But it almost has to, Dave. It's not the fact of the vernacular (though that too is harmful, IMO); it's the impoverished ICEL "translations" (relentlessly insipid and fanciful paraphrase is more like it). The very text of the liturgy is an "orgy of casual regard". Though valid, the NO is unholy. It evinces a comprehensive hatred for sanctity, of the unique regard, the latria that should characterise all of our dealings with God. On other forum I have criticised muslims for their servile relationship to a God who withholds intimacy. But it's also an error to conclude that God's our chum and comrade, a Big Buddy on our road to self-discovery.
Please keep in mind the essential communist tactic, employed especially by Mao, of cultural revolution, by which a people are made more malleable and open to radical change by stripping them of their culture and historical memory.
I am no fan of ICEL, to say the least. It is indeed, banal and devoid of any sense of awe. But that is not the entire NO.
I have said here several times, that the NO should be said with the Latin ordinary parts, and only the readings and such in the vernacular.
Like EWTN does.
That would do wonders for increasing the "holiness" of the NO Mass.
Another alternative would be the wholesale adoption of the Anglican Use, which manages to use a dignified and rarefied form of English.
In short, ICEL is being put out of its misery. One way or another.
SD