One thing I never understood about the Mass in Latin was why these parts are said in Latin. The rest of the Mass is prayers to God so, sure, it makes some sense to pray it in Latin. But, Orate Fratres is an invitation directed toward the people. What's the use of saying it, not only in a language which is not understood by most, but inaudibly, too? And let's pretend that convenient vernacular hand missals aren't a thing (just like they weren't a thing for most of the Roman Catholic Church's existence). Thankfully, the orate is said with a gesture: the priest turning around with hands extended, joining them, then turning back to the altar. So it's possible that the priest can teach his flock to respond with the server or deacon "suscipiat dominus, etc." when they see him do that. But still, seems strange.

And then there are the scripture readings. Again, having these read in Latin doesn't make much sense to me. Scripture is read to edify and instruct the people, right? Of course, not all hope is lost. I've read that it's not very uncommon for the priest to read a translation of the readings before the homily(I wonder when this practice came about in history). Or even if there is no translation, the priest can at least paraphrase or explain the readings in his homily, especially the Gospel.



What are your thoughts?

Strictly speaking, the Orate fratres is directed towards the acolytes, not towards the congregation.  In fact, if you want to look at it this way, the "dialogue" parts of the Mass are entirely between the priest and his acolytes, and anybody else in attendance is merely a spectator, receiving communion only by way of unspoken invitation.  The only person who has to receive communion at any Mass, is the priest.

Scripture readings in the vernacular, whether after the Gospel, or concurrently (by another priest) with the priest's recitation of the Latin, are just a courtesy to the congregation, and in the TLM, are strictly speaking an interruption of the Mass, or in the case of concurrent reading, something "in addition to" the Mass, not a part of it.  A priest can skip this part at his discretion, and explain the readings by way of the homily.

This observation might be enough to send a hootin-hollerin' Novus Ordo disciple into spasms of jagged sobs, and that would be very unfortunate, but that is just the fact of the matter.

Strictly speaking, the Orate fratres is directed towards the acolytes, not towards the congregation.  In fact, if you want to look at it this way, the "dialogue" parts of the Mass are entirely between the priest and his acolytes, and anybody else in attendance is merely a spectator, receiving communion only by way of unspoken invitation.  The only person who has to receive communion at any Mass, is the priest.

Scripture readings in the vernacular, whether after the Gospel, or concurrently (by another priest) with the priest's recitation of the Latin, are just a courtesy to the congregation, and in the TLM, are strictly speaking an interruption of the Mass, or in the case of concurrent reading, something "in addition to" the Mass, not a part of it.  A priest can skip this part at his discretion, and explain the readings by way of the homily.

This observation might be enough to send a hootin-hollerin' Novus Ordo disciple into spasms of jagged sobs, and that would be very unfortunate, but that is just the fact of the matter.

I have to disagree that the congregation of the faithful are just spectators. If so, why is there an obligation to go to mass? The sacrifice is offered by all, not just the priest

What SimpleMan wrote is spot on, it reveals that he sees the supernatural reality of the mass.  The OP's only two postings (so far) belies the opposite, a purely worldly vision of the mass as a social gathering of the congregation, where they are the reason for the gathering. 

I don't have a worldly view of the mass, but you clearly have an very rash judgment. I know the Mass is a real and supernatural sacrifice offered by the priest for various ends I never denied this in my postings. I just feel the faithful gathered should be more than dumb and idle spectators. They should at the very least be instructed as to what the Mass is, what their part in it is, and should be exhorted to be mindful of what's happening before them. But better yet, they should be taught the responses, at least, so that they can join in vocally as well as interiorly. This is what the Church desires. No, we are not just spectators, but the Mass is offered to God for his glory... and for our own sake! 

Your ideas on laity making responses will not be appreciated here, as they are redolent of modernist ideas concerning the role of the laity in public worship.  Referring to the faithful who quietly pray and unite themselves to the priest's sacrifice as "dumb and idle spectators" is a gross caricature with little to no basis in reality, and it will justly be taken as a personal insult and even a sort of blasphemy by most people here. Moreover, the beginning of that same sentence, "I just feel..." may be the root of the problem here.

Every traditional chapel i have attended in my life (from indult to sedevacantist and all in between) instructs the faithful and most also supply hand missals.  The answers to your initial questions are answered quite well above: scriptural readings are primarily a sacrifice of praise, and the orate fratres is addressed to clergy not laity. 

The part of your initial post which states "I've read that it's not very uncommon for the priest to read a translation of the readings before the homily..." is quite odd.  When you say "I've read..." surely you dont mean to indicate that this is all speculation from one with no experience, right?  I dont mean to accuse but it's an honest question.
 

Honestly I was just quoting Pius XII (Musicae Sacrae) lol: 

...these hymns can be a powerful aid in keeping the faithful from attending the Holy Sacrifice like dumb and idle spectators. 

 I know that one can attend Mass fruitfully and correctly even in silence. I really think it's better though for the laity to know the responses and even other parts of the mass and in fact say them.. And I don't see why the Orate Fratres has to be for the clergy only. Other prayers of the Mass make it clear that the sacrifice is the whole household's not just the clergy's, although the priest(s) is the one who 'actually' offers it.

