The new translation

Rich, the story about the apologetic Maryland Church and its ill-catechized parishioners is somewhere on the border betwixt amusingly odd and troubling.

It's interesting to me how the "battle for Vatican II" seems to be a battle between two competing conceptions of it. The conception held by Fr. Stravinskas, the Holy Father, and so on, is reflected in what the Council actually said. The documents are easily accessible, they're available in most major languages in several translations, most libraries have a copy, several internet sites have a copy, so you don't even have to buy one. So there's no mystery about what the council actually said, and to the extent one might argue that they didn't say what they meant: tough. Meanwhile, the conception evinced by Fr. Ryan, The National Catholic Reporter, and so on, is, well, somewhat broader. As you said, it's usually justified in terms of the "spirit" of the council, a concept amorphous enough to veil almost any intentions.

I mentioned this in a footnote to the linked essay, and it seems pertinent: it seems to me that many who bewail the new translation wield the term "Vatican II" as a sort of metonym for the entire complex of changes that took place in the Church during that era, regardless of whether the council spoke to them or not, and minus those things that the council said of which they disapprove. I have to assume that's what is going on in their minds, because otherwise, I find it hard to understand how they can seriously conflate the total elimination of latin with a council that called for just the opposite.

That said, the translations of the novus ordo (and the extent to which they are used over the latin text of the novus ordo) are one issue; the tridentine Mass is quite another. Fr. Ryan has, with all due respect, not a leg to stand on in charging the new translation with infidelity to the council. Nevertheless, I think there's a credible argument—I am neither embracing nor rejecting it herein, just mentioning it—that celebrating the tridentine Mass is in tension with Sacrosanctum Concilium. What the council actually said was this:

49. For this reason the sacred Council … has made the following decrees in order that the sacrifice of the Mass, even in the ritual forms of its celebration, may become pastorally efficacious to the fullest degree.

50. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.

51. The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.

52. By means of the homily the mysteries of the faith and the guiding principles of the Christian life are expounded from the sacred text, during the course of the liturgical year; the homily, therefore, is to be highly esteemed as part of the liturgy itself; in fact, at those Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the people on Sundays and feasts of obligation, it should not be omitted except for a serious reason.

53. Especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation there is to be restored, after the Gospel and the homily, "the common prayer" or "the prayer of the faithful." By this prayer, in which the people are to take part, intercession will be made for holy Church, for the civil authorities, for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the entire world [39].

54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

(Emphases added.) The council clearly mandated a new missal. I think you could construct from this an argument that rejection of the novus ordo is a rejection of what the council demanded. Of course, the counterargument is that the novus ordo fails to comply with the council's mandate, is thus void, and that the tridentine Mass thus remains the default, but that's tricky. And what to make of—how to factor in—Summorum Pontificum, which tells us that these two seemingly different missals are really the same rite in two different expressions?

As I said, I'm not taking a position on those arguments. I'm not qualified to do much more than scratch the surface, but I think it's fair to say that there are two different issues, and that celebrating the tridentine Mass poses more difficulties vis-à-vis Vatican II than the question of the new translation vs. the old translation of the novus ordo.