It is all worth reading of course, but I was particularly struck by this:
12. If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? What did St. Paul have to say about that? Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: "In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue" (I Corinthians 14:19).Who could argue with that? If Latin were having that effect, clearly it should not be retained as the exclusive language.
Actually, I could argue with that.
I think that Liturgy should not be designed to attract children, youth, the world of labor and affairs, to be a clear window and not a dark screen...
It's principle purpose is to enable us to approach the throne of Grace, to be taken up into the very life of Christ, and to live with Him His Passion, Death and Resurrection, and be filled with His grace; to unite with Him in offering the supreme Sacrifice to the Father, in thanksgiving, adoration, contrition and in supplication for the living and the dead.
To me that quotation expresses how the zeitgeist which had ben admitted into the Church at the Council, caused a secondary consideration to be mistaken for the primary one.
And even on their terms, I maintain that the 'if' was not proven (and indeed subsequent experience suggests the reverse); and further that we shifted from Latin as 'exclusive' to de facto excluding Latin (for several decades at least: thankfully that is now shifting.)
There is much else one could comment on in this address, and I may return to it...