Having lived through the same experience, I can truly empathize with your comments. At no time, however, do I ever recall a pastor teaching this from the pulpit. They simply implemented the changes, some more rapidly than others, over the span of several decades. Like most catholics, I never questioned it until I arrived in this forum and someone challenged me to read the documents of VCII. What you and I have experienced is an interpretation of those documents. They were written to address the needs of catholics worldwide - not just in the US.
None of this has anything to do with the SSPX whose founder chose to dissent with the Council and the authority of the pope. That is the crux of the problem. One might rightly be appreciative to the sspx for retaining the TLM but not their dissent.
That said, the parishs in which I have lived for most of the last forty-five years taught me that the documents of Vatican II had: Outlawed Latin;
Having lived through the same experience, I can truly empathize with your comments. At no time, however, do I ever recall a pastor teaching this from the pulpit.
I have, though perhaps in not so many words.
Some U.S. dioceses did in fact outlaw latin, beginning with Baltimore in ‘64 or ‘65. (There was a period for phasing out, but it was fairly quick.)
You asked me the question and I answered you.
Not all teaching comes from the pulpit.
Those of us who value Tradition and the Latin Mass owe the SSPX folks big time.
Look, do you support the Holy Father's project to unexcommunicate the four bishops and reunite with the SSPX, or do you dissent from it like Hans Kung?