Good luck to him. Everything I have seen of RC “Anglican Use” reeks at best of the modernist tin-eared ECUSA 1979 so-called “Book of Common Prayer” (which Steenson likely has been using). Allow me to be blunt: “Anglican Use” presents itself to this Anglican like a tagger-fouled Mona Lisa or worse; the bait presented is recognizably false and quite repellent.
Acknowledged, style is not synonymous with belief, but if you’re going to troll using “style” you need to get it right and the RC falls way short on that. (Seriously, I’d volunteer to help them get it right, but I doubt they’d be interested in an Anglican layman’s input.)
A frivolous post if ever there were one. Trying to keep TEC defectors on the farm by whining like Christopher Lowell over a fabric swatch wont get you very far. These folks are coming home for substance—which you may well have difficulty appreciating.
The Anglican Use Rite is based on the old prayer book, probably 1662, NOT the 1979 abomination. The translation of the Eucharistic Prayer is Coverdale's rendering of the original Latin.
To call Coverdale and Cranmer "tin-eared" is just silly.
I am absolutely certain of this, because I've got the DVD of the Anglican Use as celebrated at Our Lady of Walsingham, and I was an Anglican layman for the first 40-odd years of my life. My parents were in the Cathedral choir, so I was at 2 services a day with the '28 BCP until I went off to college in the 70s. Then I wound up in a choir myself for 25 years or so, so I have got both the old and the new services pretty much committed to memory.
The AUR could use some minor adjustments, since it was put together pretty quickly, but I think you're letting your spleen at the Catholic church get in the way of the facts.