No argument here at all, it's ICEL's translation debacle that's one of the greatest abominations in modern liturgy. But strictly speaking, he's still right: Latin is not essential, and that's a point that needs to be recognized.
"Latin is not essential, and that's a point that needs to be recognized."
Why? To what other class of thing would we apply a "not essential" test?
How about dental anasthetics?
"They're not essential."
"But it's immensely better to use them than not."
"But they're not essential."
Where is that argument going?
Latin doesn't have to be "essential," whatever that might mean, before we can say that it's immensely better to use it than not.
Yeah, I think there's no major agreement here. I do agree that the liturgy does not need to be said in Latin, but I'm not sure that's the point behind the Tridentines. I take it theoir point is twofold:
The New Order mass is radically different from the Tridentine Mass regardless of what language it is.
The fact that the New Order mass has been translated into English in a way which abets innumerable heresies demonstrates the need for traditionalism: to maintain authenticity in an age of unspeakable corruption.
While I disagree with their conclusion, that only the Tridentine mass should be licit, I do think that those are two radically important points to be made.