Very interesting! Speaking of the English: I know I’ve heard that the post-Vatican II vernacular translation into English was rushed and not very well executed. I read a book or two detailing the changes and why they were made, and I think they are all pretty solid and positive changes. Traditionalists still complain about the “Novus Ordo” Mass. I myself have no complaints, if it’s well and piously done; in fact, I prefer it, in essence, to the Tridentine. But I do hope the Church can continue to “reform the reform” in a way that can be pleasing to the faithful and more greatly glorify the Lord.
I too have heard the vernacular translation was rushed. I wonder why? If the liturgy is so important, why rush something like that? I am curious as to what people at that time were thinking, what was driving them to get the new liturgy in place so quickly, even at the probable expense of excellence.