@sunshinewish15: If you’re using the extraordinary form of the Mass, there will be some limits as to what the rubrics of the Mass allow, as the rubrics are far more detailed and restrictive than the ordinary form. The ordinary form of the Mass is basically the bare bones and thus is far more up to the priest’s discretion.
We got married according to the extraordinary form. While it is uncommon, our priest did read the readings at the altar in English. We were also given the option to have the entire marriage rite done in English.
If your parish offers the ordinary form, considering you’re in a traditional parish, your priest may be more sensitive to what the 2nd Vatican Council actually say, what previous Pope’s have said etc and thus may be more restrictive to what he will allow in the Mass.
Either way, I’d recommend you discuss it with your priest.
@Rachel631: The liturgical reform movement actually began in the early 20th century. Pope Pius X was concerned that Mass was becoming far too much like a theater performance which left the congregation as more of a passive audience rather than actively participating in prayer. Note that most classical music was written for the Mass. Most composers were able to make their living by offering to write Masses for the very wealthy.
Pius X condemned this and, as such, he called for a recovery of Georgian Chant in an effort to bring about active participation. The Pope’s stress on active participation thus instigated the liturigical reform movement.
As decades passed, discussion began on other ways to involve the laity more into the Mass. You see, even besides the language barrier, the Mass was never a dialogue between the laity and the priest. It didn’t even matter that the language was in Latin because you couldn’t hear the priest speaking anyway. In fact, there are prayers called the “secrets” where the priest is specifically instructed to say the prayer at an inaudible level.
Going to Mass was far more like going to Eucharistic adoration. Confessions often ran along side the Mass. People mostly sat in the pew praying the rosary. In fact, praying the rosary was encouraged, because it was prayer and thus far better than sitting in the pew and gossiping with your neighbor.
One suggestion was to incorporate a new dialogue form of the Mass, but this never got underway. Instead, the liturigical movement took a life of its own. People started completely diverging from the Missal and reinventing the Mass to how they thought it might have been like for the Early Christians. These liturgical abuses were condemned by the Pope in 1947.
As such, what Vatican II intended to do was to bring forward a Mass with more active participation and dialogue while avoiding the liturgical abuses of the 40’s.
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, the Vatican II document on the Sacred Liturgy states this: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.”
The Council also affirmed the place Georigian chant had in the Church. “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations,”
The Church then worked toward building up a new Mass (novos ordo means new order…in other words, new order of the Mass). This new order was designed to be a dialogue Mass. It was written in Latin and incorporated numerous other goals the Council had. One goal specificially was to provide more education on salvation history. Thus an extra reading from the old testament plus the responsorial psalm was added. With the exception of having to hastefully cut the length of the liturgy of the hours without being that careful, they actually did an amazing job with developing the 3 year liturigical cycle. Its quite beautiful, and when you have a priest who does his job in the homilies, the connections between the readings are really amazing.
But still, what the council wanted and what the liturgical movement wanted were not the same thing. As such, a lot of things went into how the new Mass was celebrated had nothing to do with the 2nd Vatican Council. The text was designed to incorporate both languages. It was not designed to use the venacular exclusively and there are plenty of good arguments as to why it should not be used exclusively.