This is what many Catholics will be listening to next Sunday, thanks to the vandals responsible for the new translation (the 2010 text, which has not been approved by the world's bishops). They will hear an apposition 'what is proper to each person, their unity in substance' which could lead them deep into Trinitarian heresy. Consubstantiality is common to all three persons, not proper to any of the three.
It is truly right and just, our duty and our salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks, Lord, holy Father, almighty and eternal God.
For with your Only Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit
you are one God, one Lord:
not in the unity of a single person,
but in a Trinity of one substance.
(non in unius singularitate personae,
sed in unius Trinitate substantiae.
The translation is infelicitous, since it opposes unity and Trinity, suggesting that the Trinity is in tension with divine unity. The translators of course play fast and loose with their own charter Liturgiam Authenticam. They would have done well to follow it here, and translate: 'not in the singularity of one person but in the Trinity of one substance')
For what you have revealed to us of your glory
we believe equally of your Son and of the Holy Spirit,
(Quod enim de tua gloria, revelante te, credimus,
hoc de Filio tuo,
hoc de Spiritu Sancto,
sine discretione sentimus.
Again this is infelicitous. It suggests that our faith is bounded to a partial revelation of divine glory, 'what you have revealed to us of it'; literal translation would be better: 'What we believe of your glory, as you reveal it, we hold this of your Son and of your Spirit in the same way')
so that, in the confessing of the true and eternal Godhead,
you might be adored in what is proper to each Person,
their unity in substance,
and their equality in majesty.
(Ut in confessione verae sempiternaeque Deitatis,
et in personis proprietas,
et in essentia unitas,
et in maiestate adoretur aequalitas.
Again, 'you might be' is infelicitous. Literal translation: 'So that in the confession of the true and eternal Godhead, what is proper in the persons, and their unity in essence, and their equality in majesty, is adored.' Another nonsense lurking here is the suggestion that 'the Father might be adored in his Son and Spirit, and in their unity and equality' rather than each being adored in exactly the same way.)