But when meaning is important, the so-called "dynamic translation" is a mistake. Latin is the language of the Church, and the Latin Mass is normative. When the "translation" doesn't accurately translate but says something entirely different, you aren't praying what the Church is praying. The old translation also muddled serious theological concepts and just got rid of others (the "Lord I am not worthy" in the OldTranslation completely omitted the reference to Matthew 8:8).
I also think the old version was just too 60s for words. But I was raised on Cranmer's BCP. Real literature, if you got rid of the Edwardian changes it's theologically sound as well. Go to an Anglican Use Rite Mass sometime. You'll be completely amazed.
“I have found that cradle Catholics are more suspicious of the Improved translation, by and large.”
I'm not sure there is an adequate way to generalize about cradle Catholics. I'm a cradle Catholic, as is my wife and are my two sons. We're quite happy with the new translation, especially my older son, who is fairly conversant in Latin.
I know some cradle Catholics who were “suspicious,” at least initially, but even there, a couple of Sundays at Mass with the new translation, and folks seemed fine. My nephew, who is a liberal cafeteria Catholic, even told me after a few weeks, "Oh, it's not as bad as I thought it would be."
The parishes and churches where I usually go to Mass have been fairly enthusiastic in adopting the new translation.
Most of the folks making the noise are the usual suspects, who make more noise than their relatively-modest numbers would predict.
sitetest