Not a terribly convincing argument here, given Rome’s slow pace of bureaucracy:
6. Ever since the promulgation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the work of the translation of the liturgical texts into vernacular languages, as promoted by the Apostolic See, has involved the publication of norms and the communication to the Bishops of advice on the matter. Nevertheless, it has been noted that translations of liturgical texts in various localities stand in need of improvement through correction or through a new draft.[Vicesimus quintus annus, (1988) 20] The omissions or errors which affect certain existing vernacular translations – especially in the case of certain languages – have impeded the progress of the inculturation that actually should have taken place. Consequently, the Church has been prevented from laying the foundation for a fuller, healthier and more authentic renewal.
The problem unmentioned here is that all the early translations were intended to be transitional. I speak of the 70’s as well as the 60’s. Speaking of the English texts of the Roman Missal, the plan at the time was to rush an English-language Missal into use. Witness the splitting into a Lectionary and Sacramentary, and that the latter document took a full five years to implement in full–the Ordo Missae preceded the Sacramentary by five years.
It actually took the CDWDS several years to fix the Eucharistic Prayer IV gaffe mentioning the Father as the one God.
And this doesn’t mention the MR2 which was seventeen years in the making and approving, and later deep-sixed by the CDWDS.
I’m not going to tout that MR1 was rendered perfectly. It was only intended to be a transitional document, and no doubt: it needed many improvements. But the prevention of a more fruitful liturgical renewal cannot be placed on a document that, for English-speaking Catholics, served the Church at least four times longer than was originally planned.
Catholic Sensibility 