You seem to have a axe to grind against Latin, fair enough, lets just say the missal except for the Canon was allowed to use the vernacular, and the rest kept the same. Now lets move on to the main part of what I am getting at.
People are sheep, the sheep need a sheppard, people want leaders, in the confusion after Vatican II, the church abdicated its position of leadership, its position of authority. This played a LARGE role in the breakdown of the culture, and the changes made in the mass, the main changes such as the text and rubrics(I will agree that what language the mass is in is a minor issue at best) played a large role in this.
The church is not doing well in most of the areas it was established before Vatican II, ceratinly not Europe, certainly not North or South America, and despite what some may say otherwise, its growth in Asia(except for Korea) has stalled, especially in India where the church is an even smaller perc entage than it was in 1960.
Lastly, if the strength of the church is dependent on the culture that surrounds it, somthing that fools like Mark Shea would say, then what does it tell us about how strong the church really is? If the church can not lead a culture anymore, then has the protection of the Holy Spirit left most of the church?
Actually, the initial instruction for installing the vernacular only specified the readings--Epistle & Gospel, plus the "bidding prayers" (petitions) at the Offertory.
All the rest was to be in Latin, just as before.