Do you mean ALL of the prayers in Latin, or just the sung parts? We have the NO in English but the sung parts are in Latin.

I have participated in numerous NO masses in Latin and found them highly satisfying. What I find highly dissatisfying is Latin this and English that. A Latin mass should be just that, a mass in its entirety in Latin, not a pastiche of languages - and, that includes the lectionary, which should be in the language that the mass is in!
I feel the same about English masses, which can be just as beautiful as Latin ones. Choose one Language, be it Latin, English, or Urdu, and celebrate the entire mass in it, including the lectionary and prayers of the faithful. This seamless continuum is the most satisfying and beautiful.

St. John Cantius in Chicago does it every Sunday.

A Latin mass should be just that, a mass in its entirety in Latin, not a pastiche of languages - and, that includes the lectionary, which should be in the language that the mass is in!
I feel the same about English masses, which can be just as beautiful as Latin ones. Choose one Language, be it Latin, English, or Urdu, and celebrate the entire mass in it, including the lectionary and prayers of the faithful. This is the most satisfying and beautiful.

Pastors of souls, having taken into consideration pastoral usefulness and the character of their own language, should see whether parts of the heritage of sacred music, written in previous centuries for Latin texts, could also be conveniently used, not only in liturgical celebrations in Latin but also in those performed in the vernacular. There is nothing to prevent different parts in one and the same celebration being sung in different languages. (Musicam sacram 51)

I’ve only seen it happen once, at a Christmas Midnight Mass celebrated ad orientem. Gregorian propers and organ and incense.

9/10*, would recommend.

*if we didn’t lose things like prayers at the foot of the altar in the NO, this would be a 10.

I think there is merit to it, especially in multilingual communities and urban areas with many international travelers. Just provide multilingual booklets like they do at St. Peter's Basilica.

bUt VaTiCaN 2

Choose one Language, be it Latin, English, or Urdu, and celebrate the entire mass in it, including the lectionary and prayers of the faithful.

Away with the Kyrie! Away with the Alleluia! :)

In Cincinnati, Old St. Mary's church (our sister parish), has had the Latin OF (all Sundays and most feasts) for at least 30-40 years... as well as the English OF (daily including Sunday) and German OF (Sundays). In 2008, the parish also started offering the EF, but only for certain feasts - which eventually transitioned to daily EF with Sung or Solemn EF Masses on all major feasts... while still keeping the other three Mass types.

However, starting this past Advent I, the Latin OF was replaced by the EF, so now there is daily EF and OF (English), with a Low EF, Sung EF, German OF and English OF on Sundays.

We've also seen a number of Latin OF at other parishes from time to time. Not frequent, but maybe about 1 every 2 years or so (on average).

The Gregorian repertory and Latin polyphony can be sung, but also supplemented ad lib. by things one can never perform in the EF, say Howells or Stanford in English, Bach and Rheinberger and Brahms in German, an extra hymn or two.

It's pretty standard (and tolerated by legitimate authority) in German-speaking countries to include German hymns and motets at EF High Masses, even replacing parts of the Proper or Ordinary. In the Anglosphere, why would it be desirable to include pieces that are neither in the vernacular nor the liturgical language? It would seem to contradict another reason you stated above, i.e.:

Speakers of all languages find themselves united (save for the homily) and on equal footing; no group is left out.

Yes.

It is a prophetic witness: this is the extent of what is possible, that was not abolished by the liturgical reform. It dispels a lot of myths about "what Vatican II got rid of."

Both for the trad, and the proponent of the reform it clarifies the terms of the debate.

Gamba, I will stand with you. For myself, I have no attachment to Latin. God understands English quite well, Unfortunately, many of the people don't understand Latin. My eastern church used Old Church Slavonic until most all the immigrants died out then switched to English. With the EF crowd, none of them are native Latin speakers.

What I think should have been done between EF and OF is adopt a uniform calendar. The lack of that causes more problems than language. I don't mean adopt the EF calendar since it contained events that are largely meaningless in today's time and culture. It needed revising. I think a good compromise could be developed between the two calendars. As it is, we deal with what are essentially old and new calendarists.

I still don't understand why in the revisions, the very good work done by the Anglicans in both translations and music was not adopted and used in the OF. How did doing our own thing musically work out for us? Not so well, I think.

I do a Latin Novus Ordo every Sunday and holyday. I adore it and it works for us.

For those who follow both sides of the Novus Ordo versus Usus Antiquior argumentation, it is becoming clear that whatever hopes many of us have had for peaceful coexistence are fading. Most Novus Ordo advocates, whether using Latin or not, follow such influential leaders as Anthony Ruff in dismissing the old rite’s legitimacy, i.e. the Holy Spirit was at work during Vatican II, which we need to be reminded involved much more than liturgy, or the Holy Spirit was not. To them, the answer is clear.

