I don’t think so.
We are eagerly expecting the Motu Proprio for the derestriction of the 1962 missal in the next few days. Reports have put about that it is expected on 7th of July, in which case, I will probably miss all the shouting because I will be away from my computer for a few days R&R (and Cathy hates it when I do “work” in family time).
The Holy Father had a meeting with 13 (not the originally reported 30) bishops from around the world a few days ago to discuss the final details, implications and implementation of the MP. Apparently our George was one of the 13. (Source: Fr. Z. and Cardinal Sean O’Malley).
In any case, there has been a bit of a discussion about the question of whether or not the 1962 rite should be made available in English (see here on Fr Z. and here–surprisingly–from Pastor Weedon). As I said above: “I think not”.
For a start, canonically the edition of the mass from which all translations into the vernacular currently must be made (and after the MP comes out too unless the MP expressly changes that) is the 2000 “editio typica tertia”, ie. the current edition of the Novus Ordo mass.
But from the point of desirability, I still “think not”. I know that both the 2000 edition and the 1962 edition are “the Latin mass”, and that the 2000 edition can be done in Latin as well as the vernacular, but I don’t think it works in reverse.
The 1962 Mass is to be derestricted to serve two purposes: One pastoral and the other one of historical continuity. Historically, the 1962 Mass was never done in the vernacular. It would be anachronistic to celebrate this rite in anything other than Latin. (I could expound on that opinion, but I won’t at this point). Pastorally, the people who most desire the 1962 Mass desire it IN LATIN. It might be “neat” to do it in the vernacular, but that wouldn’t directly answer either the need for historical continuity or pastoral care for which the MP is intended.
But mainly I think it would just be too confusing. I lived in the Lutheran Church of Australia (and served on its department of liturgics) during the eighties when we simultaneously modernised the old “Service with Holy Communion” and released the “Service–Alternative Form” (a more “Vat II” version, based on Lutheran Book of Worship with our own changes). The Calendar eventually went almost universally to the three year lectionary, but the two styles of service continued to be used just about equally everywhere.
The problem was that the prayers were translated differently in the different orders of service–so memory was all messed up. There were, and I think still are, no fewer than four versions of the Nicene Creed in use in the LCA. In one service you will sing “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts” and in another you will sing “Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, God of Power and Might”. In one you have the Gloria in Excelsis virtually as it appears in the Book of Common Prayer, and in the other you have the ICEL condensed version.
Now, you could argue that (in the main) the new translations of the Novus Ordo could be used for the 1962 rite with little change, but that would still give you many prayers that would exist in two versions-eg. the Confiteor (one with “St Michael the Archangel, St John the Baptist, St Peter and Paul and all the Saints” and one without). And God help us when the “inclusive language” set get hold of it…
Vernacular 1962 Rite? I think not.