Why Latin?

[ALoveDivine]

I can honestly say that I wouldn’t have anywhere near the understanding of, or appreciation for, the mass if it were done exclusively in Latin. If I can’t understand it, that’s a huge problem for me. I’m a very conceptual person and I need to follow along and understand what is being said and what’s going on. I’m so glad I live post-Vatican II.

Latin doesn’t strike me as “mysterious”, “historical”, “sacred”, etc. I hear it as unintelligible gibberish. I’ve almost fallen asleep in a Latin mass before (sad to say I know) because I can’t understand ANYTHING being said. When I hear mass in English I’m engaged, I follow it, and I understand everything that’s being said and happening. It allows me to unite my heart to the prayers, the readings, etc. Thank God for mass in the vernacular. It’s amazing it took until the late 20th century for the Latin rite to begin this practice.

 

[RyanBlack]

No, I didn’t say that. I think I’m going to leave the thread as people seem to misread my posts. Or better yet, start another thread and slam English as the prime language of miscommunication.

Would you please clarify exactly what you were getting at in your question to me? Also, when Michael Mayo posted:

“Of course the Roman Rite has every reason to be in Latin. But no reason to force it on all peoples”

you responded with:

“When you’re sitting at Mass with ALL peoples of the world, or you don’t know who’s sitting out there, do you have any other suggestions? BTW, most of the EF is said silently so you’re not forced to hear much. You watch and pray contemplatively.”

Was there some confusion about the fact that Michael Mayo was making a distinction between the Roman Rite and the Eastern Churches, or is there some other point you’re getting at?