This is not the case, really. English is the dominant language throughout the entire world.
Not the extent and manner that Latin was ( In any case, you aren’t arguing for English to become the language of the Church or liturgy - so I won’t spend any time on this.
Either Pope Hadrian II or John VIII wrote, at the time that Sts. Cyril and Methodius rec. permission to translate the liturgy into Slavonic, that all tongues were created by God to give him praise.
This is all very true - in the end though this had the effect of creating an entirely different rite. For some Orthodox Churches - Slavonic is there equivalent to our Latin.
My point being, Slavonic unifies the liturgy for the Slavs - it serves to unite the Church for them.
Also, lets not forget that the Slavs live in Eastern Europe … this is outside the domain of the Western Church - there’s a reason why they have the Byzantine liturgy rather than the Roman liturgy. We are discussing Latin as the dominant language for the Roman liturgy - nothing else.
And Yes. of course all tongues should worship God - Yet at the same time it is more beneficial for the Church to have Latin as a universal language. Unity is a very important aspect to a Church that is big as ours. As I said before - ONE, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Unity is a big factor, it is one of the marks of the Church - thus why not aid the Church with a unifying language.
Because there are benefits to people being able to understand the Mass in the language in which they think and reason. And we aren’t talking about using common, street language. I don’t think there is anything vulgar about the English of Shakespeare, Donne, Tolkien, Lewis, etc.
Vulgar as in the common language - the language of our schoolyards, businesses, homes etc. It does us a great service to put aside a language for liturgy - to have a language associated with higher learning/prayer helps us to get into a prayerful mindset.
I know that I only associate Latin with the Church - and so when I use it or hear it - it actually assists me in my devoution because the only thoughts have with that lanugage are those that are used for devoution.
No one has ever answered this adequately: Does GOD need it to be in Lain? If He does, where has He indicated this? As it is, it seems an odd disconnect to me (still) to have a priest that speaks the native tongue of his congregation standing before that congregation and addressing God in a foreign tongue while the congregation follows along with a translation of what he’s saying into their native tongue.
God does not need it to be in Latin. If He did every single vernacular NO liturgy I’ve gone to has be invalid - which is NOT the case. For me this isn’t the argument, the liturgy can change - I just think that it shouldn’t.
Now, you seem to focus on understanding - we both know that you can still understand and follow the liturgy via translations.Yes, it does make following along more difficult BUT it is worth taking the effort because of all the benefits that Latin has.
Using translations is a minor setback compared to all the benefits that Latin gives us.
Why? Because Latin is a dead language and more precise and any translation would be a corruption? I don’t see how that is helpful, UNLESS God needs it to be in Latin, because the laity are STILL going to get a corrupt translation (if translations are, by their nature, corrupt).
I firmly believe that Mass in the vernacular will well-serve the faithful.
And I firmly believe otherwise.
Now, I did not say that any translation would be a corruption. If that were the case, I wouldn’t be looking at the right side of my missal which has the English translation.
It is helpful however, by providing a standard. As any living language progresses in time, its vocabulary aquires new words, and previous words have altered meanings, grammar often changes as well. Latin counters this problem by acting as a sort of standard - No matter how our living languages change, we can always go back to the Latin to see the exact meaning of a text - we can even compare Latin to english in all its stages because Latin texts have been translated into every form of English past or modern.
We are all aware that our current translation of the NO mass could use a bit of cleaning up. How do we even know this? because we have the Latin! Without the Latin, we would have no standard to compare this too, and may be unaware of the problem.
Anyway, if you haven’t already, I suggest you read Veterum Sapientia. Pope John XXIII (the same pope who started VAT II), was calling for a revitalization of this language! Why aren’t we fulfilling this calling? He also explains why Latin is superior. I refer you to his arguments - I sincerely think that you will have a hard time countering his overall argument.
** The dramatic histrionics in which you engage are very easily seen through. It is, again, simply an example of a McCarthy mindset. You think if you say something enough times, it will be true Well, That is funny because if anyone takes a look at your 1000000000+ posts they can determine how redundant you have been. .