I support the calls for a review of the English translation of the Missal (Letters, 7, 14, 21 March). But it would be pointless if carried out under the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam and its principles of translation that governed the present translation. It could only produce the same contortions, namely English words in a Latin syntax. Church law entrusts to bishops’ conferences the work of preparing translations and “approving” them. The role of the Congregation for Divine Worship is to review those translations with a view to granting the recognitio. This separation of functions, enshrined in church law, became blurred when the CDW inserted itself into the work of translating. In order to do this, it demanded a reconfiguration of the committee that had been set u