I have previously provided some resources and reflections on the new English translation of the missal. A reader of this site pointed me to a helpful collection of links on Language Log, a site devoted to language. For the full post go here. These are the links I particularly appreciated:
For a chronological overview, see Rita Ferrone, “Roman Missal Crisis: A Timeline“, 7/16/2011.
An anti-missal FAQ is here. Some other anti-missal articles are John Wilkins, “Lost in Translation: The Bishops, the Vatican, and the English Liturgy“, Commonweal 10/2/2005; Robert Mickens, “Unlocking the door of the vernacular“, The Tablet 6/18/2011; Rita Ferrone, “Bad Language“, dotCommonweal 7/6/2011; Rita Ferrone, “It Doesn’t Sing: The Trouble with the New Roman Missal“, Commonweal, 7/15/2011.
A slightly more positive spin can be found in Rita Ferrone, “Virgil and the Vigil: Bees are Coming Back to the Exsultet“, Commonweal 4/10/2009. For a stronger positive take, see e.g. “Revised Roman Missal: Understanding the reasons for the changes“, Catholic Tide 2/10/2011.
There’s at least one book on the subject of the translation theories at issue: Peter Jeffrey, Translating Tradition: A Chant Historian Reads Liturgiam Authenticam, 2005….
Many other aspects of the controversy, including the historically and lexicographically vexed question of consubstantiation, are covered in Ben Zimmer’s Word Routes column for 4/15/2011, “Mass Confusion?“.