The new English missal at the USCCB meeting

The Bishops of the Committee on Divine Worship met in Baltimore the day before the plenary meeting (like usual). They were brought up to date on the missal.

The missal had not been on the agenda for today’s plenary executive session (closed to the public) today, but it got added to the printed agenda the Bishops received this morning.

Bishop Serratelli gave an update to all the Bishops. The story is out there, and it’s true – changes were made to the text the bishops submitted (as Pray Tell reported). Serratelli had with him a copy of the internal report “Areas of Difficulty in the Received Text of the Roman Missal.” But, not to worry: the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome is revising the text (as Pray Tell also reported).

The really final final version will be sent out from Rome – one gathers that they don’t announce a date by which Rome will complete something – and then everything will go forward on schedule. Implementation in Advent 2011.

Wow. And here I thought they would decide to put the whole thing to a plebiscite, every Catholic in the US gets one vote. I really missed this one. Sure glad I didn’t put up my prediction yesterday.


  1. So in a year’s time the final final text will be in the hands of celebrants and faithful? In the form of hastily printed leaflets? And that will only be the beginning of woes! archê ôdinôn tauta!
    We are living in the End Days of Christendom, and a new, functional, pluralistic Christianity is struggling to be born. The liturgy debacle may play its part in this convulsion.

  2. So, guessing you do not know but was there any discussion; any pushback?; any complaints that what they voted/approved had been changed with no notification; no concerns about the process; lack of time; impact on the folks in the pew?

  3. We are living in the End Days of Christendom, and a new, functional, pluralistic Christianity is struggling to be born.

    This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius, Age of Aquarius… Aquarius, Aquarius!

    Harmony and understanding
    Sympathy and trust abounding
    No more falsehoods or derisions
    Golden living dreams of visions
    Mystic crystal revelation
    And the mind’s true liberation
    Aquarius! Aquarius!

    1. Rob, have another glass of good single malt, or another cigar, or another coupld dozen deep pan pizzas, or all of the above, and calm down – then, if you’ve got anything positive to contribute to the conversation, give it your best shot.

      I’ve noticed people don’t say anything to you when you leave these inane comments – I wonder is it because you identify as a priest, or do they just feel sorry for you?

      1. Chris, maybe people agree with him…and I’ve also noticed that your “positive” comments often times get deleted from this site because of their vitriol. I would rather be charged with leaving an “inane” comment than to relentlessly attack others on a personal level and remove any doubt about the type of person *you* truly are. But I digress…

      2. I can hardly speak for “everybody”, but I do know quite a lot of Catholics who are fairly ordinary, not people bellying up to the trough of the Church in one way or another and pushing one inside-game agenda or another. Of those whose liturgical perception rises to the knowledge of the latest in translation news, most likely agree with Fr. Johansen that

        ”Many of the objections and protests regarding the new Missal frequently arise from ideas and agendas that are neither liturgical nor theological, and hence serve neither to clarify the faith nor edify the faithful.”

        In any event, however one might prefer that this had turned out, it has now finally turned out, and surely it’s obvious that the best way to “clarify the faith and edify the faithful” is to quit belly-aching and turn towards constructive and enthusiastic efforts to promote the forthcoming introduction of a faithful translation that—whatever the blemishes it undoubtedly will retain (however minor they are in any version seen so far, in comparison with those of the translation in current use)—will do much to inspire the “new springtime” in the liturgy of which our Supreme Pontiff spoke just yesterday.

      3. Huh? “The objections… are neither liturgical nor theological?” Yes they are, every one that I’ve seen. They may be liturgical or theological views that you don’t agree with, but that doesn’t make them any less liturgical or theological. Every objection I have seen has to do with the literary quality of the translations, their pastoral appropriateness, and the process by which they were produced. This last concern is ecclesiological.

      4. Fr. Ruff, it appears to me that both things are true. That there are indeed valid criticisms based on defects in accuracy and quality in the latest texts, but that most complaints expressed here are based more on process gripes and inside-baseball political agendas. Of course, my own reservations about the katz and jammer kids apparently let loose in Rome are simply those of an outsider, an ordinary Catholic with no particular axe to grind.

