that had

been presented for his signature and that of SC”37

. It was the case of a text which stands in contrast

to that which is established by SC 36 § 4 which, in its original version as first published in

L’Osservatore Romano, stated that: “populares interpretationes a competente auctoritate

ecclesiastica territoriali propositas, ab Apostolica Sede esse rite recognoscendas atque probandas.

Quod ut semper servetur praescribimus, quoties liturgicus quidam textus latinus a legitima, quam

diximus, auctoritate in linguam vernaculam convertetur”38. The term “propositas” had replaced the

competence of the Conferences which based on SC art. 36, § 4 had to “approve” the translations,

while “recognoscendas atque probandas” was replaced with “probatis seu confirmatis” of SC art.

36, § 3. The Council Fathers protested immediately. They felt that they had been deceived by the

published text since “the text reproduced the ‘propositas’ and the ‘actis ab Apostolica Sede

recognitis’ of the Conciliar Schema proposed to the Fathers and reformulated by them”39

. Protests

were directed to the various departments of the Curia by individual Bishops and entire Conferences

of Bishops40

with people taking up somewhat vehement positions in relation to what appeared to be

a somewhat surprising action on the part of the Curia since “it even apperaed to the Consilium ad

exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra liturgia (= Consilium), that the text of the Motu proprio was

in need of corrections, however the Congregation of Rites maintained that it should be defended

above all because, as it was formulated, it clearly expressed not only a sacrosanct right, but also a

fundamental duty of the Holy See which it could not renounce”41

.

The most conciliatory solution was that proposed by Mgr. Bugnini, which foresaw that the

local ecclesiastical authority, by means of a Commission of experts, would prepare the liturgical

text and approve it, taking responsibility for the translation in matters of fidelity to the content and

the Latin text, the integrity of the text etc. The approved text was then sent to the Holy See for its

confirmation by the Office or Dicastery competent to estabish that the translation has been made in

accordance with the norms which have been granted by the Holy See, leaving the intrinsic

responsibility for the work to the Conference of Bishops 42.

Taking this rather more conciliatory proposal as the starting point, when the ‘motu

proprio’ Sacram Liturgiam was promulgated in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis43

, the text “distinguished

37

M. LESSI-ARIOSTO, La problematica della “traduzione di testi liturgici” da dopo il Vaticano II come base per

comprendere l’Istruzione Liturgiam authenticam, in Rivista Liturgica, 92 (2005), 178. 38

L’Osservatore romano, 28 gennaio 1964, 1. 39

M. LESSI-ARIOSTO, La problematica della “traduzione di testi liturgici”, 179. 40

Amongst which we recall the memorandum francese, on that matter see amongst others P. MARINI, A challenging

Reform, Liturgical Press 2007, pp. 24-29. Il Regno (Bologna), febbraio 1964, pp. 38-39. 41

M. LESSI-ARIOSTO, La problematica della “traduzione di testi liturgici”, 179. 42

Cf. P. MARINI, A challenging Reform, Liturgical Press 2007, pp.26-29. 43

Cf. AAS 56 (1964), 143

11

approval of translations as such on the part of the territorial authorities with a decree that made

them obligatory, and the fact that such an act had to be ‘probatus seu confirmatus’ by the Apostolic

See”44

, eliminating, however, that terminology which was not desired which made the Curia

responsible in the process of the “recognoscere”45

.

Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36 Sacram Liturgiam (testo OR) Sacram Liturgiam (testo AAS)

§3. Huiusmodi normis servatis, est

competentis auctoritatis

ecclesiasticae territorialis, de qua in

art. 22 § 2, etiam, si casus ferat,

consilio habito cum Episcopis

finitimarum regionum eiusdem

linguae, de usu et modo linguae

vernaculae statuere, actis ab

Apostolica Sede probatis seu

confirmatis.

§4. Conversio textus latini in linguam

vernaculam in Liturgia adhibenda, a

competenti auctoritate ecclesiastica

territoriali, de qua supra, approbari

debet.

