I would like to respond to the readers’ letter of January 4. It is in fact wrongly titled “New Missal”. Your article from November 19 was aptly titled “New translation of the Missal” and recalled that the Missal of Paul VI had only been modified very slightly since its promulgation in 1969. In particular, it has not changed with regard to the ordinary of the Mass. This article, after an adequate title, then used on several occasions the deplorable wording “New missal”, taken up in the title of the letter to the readers of January 4.
It is a great pity that you continue with this erroneous name which is the only justification for the saddened letters that you publish. Indeed, the claims of the published readers, could possibly apply to a “New Missal”, but are absolutely irrelevant with regard to a new translation of the Ordinary of the Mass.
In fact, the French translation that we have been undergoing since 1970 was very bad from many points of view. One of the biggest flaws in the Our Father made God a little sadist who subjected us to temptation in order to test us. This deviant translation has fortunately been corrected and the new version has been in use since the end of 2018. The new translation of the Missal is content to correct the many errors that the previous one contained and is not a “New Missal”.
(…) The Church obviously has no plan to fundamentally modify Paul VI’s Missal, which has only been in force for barely fifty years. And the very rich variety of prayers that this Missal brought us, in the spirit of Vatican II, deserves to be exploited – in this new translation much more faithful to the Latin original – before considering new ones.