    2. Hey Brad, maybe people agree with FR R J that it’s the Age of Aquarius? Maybe people agree with Chris that so far all this priest does is dump inane comments and he gives you a link to his picture and blog where he brags that he loves the good life and has to put up with lots of dumb people. Good for Chris in asking him if he has anything to contribute in between good wines and good cigars. Our collection $$$ at work and our prayers for vocations answered I guess.

  4. Every Catholic does get a vote, in fact, two of them: They can’t force us to say “And with your spirit,” we can continue to respond “And also with you” when the priest says “The Lord be with you.” The same goes for all the other responses.

    And the other vote, the big one that will really get their attention: the collection. If everyone who dislikes the new translation refuses to donate, even for just one Sunday, it’ll get their attention, really quick.

    1. +JMJ+

      Why obey the current translation? What if you don’t feel like saying “And also with you”? There’s really no reason we should HAVE to say or do ANYTHING that someone else tells us to do at Mass, right?

      1. Wrong Jeffrey!!! We follow a set of rubrics that are set by Rome and we follow the GIRM which sets forth what we DO at Mass. The ordo or the order of the Mass sets forth what WE and the presiders say. Vatican II didn’t give us a free for all on the Mass when it set forth the cultural adaptations for Mass. The rubrics must still be faithful to the Roman/Latin Rite!
        We obey the current translation until November 11, 2011!!!!

      2. +JMJ+

        Tim, you’ve misunderstood me. I wasn’t being serious. Of course I know there is an Order of Mass which prescribes what we are to do at Mass.

        I can’t shake the feeling that most of your comments are made in vacuums the ignore who you’re responding to and what has been said on this blog before. Your overly-optimistic comments about the “final text” are about a text that doesn’t exist yet, because the last version of the text is still being worked on by the CDWDS in Rome. Until it’s been released (or leaked) to the public, we can’t know what’s in it. And if it takes months for this to happen, I pray that the US Bishops push back the implementation date, if only so that there can be sufficient time to examine the text we have received, let alone catechize and prepare for it.

  5. Bill,

    It is unfortunate that you would even suggest disobedience to the precept of the Church (of supporting the Church) and to legitimate authority (in matters related to the regulation of the Sacred Liturgy).

    I certainly pray and hope that you are saying these in jest.

    I’m happy to hear that Rome is taking in the feedback. Let’s pray that Rome will get back to the Bishops in time – afterall, they do have the gray book texts before them.

    1. Simon

      Bill wasn’t suggesting disobedience to anything. He can say what he wants when the priest says ‘The Lord be with you’ and not putting cash in the collection does not necessarily mean he’s not observing the precept of the Church about keeping the clergy fed. (If you take a gander at the personal pages to which he links in every comment, Fr Rob Johansen, for instance, could do with a lot less support, but I digress.)

      Which feedback are you happy that Rome is ‘taking in’? The bad translations, or the bad English grammar, or the unproclaimable texts, or the parts where Liturgiam Authenticam hasn’t been obeyed, or something else?

      1. He can say what he wants

        Indeed. What he can’t say is that that is a way of “being Church”.

    1. If this is indeed a selection of the Received Text, than it is different than the 2010 text. The doxology at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer is still what it was in the 2008 text. As well the rubric before the consecration indicates the priest is the bow as opposed to bend.

      It is interesting to see the chant settings for the Prefaces.

      1. Yes – this thing has been changed so many times, it’s hard to keep track of it. The Pope got the Received Text on April 28. And THEN the Congregation decided to screw up the doxology at a later point and informed the national conferences of the new messed up wording of it.

    2. +JMJ+

      Nice to have this text. I’ll be looking through it in my spare moments today.

      One thing that really disappoints me about the whole Xavier Rindfleisch thing is, it’s clear he has a grasp of Latin and English… so why hide his identity? Wouldn’t he be a good person to consult in the matter of translating the Missal?

    3. OMG! I will have to post on this asap.

      I think everyone knows this, but perhaps it bears repeating: this Received Text isn’t the final text of our missal, because the Congregation for Divine Worship is now revising the final text. The value of this Received Text leak is that it documents how bad the text was which the Congregation at one point approved as final.


      1. +JMJ+

        Yes, I think we are aware that this is not the final text. It’s the pre-10000-changes text, and even the post-10000-changes text is now being revised.

