I also don’t think theologian-liturgists should shy away from unusual language. Christian theology (and therefore Christian liturgy) demands unique vocabulary for its unique notions.

Here is another perspective on the reform of the reform by LaVonne Neff: The revised liturgy: medieval words, modern sexism. She is unenthusiastic, to say the least:

Catholics sometimes reproach Protestants for acting as if the Holy Spirit stopped working with the church in the first century, after the New Testament books were written. Tradition, Catholics maintain, is the Spirit’s continuing work in the church. Even the Spirit, however, has a bad century now and then, or at least a bad continent. Apparently the words he inspired the Western European church to use in the 11th century were superior to those he inspired the American church to use in the 20th century. So now instead of simple words like one in being and born, we’re back to medieval words like consubstantial and incarnate; and instead of affirming our faith as part of the believing community (“We believe in one God …”), we’re back to medieval individualism (“I believe in one God”); and along with with our guilt-ridden medieval ancestors we can strike our breasts and confess that we have sinned “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.”

A return to the tradition will be experienced as a repudiation of tradition by many people. I think she’s right on such Latin-derived words as consubstantial, which no one nowadays understands. It rather reminds me of the English Standard Version’s use of propitiation instead of the Revised Standard Version’s expiation, neither of which speak at all clearly to contemporary readers. Such “improvements” are questionable at best.

Nor do I think “accuracy” is a consideration for today’s Anglicans and Lutherans. No longer are our liturgies solely translations and rearrangements of older liturgies in Latin and vernacular languages. I don’t think the Book of Common Prayer ever was just a translation.