more again in the tablet this week about the new translation of the liturgy. I cannot comment because I have not yet heard it in situ and will not do so until next summer when I get back to England. I did read through the eucharistic prayers and was in two minds. Some things seemed better and some things seemed worse.  Some things jarred and others did not. But it is one thing to read through, and another to hear spoken so we shall see. The storm rages on on both sides. The Americans seem as unhappy about it as people in the UK going by this site.

But here also is someone who firmly believes the changes to be an improvement.

Perhaps the main change in the years since the vernacular was first introduced in the 70's is the degree to which people (both happy and unhappy with the new translation) are able to communicate their feelings, plus, of course, the fact that people now are less willing to roll over and accept - especially at the present time. Could the church have chosen a worse time to institute these changes? Probably not, but any big change is always a challenge . . . . .

for the moment I will keep an open mind. As someone commented in one endless list that I was ploughing through: "the words may change but the mass does not."