        Oh, and in case anyone was hoping to see the whole Received Text, these five PDFs aren’t the complete Missal. The Order of Mass jumps from the Prayer of the Faithful to Eucharistic Prayer II.

      2. yes, it’s only a small sample. The full text is more than 700 pages long. Note that it was uploaded on November 11, so it’s been sitting there in public display for a whole week already! Maybe if people express interest that person will be motivated to spend the time to scan and upload more. In fact maybe people can simply state if there is a specific part they would like to see, and it will magically appear!

        I love the internet.

      3. Actually, hasn’t the final text already been granted in recognitio and hasn’t the USCCB already set an implementation date of November 27, 2011?????? And I believe this statement by the outgoing president of the CDW has stated that the USCCB is preparing this for publication. There was no mention that the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments having to approve anything. If you saw the poster those of us at the parish level got from the USCCB on the catechesis and implementation of the new missal, and we cannot do so until our local bishop gives us the go ahead, and this cannot happen until it is officially published.

      4. Tim, as we’ve been reporting here, the CDW granted recognitio in March 25 and produced a text by April 28 (the Received Text), but obviously that text is so bad that the CDW has to do something with it. They haven’t sent out the final text of the propers to any national conference, obviously because they don’t have it yet. And this is 8 months after they supposedly approved the final text. The USCCB is doing an excellent job of covering up Rome’s incompetence by claiming that there is a final text, when obviously there isn’t yet. Maybe there will be soon. We all hope it isn’t the awful Received Text, but time will tell.

  6. I am not in the publishing field, but I have to wonder if Rome will actually get the final final final version to our publishers in enough time to make an Advent 2011 implementation practical? Or, as has been postulated, will we be looking at internet downloads and three-ring binders for six months post-implementation? Frustrating…

  7. Anthony Ruff, OSB :
    Tim, as we’ve been reporting here, the CDW granted recognitio in March 25 and produced a text by April 28 (the Received Text), but obviously that text is so bad that the CDW has to do something with it. They haven’t sent out the final text of the propers to any national conference, obviously because they don’t have it yet. And this is 8 months after they supposedly approved the final text. The USCCB is doing an excellent job of covering up Rome’s incompetence by claiming that there is a final text, when obviously there isn’t yet. Maybe there will be soon. We all hope it isn’t the awful Received Text, but time will tell.awr

    Do you honestly think that if the text were THAT bad, they would have never given it in recognitio status in March????? And secondly, How do we KNOW they had to put a final ‘revealed” text in by April 28???? There was nothing about that in the reports about this by the Catholic news media???? Finally, how do we know that the CDWS had to give its final final approval???? There is no mention of this in Fr. Pecklers book when he discussed the translation process or anywhere else that described the translation process.

    1. Tim, this is getting surreal. Do you understand English? I’ll give this one more try, and that’s it. The CDW only gives ONE recognitio, OK? But then they change the text after it was supposedly final. Everyone knows this: the 2008 Order of Mass text with recognitio was released a couple years ago…but then this summer it got changed. This is public information.

      Do you know about the WikiSpooks leaks? There you will find the 2010 text, April 28 Received Text, final version with recognitio. We know it’s an awful text by looking at it. Then, do you know about the leaked 36-page report outlining all the problems in the April 28 text? Surprise, surprise: the problems outlined in the report are there to see, every one of them, in the leaked Received Text. It all matches up.

      Do I honestly think the CDW would have approved it if it were that bad? Yes, I do. Why? Because they did so. See the above leaks.

      Why did the MSM not report on this? Because the CDW almost succeeded in keeping it a secret. Pray Tell plus a few other blogs broke the story. The National Catholic Reporter ran two stories – relying heavily on Pray Tell. The Tablet (London) has also reported on it. Time, Newsweek, etc. – they don’t really care about corruption and incompetence in the Roman Curia when it’s about translation and not sex or money. Diocesan newspapers? They report the party line: only one final text, it’s great, there’s no need to change anything, everything is on schedule.

      OK. I’m done.


      1. No, no one said that. USCCB sent it in Nov ’09. Ever since then, all the fiddling with the text has been done by Rome.

  8. The situation is simple, but as Tim English’s questions show, very, very few people are aware of it, and most do not believe what they hear about it because it sounds so improbable. Eppur…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *