BREAKING: Francis to Card. Sarah: Liturgical translations "no longer... must conform at all points to the rules of Liturgiam Authenticam, as it was done in the past."

BREAKING: Francis to Card. Sarah: Liturgical translations "no longer... must conform at all points to the rules of Liturgiam Authenticam, as it was done in the past." 

Rome will no longer need to approve Mass translations or approve their fidelity in accordance with the rules established by Benedict XVI. 

READ the entire letter here: 

"Vatican City, October 15, 2017
Your Eminence is Reverendissima
Mr. Cardinal Robert SARAH
Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship
and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Vatican City

Eminence,
I received your letter of September 30, with which you wished to express your gratitude for the publication of Motu Proprio Magnum Principium and to send me a commentary aimed at a better understanding of the text.
In expressing my gratitude for the commitment and the contribution, I would simply like to express, some comments on the above mentioned note which I consider to be important, especially for the proper application and understanding of the Motu proprio and to avoid any misunderstanding.
First of all, it is important to point out the importance of the clear difference that the new MP establishes between recognitioand confirmatio, well enshrined in §§ 2 and 3 of the can. 838, to abolish the practice adopted by the Dicastery following the Authentic Liturgy (LA) and that the new Motu Proprio wanted to change. We can not therefore say that recognitio and confirmatio are "strictly synonymous (or) are interchangeable" or "they are interchangeable at the level of responsibility of the Holy See."
In fact the new can. 838, through the distinction between recognitio and confirmatio , asserts the different responsibility of the Apostolic See in the exercise of these two actions, as well as that of the Episcopal Conferences. The Magnum Principium no longer argues that translations must conform at all points to the rules of Liturgiam Authenticam, as it was done in the past. For this reason, individual LA numbers must be carefully re-understood, including nn. 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 LA numbers have been abrogated or have fallen into the terms in which they were re-formulated by the MP's new canon (eg No. 76 and even No. 80).
On the responsibility of the Bishops' Conferences to translate " fideliter ", it should be pointed out that the judgment of Latin fidelity and any necessary corrections was the task of the Dicastery, while now the norm grants the Episcopal Conferences the right to judge the goodness and consistency of the 'one and the other term in the translation from the original, even if in dialogue with the Holy See. The confirmatio not supposed more, therefore, a detailed examination word for word, except in obvious cases that can be made to the present Bishops for their further reflection. This applies in particular to the relevant formulas, such as the Eucharistic Prayers and in particular the sacramental formulas approved by the Holy Father. The confirmatioIt also takes into account the integrity of the book, that is, verifying that all parties that make up the typical edition have been translated [1] .
Here it can be added that, in the light of the MP, the "fideliter" of § 3 of the canon implies a threefold fidelity: to the original text in the first ; to the particular language in which it is translated, and finally to the comprehension of the text by the recipients (see Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani Nos. 391-392)
In this sense, recognitio only indicates verification and preservation of conformity to the law and communion of the Church. The process of translating relevant liturgical texts (eg sacramental formulas, the Credo, the Pater Noster ) into a language - from which they are considered authentic translations - should not lead to a spirit of "imposition" at the Episcopal Conferences of a date translation made by the Dicastery, as this would undermine the right of the bishops sanctioned in the canon and already before SC 36 § 4. Moreover, keep in mind the analogy with the can. 825 § 1 about the version of Sacred Scripture that does not require confirmation by the Apostolic See.
It is wrong to attribute to confirmation the purpose of recognitio (ie to "verify and safeguard compliance with law"). Of course, confirmation is not merely formal, but necessary for the edition of the liturgical book "translated": it is granted after the version has been submitted to the Apostolic See for the ratification of the Bishops' approval in a spirit of dialogue and aid to reflect if and when necessary, respecting their rights and duties, considering the legality of the process followed and its modalities [2] .
Finally, Eminence, I reiterate my fraternal gratitude for his commitment and note that the commentaire has been published on some websites and wrongly attributed to his person, I kindly ask you to provide this answer to the same sites as well as sending it to all Episcopal Conferences, Members and Consultors of this Dicastery.
Fraternally
Francis

[1] Magnum Principium: "The end of the translations of the liturgical texts and the biblical texts, for the liturgy of the Word, is to announce to the faithful the word of salvation in obedience to the faith and to express the prayer of the Church to the Lord. To this end, it is necessary to communicate faithfully to a particular people, through their own language, what the Church intended to communicate to another by means of the Latin language. Although fidelity can not always be judged by singular words, but it must be in the context of the whole act of communication and according to its literary genre, however, some peculiar terms should also be considered in the context of the Catholic faith. liturgical texts must be congruent with the sound doctrine. "
[2] Magnum Principium : "One must certainly pay attention to the usefulness and goodness of the faithful, nor should we forget the rights and burdens of the Episcopal Conferences which, together with the Episcopal Conferences of regions with the same language and with the Apostolic See, must make sure that the indole of each language is preserved, fully and faithfully rendered the meaning of the original text and that the liturgical books translated, even after the adaptations, always shine through the unity of the Roman Rite ".

SOURCE