… populares interpretationes a

competente auctoritate ecclesiastica

territoriali propositas, ab Apostolica

Sede esse rite recognoscendas

atque probandas. Quod ut semper

servetur praescribimus, quoties

liturgicus quidam textus latinus a

legitima, quam diximus, auctoritate

in linguam vernaculam convertetur

… populares interpretationes, a

competente auctoritate ecclesiastica

territoriali conficiendas et

approbandas esse, ad normam art. 36,

§§ 3 et 4; acta vero huius auctoritatis,

ad normam eiusdem art. 36, § 3, ab

Apostolica Sede esse rite probanda

seu confirmanda. Quod ut semper

servetur praescribimus, quoties

liturgicus quidam textus latinus a

legitima, quam diximus, auctoritate

in linguam vernaculam convertetur

7. Doubts, Problems and Contradictions in the legislation which precedes Magnum principium

We would like to present here a number of reflections on the legislation prior to the ‘motu

proprio’ Magnum Principium which already posed questions concerning the legitimacy and the

necessity of the recognitio for the translation of liturgical texts.

7.1. The recognitio in can. 838 lacked sufficient justification

Certainly the “letter of the law” of can. 838 did not leave room for any doubt since that

canon was later emblematic in providing the support for the legislation brought forward in

Liturgiam authenticam. The necessity of the recognitio, however, as established by the law, lacked

suffcient justification. By way of further confirmation, above all else, is the particular history of the

said canon. After a long journey, let us concentrate on examining it at the moment of the

introduction of the notion of the recognitio and what happens in the preparatory schema CIC 1980.

The text of the canon was as follows:

Schema CIC 1980 - Can. 791.

§ 1. Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet: quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad

normam iuris, apud Episcopum.

§ 2. Apostolicae Sedis est sacram liturgiam Ecclesiae universae ordinare, libros liturgicos edere eorumque versiones in

44

Note, pag. 4. 45

The corrections to the first text were illustrated in an article with the title Per l’attuazione della Costituzione liturgica

conciliare - Il Motu proprio “Sacram Liturgiam”, written by Bugnini himself and published in L’Osservatore Romano

on 2/3 March 1964.

12

linguas vernaculas approbare necnon advigilare ut ordinationes liturgicae ubique fideliter observentur.

§ 3. Ad Episcoporum Conferentias spectat versiones librorum liturgicorum in linguas vernaculas, convenienter intra

limites in ipsis libris liturgicis definitos aptatas, parare easque edere, praevia approbatione S. Sedis.

§ 4. Episcopus dioecesanus in Ecclesia sibi commissa moderator promotor et custos totius vitae liturgicae est; ad eumque

pertinet, intra limites suae competentiae, normas dare, quibus omnes tenentur.

The observations and the response of the Secretary of the Commission are summarized in

the Relatio which, relevant to our problem, contains findings in both the second and third

parargraphs46

. Ultimately, it is a case of two requests which both have as their object the

modification of the nature of the involvement of the Apostolic See. In § 2 it is requested that the

right of approval by Conferences of Bishops be recognized, while confirmation was reserved to the

Apostolic See47

. At the same time, and understandably, the proponents of this modification also

requested a modification of § 3 by which the juridic nature of the involvement of the Holy See

should not be that of approval but that of confirmation or recognitio, and they offered the

Commission a further rationale in favour of this latter term48

. It is worth consideration, however,

that the Secretary of the Commission, on the basis on an acceptance of the proposal in relation to §

3, found in that same proposal the basis for support of his own reasoning justifying a modification

which, in more general terms, would require the recognitio of the Holy See in both paragraphs

concerning translations of texts into vernacular languages49

. Here is the text which offers the

motivation: “Loco “approbare” dicatur: “recognoscere”. Notetur tamen accurate quod hac

modificatione, ratione uniformitatis terminologicae cum can. 330 introducta, nullo modo mutatur

sensus legis. Recognitio (veluti approbatio, confirmatio) denotat in casu actum superioris auctoritatis

competentis quo permittitur auctoritative (autorizzare, billigen) promulgatio legis ab inferiore factae.

