The congregation did not know the Latin in the old days. The idea that you have to hear everything and follow it word-for-word is a Protestant idea.
Those who cared knew exactly what was happening because they had studied and learned. Those who didn’t care didn’t know nuthin. That part is still true. The difference is that even those who “care” don’t know much.
The idea that the goal is to be able to hear and follow along with the Latin when attending the Traditional Mass is a fallacy that will only lead to misunderstanding it.
It was (and is) the Sacrifice of Christ. It takes place. We are present at it and drawn into it at a much deeper level than knowing every single word. In the Novus Ordo people, presumably hear and understand every single word and they don’t bother to come—from 75% to 25% Mass attendance. Now just how is that a gain?????????
No question, there is a contingent that goes to Mass without care; then there is a contingent that wants to be at the Sacrifice of the Mass, understands it with or without the knowledge of Latin and does not need word-by-word supplements of any kind; finally there is a contingent of learners who want to transition from the first group to the second group. For them, not a compromise is needed but learning aids; again, it is no different than the display with the hymnal numbers. To tell them: "learn some Latin then come back" is not the best approach. Neither is "don't attempt to understand the words".
[From your second post to me:] the difference is that 50% of those who came back then (but didn’t much care) don’t even come today
So how is that a gain?
Again, the topic of the article is: what transitional forms of the Mass could be offered for those who wish to attend the Traditional Mass but find the transition too steep, given the realities of today, whether we like these realities or not? I think that the bilingual missals are not sufficient: it is easy to loose your place and then one loses the mental space he is supposed to be in and instead frantically races up and down the missal to re-synchronize. The modern electronic means exist to offer synchronized display for those who need it; operating them should be the job of the altar boys, no different than holding up the Gospel and bringing the vessels.
On the other hand, I disagree with the idea of a compromise in the way the author proposes it: a yet third form of the Mass that is neither Traditional nor Novus Ordo.
I think that the Novus Ordo itself should be evolving toward the Old Mass, not in the spirit of compromise but in the spirit of improvement. It is, after all, an experimental form of liturgy and the experiment should continue since we are apparently not ready to cancel it outright. Hence my second suggestion, to reintroduce elements that were simply cut in the Novus Ordo for no clear reason.