Latin Mass/Novus Ordo

[Karin]

Ya shock tactics I’m afraid and I’m not sure if posting pictures is aganist forum rules since the actual parish is not mentioned, although using the pictures to prove that one way to worship is more reverent than the other is I believe against the rules but then you and I have pointed this out several times. It’s going on deaf ears

Well slap me upside the head…but I think the two sets of photos where posted to show the difference in the masses

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

The Church was saving souls prior to Vat II.

unavoce.org/veterumsapientia.htm

Veterum Sapientia
An Apostolic Constitution of His Holiness John XXIII,

Preservation of Latin by the Holy See

The nature of Latin

…
Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latins for mal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority “as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws.”…

Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Churchs life, “is important not so much on cul tural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons.” 6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indi cated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Churchs nature. “For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time . . of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non vernacular.” …

Non-vernacular

Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic."0 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed “a treasure . . . of incomparable worth.” (11). It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Churchs teaching.2 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity…

“The Latin Languague can truly be called catholic” is different from “Latin truly says Catholic.” First, I don’t know if you copied the Holy Father correctly, but if the “c” is small, it means “universal,” as in “he has catholic tastes.” Upper-case “C” refers to the Church. In the first sense, the Holy Father made a statement that is only RELATIVELY factually true, ie., if Latin was universal at that time, it is no longer, though it may still be used around the world. Of the number of people around the world who speak a second language, I would be willing to bet that their non-native tongue is English and NOT Latin, which would make English, in this time, more universal than Latin. In the second sense (large C, which I don’t think he meant), in which you use it (“Latin truly says Catholic”), again, NO, unless you want the Eastern Catholics to be confirmed in the suspicion that they are indeed, in the eyes of Latin Rite Catholics and the Holy See, the red-headed step children of the Church.

Further, with all due reverence for the memory of Blessed John XXIII, are we to believe that the above is a teaching which we must except de fide (esp. when he talks of the “scientific” study Pope Pius XI had made and which he found the nature of Latin and the nature of the Church to be complementary…what “science” was that?) or is it something we may respectfully disagree with the Holy Father about? Was the centrality and essential nature of Latin something handed down from Apostolic time? Or is it merely a matter of discipline? The answer is obvious.

Plus, one could be in absolute agreement with EVERY WORD you quoted of the Holy Father’s and still say they’d rather have the Mass in the vernacular or there might be benefits to the Mass in the vernacular.

 

[DesertBrother]

Or maybe not.
How do we KNOW that the person who posted hasn’t sent them to the proper authorities?

From what I read of his posts over these months, and his love for Our Lord, he is the type of person who would.

But it’s okay to presume for some things and not for others.

You also may have a point there.

I don’t presume to know anything. I’ll shut up now.

 

[Karin]

I’m not sure if posting pictures is aganist forum rules since the actual parish is not mentioned,

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2
CONTENT RULES

1. 
   *]Do not paste articles from web sites into a post. If you wish to reference an article on the web, link to its web address, instead.
   *]Do not change the title of posted articles.
   *]Discussion of a controversial news event must reference at least one publicly-available news report on the subject. This can be in the form of a link, a partial quote and a link, or a posted photo (as appropriate).
   *]Do not post others’ e-mail addresses, private messages, or private e-mail sent by them unless they give you permission to do so.
   *]Do not post copyrighted material.
   *]Do not post material from unapproved private revelations.
   *]Do not post personal phone numbers and addresses.
   *]Do not post anything that can be construed as spam.
   *]Do not post anything that can be construed as a commercial advertisement or contains any form of commercial solicitation.
   *]Do not post anything that you do not want to be publicly read for an extended period.
   CONDUCT RULES
   1. 
      *]Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.
      *]Do not use abbreviated terms such as “Prots” or “radtrad” etc. that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best.
      *]Do not use character substitutions in proper names, such as “Amerikkkans” or “Demonrats” or “Repubicans” etc.
      *]Inappropriate or offensive graphics, links, or profile entries are not permitted.
      *]Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (especially replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message).
      *]Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
      *]Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

 

[anamchara]

Let’s not forget what was posted yet a few pages ago…mine own highlites

"GENERAL REMINDER

As the Church herself allows and provides for a variety of liturgical services, it may be helpful to remember that threads attempting to imply that those making use of those provisions are somehow deficient in practice to one’s own preference is essentially misrepresenting the Church’s position.