Quae recognitio non est tantum formalitas quaedam, sed actus potestatis regiminis, absolute

necessarius (eo deficiente actus inferioris nullius valoris est) et quo imponi possunt modificationes,

etiam substantiales in lege vel decreto ad recognitionem praesentato. Actus tamen (lex vel decretum)

non fit auctoritatis superioris sed manet semper actus auctoritatis quae illum statuit et promulgat.

Quod erat et manet sensus canonis”50

.

The reasoning of the Commission ignores the specific problems which had arisen both at the

Council and following it concerning the terminology which should be adopted in the field of

liturgical texts and lends support to the somewhat dubious notion that the terms recognitio-

approbatio-confirmatio are in fact equivalent. The motivation, furthermore, offers at least one

point of intrinsic weakness when it establishes the necessity of the “recognitio” on the basis of a

uniform terminology with that which is evident in can. 330 (subsequently can. 455). The fragility of

the reasoning springs from the diversity of the subject. In canon 455, power, in the normal course of

46

PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, Relatio complectens Synthesim animadversionum

ab Em.mis atque Exc.mis Patribus Commissionis ad novissimum schema Codicis iuris canonici exhibitarum, cum

responsionibus a secretaria et consultoribus datis. Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis 1981, 191-192. 47

“Ad § 2: Proponitur ut dicatur “... in linguas vernaculas ab auctoritate ecclesiastica territoriali approbata (probare seu)

confirmare necnon advigilare ...” (Cardd. Marty, Willebrands, Schröffer)”, Relatio complectens, 192. 48

For the proposal reguarding the third paragraph a fourth Father also figures: “Ad § 3: 1. Loco “versiones ... edere

praevia approbatione Sanctae Sedis”, dicatur: “versiones ... edere praevia confirmatione (vel sicut in can. 330, § 2, habetur

“recognitione”) Apostolicae Sedis” (Cardd. Willebrands, Marty, Schröffer et Exc. Coffy). Ratio, quae pro utraque §§ valet,

est quod textus opponitur praescriptinibus Cons. SC 22, § 2 et 36, §§ 3 et 4, necnon M.P. Sacram Liturgiam, praxi

postconciliari non impugnatae immo inductae ab Apostolica Sede», ibidem. 49

«R. Admittitur et loco “approbatione” dicatur “recognitione”», ibidem. 50

Ibidem.

13

events, resides with the Conferences of Bishops. Here it is a case of the generation of laws, the

emergence of new legislation. It is not correct to place the emergence of legislation, however, on

the same level as the translation of legislation already promulgated. When a legislative text is

translated it is not the case that another law is generated. Therefore that which is required by the

current can. 455 (including the notion of recognitio) by means of a new law cannot be required by

a translation into a vernacular language of a law already in force.

A further aspect of weakness seems to emerge from the text of the Relatio and, in particular,

in the motivations of those making the request. They underline their awareness that the prerogatives

of the Curia in the field of the translation of liturgical texts date back not only to the will of the

Council but to a praxis which has its origin in Sacram Liturgiam: «praxi postconciliari non

impugnatae immo inductae ab Apostolica Sede»51

. And lastly, in the continual attempt to uncover

motives for weakness of argument, the wise counsel of those who suggested the avoidance of the

involvement of the Curia based on a lack of competence in all the necessary languages, should not

be overlooked. It was an observation that was dealt with summarily by arbitary reference to the

response concerning the recognitio52

!

7.2. Comparison with the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium

Even if we take into consideration the autonomy and the specific provision of these two

forms of Canon Law, it is nontheless useful to cast an eye over the legislation which concerns the

translation of liturgical texts contained in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches53

. The

relevant discipline is expressed in can. 657, which does not foresee any notion of either recognitio

nor confirmatio on the part of the Apostolic See, with regard to the Congregation for the Eastern

Churches54

. In fact in the second parargraph, the canon limits itself to the provision that the right of

approval of the transaltion of liturgical books lies with the competent authority for the approval of

the books themselves, after having made a report to the Apostolic See in the case of Patriarchal

Churches or Metropolitan Churches which are sui iuris.

