A language which is hardly spoken is also hardly understood - so WHO exactly is retaining the original teachings, and how well are they passing them on to the general and generally monolingual laity (who need to know them fully as much as any Latin scholar does)?
Priests who have all (hopefully) learned Latin in the seminary!
Isn’t translation involved in any event, for the most part, at some point of the process?
Sure, but how much less disagreement would there be in translating from one language than from several? E.g., the Second Vatican Council drafted documents in other languages like French and even translated them
to Latin. Some problems in the interpretation of the Council can be traced back to the imprecision of even the best translations, e.g., from French to English or from French to Latin, etc. Also, making English the universal language would introduce an extra, unneeded level of translation: Latin to English, then English to vernacular. Besides, there are far more Latin documents in the Church than English ones, so why not just strive for perfection and precision and avoid unneeded translating?
Your argument sounds a bit like arguing for preserving the purity of a diamond by embedding it in the centre of a 10-foot-thick concrete slab.
So would this “10-foot-thick concrete slab” would be like the hierarchy of the Church protecting Her “diamonds” or richest treasures like our dogma, doctrine, teachings, faith, etc.?
Sure, it’s safe, it won’t be subject to the elements, it can’t be stolen … but it certainly isn’t useful for anything! It’s not serving any practical purpose by being ‘preserved’ in such a manner.
A diamond above all NEEDS to be seen … and the teachings of the Church above all need to be disseminated far and wide, scattered like seed so that they can bear fruit in our hearts, shown like a light on a lampstand, not locked away like a bar of gold in Fort Knox!
Outside of the clerical hierarchy of the Church, i.e., for the laity, yes, teachings should be in the vernacular, but the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not predominately a teaching, hence Latin should be retained to maintain its profound, sacrificial, mysterious nature; this is ultimately what the Mass is! Read this from the section in Fr. Gihr’s book I attached as a PDF to my previous post to this thread:
The Church is moved by interests most sacred to maintain and to introduce wherever she is spread in the world and receives new nations into her pale, the Latin as the common language of her liturgy. This conduct on her part does not rest on a discipline of secrecy. The Church does not wish to conceal her mysteries from the faithful. It is rather her very ardent desire that her children should understand all the wealth and beauty of her divine worship; hence she obliges and admonishes her priests to unfold8 to the people the meaning of the celebration of the mystical Sacrifice by clearly and devoutly explaining from time to time the holy Sacrifice of the Mass with all its ceremonies and prayers in the school-room and in the church, in the catechetical instructions and in sermons. After the fathers of the Council of Trent had subjected the objection raised to the Latin tongue in Church service to thorough examination, they unanimously declared that, although the Mass embodied a vast amount of religious instruction, they still deemed it inexpedient that the Holy Sacrifice should be everywhere (passim) celebrated in the vernacular; that, on the contrary, everywhere the rite (custom) authorized by the Holy Roman Church should be maintained. But in order that the sheep of Christ may not hunger and the children may not ask for bread without there being some one to break it unto them, the Council commands pastors of souls, that during the celebration of Mass they frequently explain some part of what has been read in the Mass, and that especially on Sundays and holidays they give instruction of some mystery of this most Holy Sacrifice. The Church acts thus, because she is persuaded that an unchangeable and universal language for divine worship prevents, on the one hand, much harm and danger, and, on the other hand, offers numerous advantages for her liturgical object, as well as for her activity and efficiency in general. These advantages are so great, that the profit the people might in a certain respect and in some cases derive from understanding the language used in the divine service, bears no comparison thereunto, and is far surpassed thereby; besides said profit may be secured in some better and more sure way and thus be easily compensated.
I think to push to eliminate Latin originates from a frustration that people are not willing to be catechized or that they have not been catechized correctly in the first place, so somehow a Mass in the vernacular will help motivate them to learn about our faith because it will be more familiar to them. The Mass, however, should not be a replacement for Sunday school! It is a Holy Sacrifice, a profound mystery that no human mind can completely comprehend! It is absolutely sublime.
