Sir, you are not causing a ruckus, just displaying your ignorance.
The Church made a grave mistake abandoning Latin and Vatican II was an attempt to make the Church more like the liberal mainline Protestant churches and look what happened to them.
Ignorance? I’m just wondering why Latin when there were three other perfectly good Biblical languages to choose from. So far I see some warm-fuzzy rationalizations, but none exuding a basis in Scripture. The simple fact that Paul spoke Hebrew, Aramaic and/or Greek, yet someone down the line changed the “official” language to something not of that set puzzles me as to how it can be justified by Tradition when it was put into effect as a matter of contemporary communication, yet to make the same relevant change today is somehow a heresy against Tradition (which Christ Himself spoke against).