The whole article responds to the accusation that the new translation is a regression. I would like to post an excerpt of the article:
"the new Missal translation does not return to something past. A reading of the
texts does not reveal precious or antiquated language; there are no thee's and
thou's. This excerpt from the Third Eucharistic Prayer is not Elizabethan or
King James English:
Therefore, O Lord, as we celebrate the memorial
of the saving Passion of your Son,
his wondrous Resurrection and Ascension into heaven,
and as we look forward to his second coming,
we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.
This is not antiquated English; this is formal and sacral English.
To use this kind of language is not "retrograde," nor does it represent an effort to "freeze" the "Spirit of Vatican II." It is, instead, faithful to the nature of the Liturgy -- a formal and public worship, where formal language is therefore appropriate.
Sacral language marks what we are doing as sacred and holy, not ordinary or
everyday. The Mass, as the "source and summit" from which our life in Christ
flows, is the holiest thing that we do, in which we participate in Christ's own
prayer as high priest. If that doesn't warrant language set apart from the
ordinary, then nothing does."
The author (Rev. Robert Johansen) gave this conclusion:
"The new Missal, because of its greater fidelity, will be an antidote to that
confusion. If my own effort to gauge the response of faithful Catholics shows
anything, it is that most of the people in the pews will take the implementation
of the new language in stride. Far from the "pastoral disaster" feared by some,
I believe that the new Missal, if approached in a spirit of fidelity, will
provide all Catholics with an opportunity to enrich their faith and lead to the
deeper participation in the liturgy that Vatican II envisioned."
Just follow the link:The New Missal: Disaster or Opportunity? [Updated]