Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
The new translation is not a reform, they're just correcting a few mistranslations.
I vote you for understatement of the year. It is a not a few corrections, it is a new translation radically different (especially in the proper prayers) from the old one. And yes that is a reform.
I would think a reform would be a change in something. Technically it seems to me that almost nothing is changing. We're just fixing something to what it already is.
I know that a lot of the wording is changing and that you see that as being more substantial than I am representing it to be. The Novus Ordo isn't actually changing, that's my point. Only the English translation used in our missals is being change to more accurately reflect what is in the Latin original. .
1. The prayers while not all new, are substantially different. The translation has a substantial effect. Remember the old translation replaced certain prayers, cut out thing, and added new things not in the Latin.
2. Reform is just what it means. To re-form something. This is by definition a reform
3. You need to go look at the 2003 MR which, through its translation, is finally being implemented. There are other changes, including the restoration of the Vigil of Pentecost in many respects (at least for use as an option), thus undoing one element of the shortsighted 1955 reform of Holy Week which abolished the Vigil of Pentecost's peculiar ceremonies. The Vigil of Ascension is restored, for places that still have it as a holy day of obligation (the Missal, not the US bishops, moves it to Sunday when it is not a HDO). Several other feasts. There are certain rubrical changes. The abolishing of several Eucharistic prayers, etc