One of my choristers mentioned the battle royale at the Bishop's conference over the Memorial Acclamation "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again."
He said the conference took a sizable chunk of time debating this issue, and he thought it was silly since there are so many other "pressing matters."
Since he was alive during VII, he's lived through massive liturgical reform. Funny that the same upsetting of the norms, which was fine and proper 40 years ago, is now a nuisance to the folks who lived though it in the 60's.
The article doesn't do justice to the issue - from what I heard, the movement to get rid of that refrain is because the text isn't found in an historical liturgical texts.
Cardinal Egan does make a good point, that the folks in the pews are prone to a "sense of instability" about changes to the liturgy.
What would remedy the sense of instability? Another round of massive liturgical reform. An actual implementation of the GIRM rather than lip service with a focus on where Bishops have pastoral discretion. Authetic texts instead of adaptations that change God as "He" to God as "External One." Music that reflects the glory of God instead of the emotional yearnings found in pop-tunes turned hymns. (Side note: my trips to California always include going to parishes where everyone is supposed to stand through communion. My friends tell me they were told it's because of the GIRM. From what I can tell, no other items from the GIRM were implemented - one big, upsetting, non-universal item implemented instead of all the various items that are completely in the spirit and authority of Vatican II.)
So it's doubtful that our current crop of Bishops, particularly the boomers, would get serious about liturgical reform. Some seem to be more interested in recreating the liturgy in their own image
instead of being true to the rules and guidelines of the universal church.
Although I agree with dropping the "Christ has died" American option for the acclamation, I'm glad for Cdl. Egan's intervention.
Making piecemeal choices when the main body of the Missal hasn't come up for consideration isn't a good idea. After all, the bishops may want to set some general principles when they deal with the full text, and any choices made now could be in conflict with those policies.
I'd like to see the bishops produce an English version of the Missal without adding any invented prayers to it, and just run with that for a few decades.
RC is right. With new translations coming from Rome, why bother fixing relatively small problems.