But better yet, they should be taught the responses, at least, so that they can join in vocally .... This is what the Church desires.

The OP sinks deeper into the mire, revealing himself more clearly as just another pompous "conservative" Novus Ordite, and  no traditionalist. He has been so long accustomed to accolades among the ignorant Novus Ordites, that he thinks he knows something. "In the country of blind men, the one eyed man is a king". 

The OP sinks deeper into the mire, revealing himself more clearly as just another pompous "conservative" Novus Ordite, and  no traditionalist. He has been so long accustomed to accolades among the ignorant Novus Ordites, that he thinks he knows something. "In the country of blind men, the one eyed man is a king".

I guess Pius XI is a pompous "novus ordite" as well since I'm only repeating his teaching. I wouldn't be surprised if you think he was a modernist though. I became disillusioned with the whole traditionalist thing precisely because of how much of a slippery slope it is. Once you despise one pope's disciplines and reforms you despise any other one's. I've seen trads criticize Pius XII, Pius XI, Pius X and even earlier popes! 

The Mass is certainly a sacrifice, the un-bloody repetition or renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary, but it has always had additional elements, such as the Communion of the Faithful (the Communion of the Priest is what completes the sacrifice I’ve always been taught), the people offering prayers of supplication for the living and the dead, uniting these to the prayers offered by the priest at the altar, offering praise to God (in several places but particularly in the Gloria), making a profession of our faith (reciting the Nicene / Constantinopolitan Creed), offering back to God a portion of our material blessings (i.e. the collection), and from Apostolic times an instructional component consisting of the reading of Sacred Scripture (or the Apostolic writings before the canon of scripture was defined) and a homily or sermon explaining their meaning to the people.  It is the priest who offers the sacrifice, but the other elements of the Mass are parts that the people are a part of in one way or another.
 
By no means do I consider myself a scholar of the liturgy, but I am not unread on subject.  I was born in 1951 and received my catechetical instruction and sacramental preparation in pre VII parochial schools, and I was an altar server at Mass for nearly a decade before the 1969 missal.  Our preparation for serving at the altar included not just learning the Latin responses and our movements, positions, and duties, but also instruction on the history and theology of the Mass.
 
There are two quotes in this thread I’ll comment on:

“…the mass is not an instruction …The scripture readings in Latin are also a sacrifice of praise towards God.”

“Strictly speaking, the Orate Fratres is directed towards the acolytes, not towards the congregation.”
 

In my now 7^th decade I’ve never before heard these things before, nor am I aware of any citations that the Church teaches this.
 
I previously referenced The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy by Father Adrian Fortescue, published in 1912 as a valuable resource, but my copy is loaned out at the moment.  I will cite A History of The Mass and Its Ceremonies in the Eastern and Western Church by Rev. John O’Brien, A.M. Professor of Sacred Liturgy in Mount St. Mary’s College, Emmittsburg, Maryland; Eighth Revised Edition, published by the The Catholic Publication Society Company, New York, 1881 for my source:

According to the present discipline of the Church, regulated in a great measure by the General Council of Trent, it is required that at every parochial Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation a sermon touching the great truths of our holy faith should be preached to the people. To do this the more effectually it is recommended to follow the line of thought expressed in the Gospel of the day, as it is the wish of the Church that this portion of the sacred writings should be carefully expounded and developed in all its bearing.

The custom of thus preaching at Mass is of the highest antiquity, the ablest critics maintaining that it is of apostolic origin;

The Mass very definitely has an instructional component.


   

“orate fratres”

Having finished this prayer, the priest turns round to the congregation and salutes them with “Orate fratres,” or “Pray, brethren,” which he continues reciting as follows: “That my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty.”

The response is given by the servers, but the priest's salutation is directed to the congregation, the lay faithful.


It is to be noted that traditionally the normative form of the Mass was the Solemn Mass and the sung responses were given by the choir consisting of clerics in the minor orders.  In addition to the priest being assisted at Mass by the sub-deacon and deacon there were other clerics in the minor order of acolyte assisting.  When the minor orders ceased to exist at the parish level, lay males began to take their place as altar servers and in choir.  As a practical matter in order to have a choir at Mass it became necessary to allow women to sing (they had the time to rehearse and be available for Requiems, lay men were busy with work).  I'm thinking though women signing in choir became a norm a long time ago, it was not officially allowed until Pope Pius XII.  Lay choirs are one reason churches have choir lofts in the back, as the traditional choir stalls in a sanctuary could only be occupied by clerics in at least the minor orders.

The reasons why, since Trent, the Liturgy of the Roman Rite (contrasting from practices of the Eastern Catholics) is exclusively in Latin, including the scriptures, and that the laity in the pews do not respond (except at an authorized dialogue Mass), but rather the LAY altar servers and the LAY choir (including females) respond on their behalf ... that is what the rubrics (the rules) provide for.  The reasons for particular rubrics may involve complex elements of history, custom, tradition, and perhaps ecclesiastical politics, but are distinct from the theology or doctrine of the Mass ~ granted that good rubrics properly followed maintain the dignity and validity of the Mass, but they can be changed by the Church.