Here is a link to a letter by Card. Medina from 1999
Note that this letter is dated October 1999, and makes many references to problems that have persisted for “a number of years”
And
here’s a later letter from Cardinal Medina from 2002 to English-speaking Conferences of Bishops which describes a few of the necessary changes to be made.
… there are additional substantial reasons for which this Congregation is regrettably unable to accord the
recognitio to this text in the form in which it was submitted. A summary of the principal reasons may be found in the Observations enclosed with the present letter. Though these are extensive, they are not intended to be exhaustive, even in a generic sense. It has become apparent in the course of this Dicastery’s examination that a truly exhaustive presentation of the
inadequacies of the translation would best be made in the form of an integral annotated or reworked text, and in the continued anticipation of a Mixed Commission operating under statutes approved by this Dicastery in accordance with the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, such an instrument would not yet be feasible.
This Congregation has been prepared from the beginning to spare no efforts in arriving at a solution to this difficulty that would have avoided
the present impasse.
Here are some of the flaws of the translation that had been proposed:
The proposed text would change significantly the structure of the Ritus initiales for Masses celebrated on Sundays, Feasts, and Solemnities. It would thus appear to exclude that the Actus paenitentialis be used together with the Gloria, as prescribed by the Missale Romanum for the majority of the Sundays of the liturgical year. In any event, the disposition of prayers in the Missal is not at the discretion of the translators, and the ordering of the texts, including the integral structure and sequence of the Ritus initiales, should be restored to that of the editio typica [tertia]. In addition, the Missal should be published as a single book for use on all days of the year, without fragmentation into parts.
The Structure of the Collects: Relative clauses often disappear in the proposed text (especially the initial Deus, qui . . ., so important in the Latin Collects), so that a single oration is divided into two or more sentences. This loss is detrimental not only to the unity of the structure, but to the manner of conveying the proper sense of the posture before God of the Christian people, or of the individual Christian. The relative clause acknowledges God’s greatness, while the independent clause strongly conveys the impression that one is explaining something about God to God. Yet it is precisely the acknowledgement of the mirabilia Dei that lies at the heart of all Judaeo-Christian euchology.
The quality of supplication is also adversely affected so that many of the texts now appear to say to God rather abruptly: “You did a; now do b.” The manner in which language expresses relationship to God cannot be regarded merely as a matter of style.
In an effort to avoid completely the use of the term “man” as a translation of the Latin homo, the translation often fails to convey the true content of that Latin term, and limits itself to a focus on the congregation actually present or to those presently living. The simultaneous reference to the unity and the collectivity of the human race is lost.
The term “humankind”, coined for purposes of “inclusive language”, remains somewhat faddish and ill-adapted to the liturgical context, and, in addition, it is usually too abstract to convey the notion of the Latin homo. The latter, just as
the English “man”, which some appear to have made the object of a taboo, are able to express in a collective but also concrete and personal manner the notion of a partner with God in a Covenant who gratefully receives from him the gifts of forgiveness and Redemption. At least in many instances, an abstract or binomial expression cannot achieve the same effect.
In the Creed, which has unfortunately also maintained the first-person plural “We believe” instead of the first-person singular of the Latin and of the Roman liturgical tradition, the above-mentioned tendency to
omit the term “men” has effects that are theologically grave. This text *
“For us and for our salvation” - no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present.
The “us” thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.
After the Orate, fratres, the people’s response Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis . . . has been distorted, apparently for purposes of
“inclusive language”: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of
God’s name, for our good, and the good of all
the Church.” The insertion of the possessive God’s gives
the impression that the Lord who accepts the sacrifice is different from God whose name is glorified by it. The Church is no longer
his Church, and is
no longer called holy * a flaw in the previous translation that one might have hoped would be corrected.
For the Church, the neuter pronoun “it” is always used, instead of “she”. So designated, the Church can appear to be a mere social aggregate, deprived of much of the mystery that has been emphasized especially in relatively recent teaching by the Magisterium.
The pronoun “it” does not seem to refer properly to the reality of the Church, portrayed by Divine Revelation as our Mother and Christ’s Bride.
I suggest reading the whole list.
Vox Clara was only formed in 2002. We are likely to be using the new translation by Advent of 2010. So that’s lightening speed for liturgical change done by committee.