[Wonder Warthog]

""[T]he use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." -Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy"

Clue---"preserved" doesn't translate into "used exclusively". If your parish wants to have both rites, and your bishop OK's it, fine--go for it. But there is nothing "magic" or "sacred" specifically about the Tridentine rite as compared to the "Novus Ordo".

[murphE]

"preserved" doesn't translate into "used exclusively".

You're not getting it. Within the TLM, Latin is not used "exclusively". Every Sunday mass the lesson/epistle and the Gospel are read in the vernacular after being said in Latin, and the sermon of course is also in the vernacular. The argument is not whether vernacular can be used at all within a mass, but that the vernacular should not be used exclusively as is the current practice in most NO masses today, (which is contrary to Trent)

To repeat:

" If anyone says that the Mass should be celebrated in the vernacular only, let him be Anathema . " - Council of Trent (Session XXII, Canon 9)

[murphE]

But there is nothing "magic" or "sacred" specifically about the Tridentine rite as compared to the "Novus Ordo".

Magic no, sacred yes.

"[The traditional Roman Mass is]...the most venerable in all Christendom, with a history of unbroken use far longer than that of any Eastern rite, there being no doubt that the essential parts of the Mass are of Apostolic origin." -Fr. Adrian Fortescue - A Study of the Roman Liturgy.

Have you ever really compared the two?

The New Mass: Inalienable Right or Inferior Rite?