Authoritative confirmation comes from the Instruction on liturgical matters issued by the

Dicastery for Eastern Churches55

, where, among other things, it is affirmed “from the earliest of

times the Eastern Churches have often provided for translating their own liturgical texts into

languages understandable to the faithful”56

. Modifications in linguistic terms are the consequence of

various circumstances, but above all the loss of the country of origin and insertion into different

cultural contexts which have had the consequence that the faithful “have often lost the knowledge

51

Ibidem. 52

“2. Non requiratur approbatio S. Sedis quia inhabilis, inspectis diversissimis linguis (Exc. Pimenta). R. Cfr.

responsionem ad 1.”, ibidem. How many students in Roman faculties, from so-called mission territories, were involved

during these years in evaluating the translations of liturgical texts approved by their Bishops! 53

Cf. tra gli altri P. SZABÓ, I libri liturgici orientali e la Sede apostolica. Sviluppo della prassi e stato attuale, Folia

canonica, 7 (2004) 261-278. 54

“But no review by Congregation for the Oriental Church involved, which, however, is to be informed with an

accompanying copy”, G. NEDUNGATT, A Guide to the Eastern Code. A Commentary on the Code of Canon of the

Eastern Churches. Kanonica 10. Pontificio Istituto Orientale, Roma 2002, 486. 55

CONGREGAZIONE PER LE CHIESE ORIENTALI, Istruzione per l’applicazione delle prescrizioni liturgiche del Codice dei

Canoni delle Chiese Orientali, Città del Vaticano, 1996. 56

Ibidem, n. 25.

14

and use of their language of origin: thus participation in the liturgy of their Church became more

difficult”57

.

7.3. Comparing the translation of liturgical texts with the translation of Sacred Scripture

The lack of adequate justification for the obligation to obtain the recognitio for translations

of liturgical texts emerged and emerges from a comparison of the norms that concern the translation

of the texts of the Sacred Scripture contained in the same CIC and sanctioned by the current can.

825. This reasoning has been authoritatively brought forward by Pope Francis in the Letter we have

already cited in which he writes: “After all, bear in mind the analogy with can. 825, § 1 on the

version of Sacred Scripture which does not require the confirmatio of the Apostolic See”. In order

to fully understand the sense and the scope of this canonical legislation, it is interesting to review

here a part of the process of its revision. In the same way as we did previously, we will limit

ourselves to the discusssion which took place after the draft schema of 1980 in which the canon

was substantially identical58

to the formulation promulgated in the Code which we cite here in the

interest of comparison:

Schema CIC 1980 CIC 1983

Can. 780

§ 1. Libri Sacrarum Scripturarum edi non possunt

nisi qui aut ab Apostolica Sede aut ab Episcoporum

conferentia approbati sunt; itemque ut eorundem

versiones in linguam vernaculam ut edi possint,

requiritur ut ab eadem auctoritate sint approbatae

atque insimul necessariis et sufficientibus

explicationibus sint instructae.

§ 2. Versiones sacrarum Scripturarum

convenientibus explicationibus instructas, communi

etiam cum fratribus seiunctis opera, parare atque

edere possunt christifideles catholici, de licentia

Episcoporum Conferentiae.

Can. 825

§ 1. Libri Sacrarum Scripturarum edi non possunt

nisi ab Apostolica Sede aut ab Episcoporum

conferentia approbati sint; itemque ut eorundem

versiones in linguam vernaculam edi possint,

requiritur ut ab eadem auctoritate sint approbatae

atque insimul necessariis et sufficientibus

explicationibus sint instructae.

§ 2. Versiones sacrarum Scripturarum

convenientibus explicationibus instructas, communi

etiam cum fratribus seiunctis opera, parare atque

edere possunt christifideles catholici, de licentia

Episcoporum Conferentia.

The Relatio which summarizes the observations alonside the replies of the Secretary of the

Commission is expressed thus: «Ad can. 780. Facultas edendi Libros sacrarum Scripturarum, de qua

agitur in hoc canone, unice Sedi Apostolicae reservetur; itemque eorundem versiones in linguam

vernaculam, cum analogia can. 792 § 2 de edendis Libris liturgicis (Card. Palazzini). R. Non

admittitur: excessive esset centralisatio, neque in CIC haec norma habetur»59

.

