Our Church is preserved in Doctrinal purity by persons - the persons of the Blessed Trinity, not the language of a particular Liturgy. Of course, it should go without saying that each and every Liturgy ought be good, true, and beautiful, and, with authentic translations into the vernacular, the Pauline Rite Liturgy is good, true, and beautiful.
As far as everyone everywhere worshiping God in the same tongue, the polemics on that, imo, tend to distract us from the action of Jesus in the Liturgy; Jesus as both priest and victim offering himslef to God on our behalf as an offering of propitiation. That action is, imo, best understood in our native tongue. And Tradition, I think, can be cited to support this
Pope Alexander VII (1665 - 1667)
Sacred Congregation De Propaganda FIDE "Instruction to the Vicars Apostolic of Tonkin and Cochinchina"
If, in carrying out the orders of the S. Congregation, you meet or forsee difficulties to the extent that these orders will not be accepted without revolt, avoid at all costs imposing them on the persons against their will. Do not urge them by force or the fear of censures and avoid sowing the seed of division which would result from the disobedience of some, for you would thus alienate them and arouse strong passions...Do not in any way atempt, and do not on any pretext persuade those people to change their rites, habits and customs, unless they are openly opposed to religion and good morals. For what could be more absurd than to bring France, Spain, Italy or any other European country over to China? It is not your country but the faith you must bring, that faith which does not reject or belitle the rites or customs of any nations as long as those rites are not evil, but rather desires that they be preserved in their integrity and fostered...Admire and praise whatever merits praise. As regards what is not praiseworthy, while it must not be extolled as is done by flaterers, you will be prudent enough not to pass judgement upon it or, in any case, not to condemn it rashly or exaggeratedly. As for what is evil, it should be dismissed by a nod or the head or by silence rather than by words, without losing the occasions, when souls have become disposed to receive the truth, to uproot it imperceptibly.
Thanks for the ping.
As an Orthodox Christian, I of course think that maintaining texts of liturgical services in an unbroken tradition is vital. The N.O. masses radically broke that tradition. It is not that liturgical services can't change -- they most obviously can, do, and must. Our "fossilized" services have undergone many small changes around the periphery -- particularly additions.
But genuine changes happen so slowly as to be perceptible only by looking back across centuries. The N.O. was a radical break in the actual texts -- the only place such a thing had happened before in Christendom was during the Protestant Reformation.
As an Orthodox Christian, I also believe that liturgy must be in a liturgical dialect close enough to the vernacular that it can be a natural language of prayer with minimal effort. To me, the Latin mass falls flat on its face on those grounds. Native Italian or Spanish-speakers, maybe. Irish, Germans, Americans.... Chinese?
This sets up a real class-system, in terms of who can really learn, memorize, and digest the services. There have been times when liturgical languages with no relation to the native languages have been imposed in the Orthodox world: Greek imposed for a time in Arabic-speaking countries and in Bulgaria under the Ottomans, Slavonic being standard-issue in Romania for a time. It didn't have good spiritual effects.
Reading a libretto and becoming familiar with a foreign language just isn't the same. This move to the vernacular was something very positive about Vat II for Catholics. I can only regret that for some reason that English tranlations use a very tin-eared version of the language, and seemingly deliberately mistranslated certain things.
As an Orthodox Christian, not only the words must be part of an unbroken tradition, but also liturgical action (e.g. is the priest facing the same direction that Christian priests faced for 2 millenia?), vestments, iconography, chant traditions, architecture... must be part of an unbroken tradition. Again, what I see in N.O. parishes on these scores is sorely lacking. There were radical changes and breaks after Vatican II that really had no precedent.
What is interesting is that in the attempt to make the Mass more "accessible," it seems to have actually been made more complex -- so many choices, so many options, so many variations on liturgical action at the discretion of the priest. There should be one core text of the Liturgy, with the only variations being the propers of the feasts and seasons.
Anyway, those are my observations from the outside. I think that from what I have read of B16's writings, he would favor a traditionally served mass in good vernacular, with a text based on that of the Tridentine, but reformed according to the lights of Vatican II. His writings certainly indicate that he would dearly love to turn around and face the right direction when serving... But he of course understands that one radical upheaval in a generation is probably one too many, and adding another wouldn't necessarily be good. I suspect he will little by little lead by example.