Additionally please keep Item 16 of Banned Topics in mind:

1. Identifying individual parishes or clergy (including hierarchy) as “unfaithful to the Magisterium”, guilty of “liturgical abuse”, or otherwise engaged in unacceptable or unpopular practices, based on personal “knowledge” or opinion without publicly available documentation that such has been alleged. "

 

[netmilsmom]

Let’s not forget what was posted yet a few pages ago…mine own highlites

Where was this?
16. Identifying individual parishes or clergy (including hierarchy) as “unfaithful to the Magisterium”,

 

[anamchara]

Where was this?
16. Identifying individual parishes or clergy (including hierarchy) as “unfaithful to the Magisterium”,

Well my thinking is that showing a picture of clegry might very well identify them. It’s a public forum, but I could be wrong on this one. Don’t know for sure.

 

[netmilsmom]

Well my thinking is that showing a picture of clegry might very well identify them. It’s a public forum, but I could be wrong on this one. Don’t know for sure.

It take Identifying, such as “My parish in East Grandville, OH has a Priest named Fr. Smith who is a liturgical abuser.”

That is what gets tossed.
Pictures are pretty obscure.

 

[dumspirospero]

Hey old friend…haven’t spoken to you in a while…yes, those pictures are extreme…but when I posted the pictures of the traditional Mass…I added a sentence at the very beginning, which I failed to do on the Novus Ordo picture post, which explained that I know these pictures are not indicative of most Novus Ordo Masses…Thank the Lord…however, they are representative of the types of abuses that some people on this thread in particular are advocating and supporting…but just to reiterate…I attend a Novus Ordo Mass more times a month than I do a Latin Mass and I know these pictures are not representative of 99% of Masses Celebrated.

Sonny:

The pictures you post ARE extremes, are they not? I mean, here in this city, the most radical “liberal” parish is known by simply having not having kneelers or any time at all scheduled for confession, NOT for having clown masses, or magician masses, etc. These are specific (and in the thousands of masses offered every day, isolated and relatively small in number) abuses and they are NOT native (ontologically inherent) to the Novus Ordo Mass, any more than a “mumbled” Mass or a sped-through Mass is ontologically inherent to the Tridentine. If you had posted a picture of a Mass typically celebrated in most NO parishes and NOT these extremes, I would have stated with conviction that neither was more reverent, respectful, or God-fearing than the other (I would have stated with equal conviction that I’d take the properly celebrated NO Mass any day of the week, because it would be in the vernacular and because I believe it possesses more of a noble *simplicity, *ie, LESS can be MORE, esp. with the birettas and the superflous gestures like the lifting of the chasuble at the Elevation, a holdover from when chasubles were very heavy/gem encrusted, etc., and the priest really needed help, but now institutionalized into a gesture with little practical meaning).

 

[anamchara]

It take Identifying, such as “My parish in East Grandville, OH has a Priest named Fr. Smith who is a liturgical abuser.”

That is what gets tossed.
Pictures are pretty obscure.

I’m sure your right, I don’t know.

 

[dumspirospero]

I have never, ever, ever…tried to argue that point…ever. I have always stated and always believed they are completely equal in all regards…on the other hand, I have always argued that these abuses I have posted pictures of, have never, to the best of my knowledge, occurred during a Tridentine Mass…or a more traditional parish. Period. Don’t put words in my mouth.

This grandoise display to prove your point has done very little to convince me that the TLM is eminently superior, and the N.O. is abhorent.

 

[dumspirospero]

Call me backwards if you want to…and you don’t even have to apologize…I dont’ believe girls should serve on the altar…if that makes me backwards in your opinion…then I love being backwards…however, what you call backwards, I call proper. I am sorry…I don’t buy into this new age springtime mumbo jumbo…and I am not afraid to say it either. Face it…our Church has been over run by political correctness…just like everything else in this world…They want women to become priest…Homosexuals to be able to marry in the Church…girls to serve on the altar, etc…but that doesn’t make it right…and no matter how much you all try to argue for it…none of it is going to happen. Maybe it is the group arguing for a lost cause that is backwards…me and my friends…well, lets just say we are on the side of the magisterium.