On the other side, reactionaries like Peter Kwasniewski see little fruit coming from the Reform of the Reform, a movement energized by Pope Benedict XVI’s book Spirit of the Liturgy that addressed failings of the new rite (read Kwasniewski’s December 9, 2019 posting at The New Liturgical Movement on the 50th anniversary of the Novus Ordo). To Kwasniewski and many others committed to the old rite, reform is wishful thinking. The post-Vatican II liturgical culture is too entrenched and there is little or no supporting evidence of essential change from human-centered to God-centered worship.

Though struggling with this contention for some time, I have no answers. There are weaknesses to both arguments. Ruff’s refusal to take critical public stands against common liturgical music practices is puzzling; he’s too bright a guy to buy into “it’s just a matter of personal taste” or “it’s our culture” philosophical arguments. Kwasniewski, on the other hand, doesn’t offer realistic solutions on how old rite followers can make a clean break or how to assess the whole of Vatican II. Furthermore, the vast majority of Catholics don’t live near parishes offering a Usus Antiquior Mass, let alone one dedicated exclusively to it. Are we all to pick up and move to Wyoming?

I can’t say this situation is unprecedented. Among the happiest years of my life were those spent in the schola at St. Paul’s in Cambridge, MA where the reform as envisioned by Theodore Marier achieved its full glory. It was a vision bringing a diverse population together and giving hope for providing a model beyond the confines of Harvard Square. The latter never materialized and it’s intriguing that after leaving the choir school he founded, Marier took a turn to the right and worked exclusively in Usus Antiquior settings. Was it a tragic loss or did he just see the writing on the wall?

Mr. Nichols is spot on...

The difficulty is that it is not the ritual that is really the problem, it is the people. If we were to take Kwasniewski's new approach to its conclusion, we would still be dealing with the fact but there are many people in the pews who would react even worse to the old ritual, then they would react to slight reforms of the present ritual.

So the effective upshot of this new radical traditionalism is to create a parallel Church and to give up any hope of real communion with more mainstream Catholics. Which, in my experience of mainstream Catholics, [would be an unfair presumption to make about someone, simply because they do not prefer or even wish to attend the Tridentine Mass]. There are plenty of pious, devout Catholic men and women who love Christ in the Eucharist, and Beauty in the liturgy, who see no reason to return to the older books. What law have they broken? We cannot abandon them to the [whims of progressive liturgists and musicians] just because they happen to value the use of vernacular in the liturgy. And after all, when the word of God is proclaimed in the old Mass, it's in translation.

EDIT: Removed and [replaced] inflammatory language that caused offence, with apologies.

It's pretty standard (and tolerated by legitimate authority) in German-speaking countries to include German hymns and motets at EF High Masses, even replacing parts of the Proper or Ordinary. In the Anglosphere, why would it be desirable to include pieces that are neither in the vernacular nor the liturgical language? It would seem to contradict another reason you stated above, i.e.: "Speakers of all languages find themselves united (save for the homily) and on equal footing; no group is left out."

@Madorganist, I could think of a variety of mundane reasons – maybe St. Stanislaus of Suburbia wants to hear "W żłobie leży" sometime on Christmas Eve, to honor the memory of their Polish founders; or Santa Maria in Little Italy wants to sing "Mira il tuo popolo" on their patronal feast, etc.

Or, maybe the choir is good, and capable of singing in many languages, and thus can bring home beautiful music from the world over, actually singing Rachmaninov's authentic Богородице Дево instead of some bawdlerized-Ave-Maria adaptation. I would suppose that in most churches with properly lush acoustics, those who comprehend every word the choir is singing, comprehend it by reading the worship aid, rather than by picking out every word. Thus, once the propers are squared away, I see no reason to reject additional choral music based on language; if the music is worthwhile and the text is appropriate, why should it be rejected?

If I remember correctly, at WYD in Madrid, Pope Benedict's mass was mostly in Latin.

In this special occasion, it was very fitting, since there were there people of thousand of languages. And as a French girl who had learned Latin and no Spanish at school, I was really glad of the choice !

Are we stuffy?

Stuffy?, Elitist?, Uppity?, etc. These and similar epithets have absolutely no objective meaning or reference when applied to one's musical or artistic preferences. They are best ignored or put down. What they really mean is 'I don't at all like this, so I will say that something is wrong with it, not me'.

I would hate to see a world in which devout people attached to the NO are deprived of the ministrations of orthodox and orthoprax musicians and clergy, because these have all left for traditionalism, given the increasing disappearance of the RotR and its replacement with strong traditionalism.

