OK, so it's more accurate.That's all to the good. But I have honestly to say that a fair bit of it sounds (to me) like a translation by a GCSE candidate, reasonably able but lacking in confidence, who is desperate to impress upon the examiners that he really does understand the Latin. (My eye lit a moment ago upon the new version of Quod ore sumpsimus …, which strikes me as a case in point.)It isn't always appreciated just how hard it is to make a liturgical translation which is (a) accurate, (b) idiomatic and (c) in an appropriate register. (I've recently had occasion to translate several dozen of the Super oblata for a project of my own, and even when the Latin is crystal-clear there's still a lot of work in producing a usable version – and I'm still far from happy with some of them.) Getting the balance right between those three factors is always going to be highly subjective. The translators seem to have interpreted Liturgiam authenticam as mandating literal accuracy above all other considerations.What I find most disappointing, as an opportunity missed (perhaps for reasons of church politics), is that the translators seem to have been instructed to avoid borrowing from the Book of Common Prayer. Say what you like about Cranmer, but he was one heck of a liturgical translator, and the most minimal of tweaks would have been enough, in many cases, to produce superior versions of the many texts that the BCP and the Missal have in common. But no doubt that's just me being an incorrigible Anglican.
Deus, qui fidélium mentes uníus éfficis voluntátis, da pópulis tuis id amáre quod præcipis, id desideráre quod promíttis, ut, inter mundánas varietátes, ibi nostra fixa sint corda, ubi vera sunt gáudia. Per Dóminum.