Oh I see so personal feelings voiced are ok? Then me calling her backwards because she doesn’t want altar girls on another thread should have been ok? She shouldn’t have been bothered by this. So I didn’t need to apologize? Interesting.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Hey old friend…haven’t spoken to you in a while…yes, those pictures are extreme…but when I posted the pictures of the traditional Mass…I added a sentence at the very beginning, which I failed to do on the Novus Ordo picture post, which explained that I know these pictures are not indicative of most Novus Ordo Masses…Thank the Lord…however, they are representative of the types of abuses that some people on this thread in particular are advocating and supporting…but just to reiterate…I attend a Novus Ordo Mass more times a month than I do a Latin Mass and I know these pictures are not representative of 99% of Masses Celebrated.

God bless you, Sonny, for the clarification. May you soon have your heart’s desire in the freedom of the Pian Mass.

 

[dumspirospero]

Thanks old friend…I am going to bed now…my emotions seem to get the best of me on these discussions and I made a new years resolution to be charitable to all people and I have already found myself breaking it on this thread…I am sorry if I have been uncharitable to anyone…This is just a topic near and dear to my heart…I love you all…Goodnight.

God bless you, Sonny, for the clarification. May you soon have your heart’s desire in the freedom of the Pian Mass.

 

[Walking_Home]

“The Latin Languague can truly be called catholic” is different from “Latin truly says Catholic.” First, I don’t know if you copied the Holy Father correctly, but if the “c” is small, it means “universal,” as in “he has catholic tastes.” Upper-case “C” refers to the Church. …In the second sense (large C, which I don’t think he meant), in which you use it (“Latin truly says Catholic”), again, NO, unless you want the Eastern Catholics to be confirmed in the suspicion that they are indeed, in the eyes of Latin Rite Catholics and the Holy See, the red-headed step children of the Church. …

Was the centrality and essential nature of Latin something handed down from Apostolic time? Or is it merely a matter of discipline? The answer is obvious…

Plus, one could be in absolute agreement with EVERY WORD you quoted of the Holy Father’s and still say they’d rather have the Mass in the vernacular or there might be benefits to the Mass in the vernacular.

---

I checked the original. Note that in (7) catholica Ecclesia (Catholic Church) and (8) lingua Latina, quam dicere catholicam----the “c” is not capitalized—but both mean Catholic. If Latin is truely Catholic—then moreso it says Catholic.

Yes the answer is obvious–

unavoce.org/veterumsapientia.htm
Venerable languages

The Church has ever held the literary evidences of this wisdom in the highest esteem. She values especially the Greek and Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold. She has likewise welcomed the use of other venerable languages, which flourished in the East. For these too have had no little influence on the progress of humanity and civilization. By their use in sacred liturgies and in versions of Holy Scripture, they have remained in force in certain regions even to the present day, bearing constant witness to the living voice of antiquity.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_j-xxiii_apc_19620222_veterum-sapientia_lt.html

1. Cum denique catholica Ecclesia, utpote a Christo Domino condita, inter omnes humanas societates longe dignitate praestet, profecto decet eam lingua uti non vulgari, sed nobilitatis et maiestatis plena.
2. Praetereaque lingua Latina, quam dicere catholicam vere possumus (10), utpote quae sit Apostolicae Sedis, omnium Ecclesiarum matris et magistrae, perpetuo usu consecrata, putanda est et thesaurus … incomparandae praestantiae (11), et quaedam quasi ianua, qua aditus omnibus patet ad ipsas christianas veritates antiquitus acceptas et ecclesiasticae doctrinae monumenta interpretanda (12); et vinculum denique peridoneum, quo praesens Ecclesiae aetas cum superioribus cumque futuris mirifice continetur.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

But why do you consider a Mass with Latin and a Mass that can be understood to be mutually exclusive? Why can’t you have much of the mass in Latin and still have understanding? You don’t need to know a whole language to understand a few pages of text. But again, what’s the point of an English speaking priest (or Spanish or Dutch) standing in front of an English speaking congregation (or Spanish or Dutch), addressing God in Latin (does HE need for it to be in Latin?) while the English speaking congregation (or Spanish or Dutch) follows along reading a translation of what their English (or Spanish or Dutch) speaking priest is saying in Latin into English (or Spanish or Dutch) out of their missals?

