For example, in america we speak english, so why would anyone need to know latin. what is latin good for. How can you expect to save people, if they don’t know what you’re talking about.
First today there is such a thing as the “Novus Ordo Mass” in that Mass the language used is the native tongue of the people. Which means if you speak English you can go to a Mass in English, if you speak Spanish you then can go to a Mass in Spanish etc. Then we have the “Traditional” Mass, which is a Mass said in Latin.
Honestly, I go to a Novus Ordo Mass in English, however if I travel and go to places where English is the NOT the native language then I try to find a “Traditional” Mass. The Traditional Mass is said in Latin. This is because I know what is going to be said and what to say in response. The “only” Latin the avg. lay Catholic needed to know is the Latin phrases that are said during Mass. The teachers/parents would teach the kids. What to say and what it meant.
How do you know English? How do you know what this word means or that word means? How do you learn English? How do babies in France learn French? How do babies in Germany lean German? They were taught! The same is true with Latin. You may not know any now, but it can be taught and you can learn. I learned the stuff for the Mass at home, however I learned more Latin at my public high school then at home. I took Latin for my Language class.
The point of using Latin in the Mass was so that it would be universal no matter where the Catholic went. An American could go China and go to Mass and still know what was being said. A German could go to American and go to Mass and still know what was being said…. this was because the language used was the same as at home “Latin”.
Sadly, that is not really the case now, seeing everyone uses his or her own native tongue. However, sometimes one is lucky to find a “traditional Mass”.
That to me is one of the beauties of the Catholicism. I can go to Mass anywhere in the world and it will be the same as if I was home. (Although it’s getting harder and harder for that to be true today)
Now I want to point out some quotes from you that seem to a conflict. First you write:
All you need is in the bible. Its all there. its complete.
Then you write:
Your scriptures aren’t enough proof to me. Someone else was quoting scriptures from revelations and if was going to trust anything it would be that, but revelations is to hard for me to understand right now. I haven’t had a chance to study it that well yet. I need better proof.
The first statement is all you need is the Bible and nothing more then the Bible.
The Second statement is that you need the Bible, but you need more then just the Bible. You need the Bible and a “valid” interpretation.
So which is? Is it the Bible and the Bible only?
Of is it the Bible and a valid interpretation?
Whose interpretation? What makes an interpretation valid? What happens if person A said it means this and person B said it means this? Who is right? Is it person A? Is it person B? How do you know?