I was accepted into the Catholic Church as an adult convert in 1958. I used a Missal that was Latin on one side (which could never actually hear the priest reading) with the English translation on the opposite page. I used to think that if I could read both pages and arrive at the end with the priest that I would achieve some kind of nirvana and would suddenly be a good Catholic. I never accomplished that. LOL.
This new translation is very much like the English translation that we read while the priest read in Latin. It is very familiar to me.
That's because it's . . . ta-dah! . . . an accurate translation of the Latin! :-D
I am partial to Cranmer's old translation in the 1662/1928 BCP, because that is what I grew up with. But the new translation is very close to Cranmer -- much closer than the 1973 version. That's because both are accurate translations, and other than a certain amount of variation where two possible English words are very similar in meaning, they are going to be using by and large the same words.
The difference between Cranmer and the new translation is most marked where you have a choice of two English words: one with an Anglo-Saxon root, and one with a Latin root. Cranmer headed for the Anglo-Saxon almost every time, while the new translation, like the Douay when contrasted with the KJV/Authorised, prefers the Latin.
Of course, I'm not counting the major alterations to the Eucharistic Prayer that were imposed by Edward VI and his advisers in the interest of Protestantising the rite. That's another whole story, and that's why the Anglican Use Rite in the U.S. has a section of the 1973 ICEL translation dropped in, where it stands out like an unwashed unkempt barefoot hippie at a diplomatic dinner . . . .
Yes, I grew up with the Latin-English missal, and the “new” translation is familiar to me too.
And you’re right...nobody could ever beat the priest to the end of the page!!!