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.
I'm just trying to insist that my fellow traditionalists *understand what they are arguing*. If Latin is made a non-negotiable "essential" of the faith that is a widely imprudent and short-sighted policy.