I admire this, but why turn it into english?

Why have it in Latin? Remember the Liturgies were orignally in the language of the people, the Latin bible was written in a commoner's Latin, the bible itself was written in common vernacular for Greek Christians. The Eastern Church is more innovative in this regard. They translate it into vernacular and set it, as best they can, to the original tunes.

Because Latin is a universal language?

Not any more. My Latin prof. was complaining at length about a few months ago about how no one writes classics books in Latin, they're all in German (b/c most of the best Classical research is done by Germans IMHO).

One could also aruge that Greek is the original language of the church.

Don't get me wrong, I love Latin, but it has effectively lost its place in the Liturgy (no one even bothers to sing the Latin in Mass when we do have it here, and Latins only at the Cathedral for the Gloria and Agnus Dei.).

All human liturgies are imperfect because we are limited beings. A choice to emphasize one aspect of the liturgy will inevitably involve tradeoffs affecting another.

I, personally, would like to see much more Latin used, but I would not be excited to see the vernacular abandoned (as Latin has been in many places, directly contrary to the express wishes of the Second Vatican Council).

This is false. The Latin used was never the language of the common people. FYI, the Vulgate was not used in the liturgy until much later. The old Italia was. Of course you probably did not know that "Vulgate does not = Latin bible, that there are older ones?

The Eastern Church mantained sacred languages refusing to use vernacular for quite a while. When SS. Cyril and Methodius evagelised they had opposition in the East for using the vernacular. It was the pope that aided them. They even had the Roman rite translated into Slavonic

English is the most universal language of our times. Very few people understand Latin.

Because Latin, being a 'dead' language, doesn't change. And because Latin is more beautiful, and because the Latin, being not the vernacular, makes the Mass seem more 'special' and 'sacred'. If you want people to have reverence for the Mass, having it done in a sacred language, creates that sense of reverence.

Christianity does not have a "sacred language." Remember, St. Paul said he would rather say 5 words that one could understand than speak in unintelligible tongues. (if anyone could find that verse for me....)

The Church has several 'sacred languages' and Latin is merely the sacred language for the west. In much of the east, Greek is the sacred language, and in much of the middle east, Coptic is the sacred language. A 'sacred language' is simply the language in which you conduct your prayers and liturgy, and any language can be made sacred by creating a distinctive liturgical tradition for it. Maybe 2,000 years from now English will be a sacred language, but it is not one today, but there is no distinctive 'English rite'.

Again, "sacred languages" are foreign to Christianity. The Eastern Church uses the vernacular for the most part (except in parts of the "old country"; GO uses unintelligible hellenistic greek, but the MP uses vernacular and so do many other Eastern Churchs, esp. the OCA).

Simply repeating what you said Sean doesn't make it true.

Then show me from A) the Fathers, B) The Bible, or C) The Councils that Christianity has a sacred language.

Go check out the Catholic Encyclopedia.

No, it isn't, you apparently don't know as much as you think. I have already explained what I mean by a 'sacred languge' i.e. a 'sacred language' is a language for which a distinctive liturgical tradition exists, and has existed for several centuries.

The burden is upon you to prove it. I can show that a "Sacred Language" is foreign to Christianity simply from the bible: "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you; nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue" (1 Cor. 14:18-19).


That's your definition and your personal judgment: Show from Church documents. Latin is nothing more than a liturgical language. It does not make it sacred. It does not make prayers more effacacious. I can tell you, the concept of a "sacred language" is simply the traditiones hominum.

The burden is on you to actually understand what we are talking about. Reveling in your ignorance isn't a good idea.

NOT IT IS NOT MINE. This is the way that the Church views the issue, look at ANY source on the liturgy, any source explaining the various liturgical traditions of the Church. As CC said, there is no virtue is revelling in your ignorance.

Perhaps it creates a sense of reverence among the "intelligencia", but the for the average Joe it creates an impediment. There is no reason why the TLM could not have been translated into the venacular so that everyone could enjoy its beauty and reverence. Is the beauty and reverence only found in the Latin or is there something inherent about Latin that makes it the only beautifil and reverent language? Or is there a snob factor involved? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the Mass being said in Latin for those that want that as it is the traditional language of the Roman Rite since it supplanted Greek back in the 4th century. But I also support the venacular as well.

The reason the languaged changed from Greek to the venacular at the time (Latin) was so that the people could understand, not just the priest and the intelligencia.