Full disclosure - I can’t stand the current false pope.
Yet, from a non-Catholic perspective, the preference for the Latin mass is, to us, like the Catholic Church’s former opposition to the bible being translated into all the different spoken languages in Europe before the reformation; puting the bible in the hands of all to study.
To us the dispute is not one with a biblical basis, just one of institutional “tradition”.
You welcome to believe that lie; but that won’t make it true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_in_the_Middle_Ages?scrlybrkr=d67ec721
https://expo.uoregon.edu/spotlight/reformation-exhibit/feature/vernacular-bible
https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-Catholic-Church-allow-vernacular-Bibles?scrlybrkr=d67ec721
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/01/were-vernacular-bibles-unknown-before-luther.html
Please not I have used Catholic, protestant and secular sources.
No less than the original foreward to the original 1611 KJV admitted that there was a long tradition of vernacular Bible translations before its time.
It's probably not helpful to view everything through the lens of the controversies of the 15th and 16th century. Nothing about the Latin Mass is "kept from the people"; side-by-side vernacular translations are available for a modest cost in most common languages. (Example here) If you're literate in English (or French, or German, or Spanish, or one of many other languages) and don't know what's going on at a Latin Mass, that's because you want it that way.
The issue is whether a rite of worship which is almost unchanged from the 5th century, some parts of which date back close to apostolic times, ought to be totally extirpated in favor of something concocted by a committee in the mid-to-late 1960s.