The observation of the Commission is of indubitable importance precisely because it refuses

the comparison with the General Decrees of the Conferences of Bishops on the subject of the

translation of Sacred Scripture! It is evident here that the Commission followed a criterion which is

diametrically opposed to that used in can. 838.

57

Ibidem. 58

As shown in the box changes made later only served to improve the style. 59

PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, Relatio complectens, 186.

15

The commentaries on the Code state, with respect to the past, that such norms entrust to the

Conferences of Bishops, rather than to the Ordinary of the place, the permission to publish. We are

not called upon here to unravel the compexities of the application of this canon which, however,

remains a necessary point of reference in the work of the revision of legislation which concerns the

lesser consideration of the translation into vernacular languages of liturgical texts.

7.4. Translation of liturgical texts and the doctrinal declarations of the Conference of Bishops

A final motive for reflection that evidences the fragility of the motivation in support of the

the necessity of obtaining the recognitio for translations, arises from a comparison of the

competence of the Conference of Bishops in the matter of doctrinal declarations. The ‘motu

proprio’ Apostolos suos of 21 May 199860

, apart from offering a reflection on the theological and

juridical nature of the Conferences of Bishops based on developments which have already been

verified, establishes the norms concerning doctrinal declarations on the part of the Conferences. In

particular, it establishes in n. 22 that “when the doctrinal declarations of Episcopal Conferences are

approved unanimously, they may certainly be issued in the name of the Conferences themselves,

and the faithful are obliged to adhere with a sense of religious respect to that authentic magisterium

of their own Bishops. However, if this unanimity is lacking, a majority alone of the Bishops of a

Conference cannot issue a declaration as authentic teaching of the Conference to which all the

faithful of the territory would have to adhere, unless it obtains the recognitio of the Apostolic See,

which will not give it if the majority requesting it is not substantial. The intervention of the

Apostolic See is analogous to that required by the law in order for the Episcopal Conference to

issue general decrees”.

Such legislation raises a problem with regard to the necessity of the recognitio in can. 838. It

seems that it is not possible to draw a similiarity between doctrinal subjects of the magisterium and

the translation of a liturgical book; it is a matter of content (doctine and the translation into a

vernacular language of a Latin text) in which there is no comparison61

. Comparing the two forms of

legislation, there seems to be a disproportionate difference.

* * *

At the conclusion of this study, it would seem reasonable to place Magnum principium

within the context of Pope Francis’s ongoing work of renewal in the Church. We have principally

offered a canonical reading in which we explain some of the contradictions arising from can. 838 of

CIC, which have happily lead to its modification. The ‘motu proprio’favours collaboration between

the Roman Curia and the Conferences of Bishops, reestablishing the criterion indicated by the

Council according to which the translation of liturgical texts is not the competence of the Roman

Curia but of the Bishops united in their Conference. It is on the Bishops, Pastors of the Church, as

60

Cfr. AAS 90 (1998) 641-658. 61

Maybe it is sufficient to hold to the ancient “regulae iuris”: Plus semper in se continet quod est minus or even: Cui

licet quod est plus, licet utique quod est minus.

16

the teachers of doctrine, the priests of worship and the ministers of governance62

that there falls not

only the duty but the responsibility of translation, which, precisely because it is a fruit of their

episcopal office enjoys, of its nature, the presumption of fidelity. To the Apostolic See there

remains the duty of the confirmatio.

62

Bishops are so described in in can. 375 § 1 in the light of Lumen Gentium 20 and Christus Dominus 2: Episcopi, qui

ex divina institutione in Apostolorum locum succedunt per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est eis, in Ecclesia Pastores

constituuntur, ut sint et ipsi doctrinae magistri, sacri cultus sacerdotes et gubernationis ministri. (Bishops, who by

divine institution succeed to the place of the Apostles through the Holy Spirit who has been given to them, are

constituted pastors in the Church, so that they are teachers of doctrine, priests of sacred worship, and ministers of

governance)