True. The current traditionalism is more extremist and in need of reform than any that existed in 1960. Not good.

Worry not, I say unto you. If Pope Francis stays in office a few more years, we will all be pleasant and harmless Unitarians.

The current traditionalism is more extremist and in need of reform than any that existed in 1960. Not good.

Would you care to elaborate on the topic of what needs reform?

Pluscarden Abbey in Scotland does the Novus Ordo in Latin, except for the readings and (on Sundays) the Universal Prayer. Also, almost the whole thing is sung (again, the readings excepted). The ritual, however, is pretty much by-the-book Novus Ordo--no real attempt to make it look Tridentine. So there is concelebration and communion under both species, etc.

From what I can tells, their Office is the pre-conciliar monastic Office (including Prime).

Conservative is a political term, not a religious one. People are either orthodox, heterodox, or in schism.

The opinion of Fr. Adrian Fortescue:

It is a queer type of mind that actually is interested in knowing whether the deacon should stand at the right or the left of someone else at some moment

and a tiny sample of what he wrote when commissioned to describe what the rubricists had laid down

If the Sanctissimum be reserved in the tabernacle, he first genuflects, otherwise he bows low towards the altar cross. He incenses the altar cross with three double incensings. Then he either genuflects or bows, as he did before. If there are relics or images between the candlesticks he next incenses these, first those on the gospel side, making two double swings of the thurible for all of them together, without moving himself from the middle of the altar, or bowing to them. He again bows to the cross, or genuflects to the Blessed Sacrament, and incenses in the same way those on the epistle side. Then, without again bowing or genuflecting, he continues the incensing of the altar. He walks before the altar to the epistle side ; as he does so he incenses it over the upper part, the mensa, with three single swings of the thurible, one opposite each of the altar candles. At the epistle corner he swings the thurible twice along the side, then returns to the middle, again making ...

Churches of the Orthodox tradition seem to achieve dignified, and more importantly God-centered, worship without the need to reduce the sacred ministers to automata.

(capitalized) Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism are separate denominations. Contrast orthodox Catholics and capital-O Orthodox Christians. In one sense it's merely a descriptive term, and in the other it is a full-blown denomination.

re: conservative, ok, but that's what people say in common conversation, "conservative" and "progressive" and "traditionalist". If only because if each time you talked about one or the other you said "apostate" or "schismatic" you'd just have a fist fight all day long, and not be able to carry on with the other point you are trying to make.

Re: Mr. Hawkins and the dignity of orthodox liturgy despite presumably having no rubrics, if I were to write down how exactly to make bread dough the way my mother taught me (which I learned by watching and doing, and is not written), it would sound like Father Fortescue's elaborate description. I would have to describe the each movement of the body, etc. and how exactly one evaluates the readiness of the dough for the next step, etc. It's all well and good to say "sprinkle flour on the kneading surface" but this presumes the reader has a quit good knowledge of the overall process, materials, movements, measurements, etc by oral tradition and actual experience. Once a person has learned the movements and style of an activity, be it driving a car or arranging flowers, it no longer needs to be written in great detail. It's often much easier to learn physically, by having someone show you and walking through the steps and gestures over and over. I have participated in a seminarian training to learn the TLM, with the help of an acolyte who knew it well. In four sessions he had the said Mass down. I assisted at a new priest's first solemn TLM this week, which is more like the Byzantine rite liturgies I've seen in involving more people, each with different tasks. They practiced their entrances, movements - and he practiced the incensing gestures described above! - the day before, learning by imitation from the guidance of a more experienced priest, not by reading a book. When I assisted at a Byzantine rite Catholic liturgy a few times it seemed to me there were several assistants to the priest and they all had very specific roles and things were done in a specific way. A friend of mine who was given a role helping was shown several times how to comport himself, where to go, where to turn, stand, approach, step back etc. so that he could correctly hold the candlestick he was honored to hold.

As in any group activity, whether in a restaurant or on a football field or in a jazz band it matters where you stand if only so you are prepared to turn the page, bring something, take something, and not constantly run into the people around you.

Yes certainly liturgy requires practice, and also understanding.
There was an editorial in Notitiae in 1968 on the gestures of the celebrant. (Apparently issued only in French, English at DOL#42.*) Commenting, presumably, on the previously existing situation it asks "How can gestures that have become mechanical from habit, sloppy from routine, half-hearted from apathy, still function as signs of the work of salvation?" Calling for "gestures that are beautiful, decorous, and expressive", it emphasises "these things must be learned: how to stand erect, bow, genuflect, how to bow over to kiss the altar, how to make the sign of the cross over the elements, .... "

* Documents on the Liturgy, Liturgical Press, Collegeville