You are going against forum rules here, you are not allow to bash official Councils of the Church, her bishops, or priest, or any of the valid masses. Now if you mean by the “spirit of vatican 2” then that’s something else, but your statement clearly shows otherwise.
Maybe a better statistic would be one which shows how many would attend the non-traditional Mass after 40 years of non-use in the language it was promulgated. But we don’t have those numbers, although it would not take a wild approximation to arrive at them today.
As you stated: all priest are supposed to know sufficient Latin, so the fact that less than 2000 out of 400,000 celebrated TLM is a good statistical information.
I think it’s pointless my remaining on this thread if a presumption is made that all priests know Latin.
Actually, that “statistic” is meaningless. Whether or not Canon Law says that priests are supposed to know sufficient Latin, the fact of the matter is that very few do. That is particularly true of the ordinands during the 1970s and 1980s when, in many seminaries, not only was Latin not taught, it was often forbidden. The situation seems to have improved somewhat in the past few years, but even then, it depends on where.
Whether or not the “official text” of the Novus Ordo is in Latin is rather immaterial since the celebration of the Novus Ordo in Latin is, and has been from its inception, extremely rare. Most people have never seen it. Many are unaware that it’s even possible.
Perhaps a better question is how many who attend the all-vernacular Novus Ordo do so because of the “obligation”? Yes, I realize that the same was true in pre-conciliar days, but that means what was true then is true now: they don’t go because they’re in love with the vernacular Novus Ordo. They go because they have to. OTOH, those who now assist at the EF (or even those rare Latin Novus Ordos) do so voluntarily. It’s a big difference.
To some it’s the past. To other it is the present and the future.
Lovely sentiment, but “understanding” does not necessarily come from all-vernacular-all-the-time.
Only some of them. More are enamored with their much more progressive elements.
That’s a good point. The canon law doesn’t actually require priests to know a whit of Latin; it requires that a “program of priestly formation is to provide” that students know Latin well (along with their native languages and other necessary or useful foreign languages). So there’s no obligation placed on the priest, only on the program itself. Obviously, for priests who received their formation before 1983, this canon wasn’t even in force at all.
Yes, quite so. And from that one can say it’s not the individual priest’s fault that he doesn’t know a whit of Latin, but rather that of the “system” (or the “program” or whatever).
It’s more than the Canon Law. To my knowledge the decrees and commands in the encyclical Veterum Sapientia have never been officially repealed. There may have been implications to the contrary, however, but those were only implications. Pope Paul VI, Pope Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI have all stressed the importance of Latin.
No, Veterum Sapientia was not rescinded. Taken together with Sacrosanctum Concilium and Canon Law, it’s a triple. Those who ignore one, ignore all three. Well, so much for the (dreaded) “spirit of Vatican II” …
What do you think, how long time it takes to learn Latin, for a college educated men. When I were to the seminary I had no previous experience with Latin (except serving at the altar), and six weeks later made oral test from Ethics, in Latin from a Latin textbook.
At the Church where I attend Masses in every weekend there are three ‘English’, one TLM and one Spanish masses. I never was on the Spanish Mass, but frequent all others. Each fills the Church, about 150 people, so the English - TLM ration id 450 - 150. Actually, since the Enlish masses are facing the altar and with Gregorian (Latin) chant, they pulled some people from the TLM
Yes, that’s all very nice, but I don’t see what it has to do with the question.
What of those priests/seminarians who were never taught even 1 day’s worth of Latin? How fortunate that this church uses the ad orientem posture. The vast (and I do mean vast) majority of churches do not.
Sorry but, again, that doesn’t really answer the question. The time on the clock when a particular Mass is scheduled has a certain bearing, I suppose, but only if it’s very early or very late. The matter of motivation is still outstanding.
How did abuses come into this thread?
Going forward on that premise, perhaps Mass should be in mime with no text at all. 
If you want to make it an internal matter, that’s your right. But according to Cardinal Arinze the language and the words do make a difference.
he emphasizes the importance to preserve the Latin, wioth the note
I don’t think anyone had ever stated before the council that the mother tongue didn’t have advantages, especially when it comes to conversions of people.
Does he state that these objectives have been achieved with each and every vernacular, that in theory, was to enhance the understanding of the Mass? If so, why are they changing and having to reexplaining the Latin texts after 40 years? Couldn’t the Church had saved tons of money not having to translate the Latin texts into the many hundreds of vernaculars all over the world? Where was the benefit of translating it when many were going to leave the Church anyway?
I am merely a layperson - and a new one to Catholicism at that. That said, were I a priest or seminarian I would look for someone with experience in Latin and start learning.Yes, that’s all very nice, but I don’t see what it has to do with the question.