A lot of the ones I remember have either left the Church or passed away. But our Pope would seem to be of that generation, although I basically like the Pope, I just think he gets a little carried away sometimes.
It doesn’t have any roots in much of the world. Sub Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Oceania and among all the indigenous nations. Latin has quite a small scope when you consider the globe.
Your apparent argument only makes sense due to you severing the above four words from their context. My point was how except for Rome, the places Paul was writing to had Greek as their primary language, and that even in Rome, Greek wasn’t uncommon. To try to declare that Latin is still “somewhat known” is to pay only attention only to the exception I mentioned and ignore everything else I said.
You are correct that it was celebrated in those languages, and in the early Church Greek was the language of commerce and had been for some time; and while not everybody spoke it, the earliest Church was not that widespread and was in areas Greek was used. People may have used a local language but Greek was widespread as a second language (as you note about Peter). Latin was used by the Romans and they took their language with them, so a goodly number of people were exposed to Latin as a secondary language.
Nor is there evidence that only Greek and Latin were used in the early Church; both for those who now would be considered “Eastern” and for areas outside the Greek and Latin world, common languages were also used. It took more than a couple of centuries before Latin was the official language of the Roman rite.
DISCLAIMER: Catholic Answers has turned over the archive to Catholic-Questions.org and no longer owns, manages, or moderates the forums. For additional apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.