**I understand the need for a common language for large international gatherings, ie, papal masses, funerals, World Youth Day, etc., but for day in, day out use, it seems non-sensical to me. **

I understand and support vernacular for the changing parts of mass - but it seems bizarre to me that the Gloria, Our Father, and all those other unchanging parts of Mass will be impossible to understand in Latin when you hear and read them week after week and year after year for an entire lifetime. **Oh my, but I disagree, not about not be able to understand the Gloria and the Our Father in Latin (you’re right, use would eventually bring about a degree of understanding), but about WHY anyone would not want to say such sublime prayers (the latter the most sublime of prayers) regularly in a language not native to them, in a language in which they do not (generally) think and reason! That’s the point I would make: we think, reason, ponder, MAKE MEANING, in our own native tongue and that’s why it can be of great benefit to the faithful to have the Mass in a language they understand. **

I recall hearing that Muslims consider Arabic to be particularly holy since it was the language Mohammad used and presumably the one that God used when speaking to him. I’ve also heard that some of the power, poetry, and emotion of the Arabic is often lost in translations to other languages - particularly English, where the Koran can often times sound quite banal or even silly when translated (again, this is only what I’ve heard).

As to the argument posed in the last paragraph, YES, Mohammed used Arabic and supposedly God used it when speaking to him (you and I as Catholics don’t believe God told Mohammed anything at all), thus rendering Arabic “sacred.” If you’re going to make a parallel argument for Christianity, you would have to call for Aramaic or Hebrew as our sacred tongue. There is no evidence, not a single shred, that our Blessed Lord ever spoke Latin, though, being God, He certainly would have been able to do so. Latin is sacred because the Church has used it for sacred purposes, to convey sacred meaning, but it isn’t ontologically sacred, ie, it possesses no sacredness in and of itself, any more than it is ontologically vile because the Romans used it to write lewd messages on the walls of public toilets.

Language is intended to convey meaning.

 

[anamchara]

Call me backwards if you want to…and you don’t even have to apologize…I dont’ believe girls should serve on the altar…if that makes me backwards in your opinion…then I love being backwards…however, what you call backwards, I call proper. I am sorry…I don’t buy into this new age springtime mumbo jumbo…and I am not afraid to say it either. Face it…our Church has been over run by political correctness…just like everything else in this world…They want women to become priest…Homosexuals to be able to marry in the Church…girls to serve on the altar, etc…but that doesn’t make it right…and no matter how much you all try to argue for it…none of it is going to happen. Maybe it is the group arguing for a lost cause that is backwards…me and my friends…well, lets just say we are on the side of the magisterium.

I don’t know who you are and in one way was I calling anything you do or have done backwards. You misread my posts. I was having a conversation with netmil(name removed by moderator) and Karin about a past post from over a week ago on a completely different thread. My worship style was and has been mocked either directly or indirectly by snide and catty comments. And I reacted to this in that thread. Odd how I have yet to get an apology myself from anyone but that’s the way of the world.

If you read my post in this thread I make it very clear how I feel about traditionlist. I don’t have any issues with them. I can also tell you that I don’t spend time generalizing about them as many have done with me and you seem to be doing now. YOU do not know me, if you can’t take the time to PM someone and perhaps ask for clairfication about someones motivations or beliefs, instead this constant public flogging that so many seem to find sport in, then don’t you think it’s better to assume goodwill?

What makes you feel you are on the side of magisterium btw?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

I checked the original. Note that in (7) catholica Ecclesia (Catholic Church) and (8) lingua Latina, quam dicere catholicam----the “c” is not capitalized—but both mean Catholic. If Latin is truely Catholic—then moreso it says Catholic.

