The Germans are revolting.

And so it begins.

When Mangum principium came out (which increased the role of bishops conferences in the preparation of liturgical translations), I mentioned that the Germans are usually the problem.  HERE

Now there’s this from the Catholic Herald.  My emphases and comments.

Cardinals Marx and Sarah disagree on Magnum Principium

Two cardinals have disagreed over how much authority the Pope’s motu proprio Magnum Principium gives to local bishops’ conferences.

The papal document gives bishops’ conferences greater say over the translation of liturgical texts, changing the role of the Congregation for Divine Worship from one of recognitio to confirmatio. However, two senior cardinals have disagreed over the exact meaning of this difference.

Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the German bishops’ conference, welcomed the document, implying that it was a clear break with the 2001 document Liturgiam authenticum, which he called a “dead end”.  [Marx is wrong.  Magnum principium did not cancel out the norms of Liturgiam authenticam.]

“Rome is charged with the interpretation of dogmas, but not with questions of style. Now, thanks to Magnum Principium, episcopal conferences enjoy a much greater freedom,” he said.  [But they are not free to make inaccurate translations.]

He also hinted that the German bishops had dropped a proposed new translation of the Mass that was more faithful to the original Latin text, with much of the controversy centring around how to translate the words “pro multis”.  [The problem is that they are not free in the matter of translations of sacramental forms.  That is reserved to the Holy See, indeed to the Pope.]

The words appear as part of the phrase “qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum” in reference to the Precious Blood during the consecration of the wine in the Roman Canon.

The most accurate English translation is “for many”, but many translations, including Spanish, Portuguese and German, initially rendered it [inaccurately] as “for all”.

In 2006, the Holy See gave instruction that all vernacular editions of the Roman Missal should translate the words as “for many”, pointing out that it is also the most literal translation of the original Greek “???? ??????” in Matthew 26:28.  [While that is the case, it must also be noted that the Roman Catechism has a paragraph explaining why we cannot say “pro omnibus”.  Moreover, its perennial use in Mass also constitutes its own theological locus.]

The change met with opposition from the German bishops, however, prompting Pope Benedict XVI to write a personal letter in 2012 explaining why they should adopt the new translation. [They ignored him.]

Now Cardinal Marx has signalled the German bishops will use Magnum Principium as an opportunity to drop the new translation and keep the old, less literal version. [It will not, cannot be approved if it doesn’t adhere to the translation norms which are, still, in Liturgiam authenticam.]

Cardinal Robert Sarah, on the other hand, has said ultimate authority still lies with the Vatican, which must still approve all new translations, and can veto proposals that are not faithful to the original text.

The Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship said the new motu proprio does not reduce the body to a mere rubber stamp.

“Like the recognitio, the confirmatio is by no means a formality,” the cardinal said.

Instead, it “presupposes and implies a detailed review on the part of the Holy See” including the ability to refuse assent unless certain modifications are made.

“So, for example, if, in the Creed of the Order of Mass, the expression: ‘consubstantialem Patri’ is translated in English by: ‘one in Being with the Father’, the Holy See may impose – and even must impose (cf. n. 6) – the translation: ‘consubstantial with the Father’, as a condition sine qua non of its confirmatio of the entirety of the Roman Missal in English.”

Magnum Principium, then, is simply a question of making “collaboration…between the Apostolic See and Episcopal Conferences easier and more fruitful.”

“… easier… more fruitful…”

Yeah, this will easily be a lot fruitier.