Implementation Timeline for the New Missal

Vox Clara (the advisory committee to the Congregation for Divine Worship) will have its final meeting in April, but in fact all the texts and amendments from national conferences are already at the Congregation for Divine Worship. We have no idea when the recognitio (final Roman approval) will come – perhaps this summer? Tricky issues on the format of what comes back from Rome – either or an electronic version (as was submitted) with the changes tracked, or hard copy. If it’s the former, things move forward rather nicely. If it’s the latter, it will take some time to enter in the changes before the whole thing can be given to the publishers. So many steps in this process, so many possibilities for delay at every turn. Stay tuned.


    1. Jeffrey, I am the editor. I post things under “Editor” which I think are more general and in the name of the whole website, and things under my name which are more my own specific contributions. I know, it’s a gray line.

  1. Brian;

    As Karl already noted…the Holy See can make whatever changes it wishes, and can in fact issue an entirelty different edition of it’s own choosing without any input from the Conference of Bishops. It’s doubtful that would happen, but it is certainly permitted (well okay… it is the Pope after all!).

    This very fact is the reason why so many were perplexed by all of the nitpicking and back-n-forths about whether to follow this directive of LA or not follow this one…in the end, the Holy See would simply insert what was needed and that would be that. If the USCCB decided to translate “pro multis” as “for all”, it would simply have been corrected in the final edition. If they decided on “one in being” instead of “consubstantial” as had been indicated, it would just have been corrected.

    In the end, it was a matter of “we’ll approve the translation you give us as long as you give us the translation we require”.

  2. If Rome has an idea of what it wants in an English translation, why don’t they just do it?

    I don’t intend for that to sound as snarky as it does. The clarifications above are helpful. But if Jeffrey Herbert’s final paragraph is an accurate portrayal of the philosophy Rome has about this translation, that seems a bit like a professor giving an assignment while having a clear picture of what he or she wants, not telling students what that is, and then taking off points because students don’t meet the requirement. Admittedly, this is probably an incredibly simplistic comparison.

    Clarification appreciated.

  3. Lauren, I like your analogy. Quite a few sulky students around too who don’t like their mediocre homework being corrected!

  4. Lauren;

    This comment is late, but I hope it will clear up what I’m talking about.

    While LA sets up a very clear process for translating texts and approving them for use, one can read carefully and find that the “correction/ approval” process only goes one way. The Holy See can “correct” submissions by the various commitees and approve their own corrections, however the committees (Bishops) do not have any recourse to “correct” or change the alterations made by the Holy See. Since the Holy See, by virtue of it’s complete authority and oversight of the liturgy, can make whatever changes it feels are necessary, it can essentially produce and approve it’s own translations. This is unlikely, but it is the reality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.