Yes, we are told it is "goofy", did not arise from the liturgical movement and the council, but from one lousy dicastery, it is "flawed" and "rigid," it's already "scorned" by virtually everyone, its language "unspeakable" and "incomprehensible," the "work of ideologues rather than pastoral theologians and poets" (unlike the non-ideologically driven one foisted on us 40 years ago, you mean?), whereas the current one is so theologically rich that it formed his faith, (as opposed to that inaccessible furrin' thang that was so ineffectual that it formed the faiths of... oh, let's see, every canonized saint of all time?)
And besides, the "guys" saying Mass now aren't following the current text, so... well, I'm really not sure what the "so" of that point was.
But he seems to think it's relevant, and he's pretty sure these liturgical paragons won't "buy into" the new translation.
And who is the source of these insights?
The crack theologian who think he himself is the bread of life, that I and he are the bread of life.....
Yeah. That guy.