For me, I have no problem with the 1962 missalās form and rubrics only with Latin.
Latin is a bar to comprehension. It is a hurdle which sets participation to a minimum. Rote prayer (without comprehension) is banned in the bible; removing the vernacular turns it into āvain repetition.ā
I agree.
In a previous discussion about this issue,someone disputed the fact that Latin was not understood as our missals had Latin on the one page and English on the opposite page.My
reply,(which was ignored)was that in a poor district a lot of people
did not possess a missal.They were physically present in the
church building but i think their mind was elsewhere.When i hear talk about attendance at Mass being low compared to yesteryear,
i think about how attendance at weekday Mass is as good,if not better,than it was in the 1950ās.There were more attended on Sundays back then,but it was in the physical sense only.It was the done thing to go to Church.There was a stigma if you didnāt go.
To my shame,i can remember telling a fib to a boyās older sister.
that he had been at Mass when he hadnāt.She didnāt go the length of calling me a liar.She just said she had seen me at Mass,but not her brother.I think she grassed him up to their parents.
I used to be an Altar boy in the 1950ās when the server was the only one who responded to the priest.In the 1970ās,i attended weekday Mass at a Jesuit Church near the office where i worked.
Once a month they would have a Latin Mass.However,one particular priest insisted we do the responses in Latin,even though a lot of the people,like me,didnāt belong to the parish.We didnāt know when this Latin Mass was going to take place.This,from a man who said Mass like he was in a hurry to go somewhere else afterwards.