But what I mean is, up until 1970 Masses were in Latin. Seminaries taught Latin. The priests learned Latin. The documents of the council (Vatican 2) called for Latin. The priests even today on ordination are supposed to sign and testify to being ‘fluent in Latin’.
All those seminaries must by definition have contained, at that point, sufficient teachers who themselves were proficient in Latin.
What happened to them?
How was it possible that all the people required for priests to 'spend hundreds of hours learning Latin and the Mass and all appurtenances thereto suddenly disappeared? Wouldn’t there have been left a gaping hole in the curriculum? When and how did this happen when, again, what the council fathers voted for and agreed to was a maintenance of Latin in the liturgy as well as the need for the people to learn more? The teachers in the seminary should have been mobbed with the need to get more involved, not just with priest candidates, but with deacons, and with theologians and above all laity.
But instead, a critical requirement for the education of priests seems to have disappeared, such that today instead of every seminary being equipped sufficiently for the Latin necessary for the EF, something common to every seminary and every educational institution for instructing priest candidates for centuries. . .there remain a handful.
How did this happen?
Who was responsible?