Yes the answer is obvious–

unavoce.org/veterumsapientia.htm
Venerable languages

The Church has ever held the literary evidences of this wisdom in the highest esteem. She values especially the Greek and Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold. She has likewise welcomed the use of other venerable languages, which flourished in the East. For these too have had no little influence on the progress of humanity and civilization. By their use in sacred liturgies and in versions of Holy Scripture, they have remained in force in certain regions even to the present day, bearing constant witness to the living voice of antiquity.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_j-xxiii_apc_19620222_veterum-sapientia_lt.html

1. Cum denique catholica Ecclesia, utpote a Christo Domino condita, inter omnes humanas societates longe dignitate praestet, profecto decet eam lingua uti non vulgari, sed nobilitatis et maiestatis plena.
2. Praetereaque lingua Latina, quam dicere catholicam vere possumus (10), utpote quae sit Apostolicae Sedis, omnium Ecclesiarum matris et magistrae, perpetuo usu consecrata, putanda est et thesaurus … incomparandae praestantiae (11), et quaedam quasi ianua, qua aditus omnibus patet ad ipsas christianas veritates antiquitus acceptas et ecclesiasticae doctrinae monumenta interpretanda (12); et vinculum denique peridoneum, quo praesens Ecclesiae aetas cum superioribus cumque futuris mirifice continetur.

Sorry, there is no evidence in what you posted that we must de fide believe 1) Latin is inherently sacred or 2) that we are de fide bound to believe we have to have Mass in Latin or that Mass SHOULD be in Latin or that it’s not okay to think that Mass in the vernacular is good and beneficial. If the Church said tomorrow that the Mass would go back to all Latin, it would only have a “negative” infallibility, ie, the Church cannot propose to the faithful any discipline that will lead them to impiety. If that happened, I would have to obey by going to Mass in Latin. I would still be free to believe all that I’ve already set forth.

Latin is not a part of the deposit of the faith, Latin is one of the languages USED to pass on that deposit of fate (thus, sacred by use, NOT by its nature). And I hate to break it to you, but “catholic” means universal. When it’s capitalized, it’s part of a title, ie. the Catholic Church (the universal Church). When it’s not, it’s just an adjective, ie. “his were catholic tastes,” which still means “universal.” The Holy Father was saying that Latin was catholic (universal), and I would respectfully suggest, were he alive, that that is no longer the case. He was not saying that Latin was Catholic (of its nature pertaining to the Catholic Church, though its primacy and importance in the Church are unquestioned).

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Bl. John XXIII believed Latin was important and stated so in his encyclical Veterum Sapientia.

I have included the link to the encyclical at the bottom of this post. Here are some excerpts:

*But amid this variety of languages a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West. *

And since in Gods special Providence this language united so many nations together under the authority of the Roman Empire— and that for so many centuries— it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See.3 Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe.

*Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all. *(emphasis mine)

*Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. **Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity”*4 makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression. (emphasis mine)

*Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, **“is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons.”**6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. **“For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time . . of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non vernacular.”*7 (emphasis mine)

*Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. **Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. ***(emphasis mine)

*Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular. *(emphasis mine)

*In addition, the **Latin language "can be called truly catholic."10 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed “a treasure . . . of incomparable worth.”**11. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching.12 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity. *(emphasis mine)

Latin was extremely important to Bl. John XXIII, the Pope who convened the Second Vatican Council.

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1160

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Bl John XXIII believed Latin was important and stated so in his encyclical Veterum Sapientia.

I have included the link to the encyclical at the bottom of this post. Here are some excerpts:

*But amid this variety of languages a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West. *

And since in Gods special Providence this language united so many nations together under the authority of the Roman Empire— and that for so many centuries— it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See.3 Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe.

Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all. (emphasis mine)

*Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. **Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity”***4 makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression. (emphasis mine)

*Thus the “knowledge and use of this language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, **“is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons.”***6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. **“For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time . . of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non vernacular.”**7 (emphasis mine)

Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. **Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. **(emphasis mine)

Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular. (emphasis mine)

*In addition, the **Latin language "can be called truly catholic."10 It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed “a treasure . . . of incomparable worth.”***11. It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church’s teaching.12 It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity. (emphasis mine)

Latin was extremely important to Bl John XXIII, the Pope who convened the Second Vatican Council.

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1160

Still a matter of discipline, not faith and morals. It’s USE for conveying sacred things is what makes it sacred. That does not preclude the use other languages for sacred purposes. Certainly, Latin is important, I would not say that it wasn’t any more than I would say that Greek or Hebrew were not important, but if the Church stopped using Latin tomorrow, She would still stand. She exists to save souls, not prepetuate Latin.