People are fixated on the "Latin" part of the Latin Mass, but the language isn't really what this is about. It's a different, much richer rite.
Just a little sample: the New Rite starts at many parishes with a large company of people processing up the aisle to a cheery-if-insipid tune, followed by the priest grinning at the people from behind a microphone and wishing them "Good morning!". (No, that's not necessarily how it's supposed to be done. But it often is how it is done.)
The Old Rite begins with thousand-year-old Gregorian chant (with a text almost always taken from Scripture) as the priest and servers approach the steps in front of the altar, and then fall on their knees, saying sotto voce Latin prayers, taken straight from the Old Testament, about how unworthy they are to offer this sacrifice. See the difference?
Well, looking at the translation at the link, to me, the first part of the Latin Rite seems very scripturally rich.
I am surprised to see the confiteor three times.
I am also surprised to see a Final Gospel after communion.
Much of the liturgy of the Eucharist looks very familiar.
I am surprised that some priests would not even consider concelebrating the Novus Ordo. To say you do not prefer it is one thing. Yo say it is so far away from truth that you cannot even pray it with your fellow Catholic Christians seems a stretch to me, and not right. And yet I am also appalled that the Pope bears such a grudge against the Latin Mass and it’s fans. He probably thinks they are cult members. I think there is plenty of room for the different rites and variations of the rites, as justified by theological/scriptural inquiry guided by the Holy Spirit.