[gemoftheocean]

Geez, then I guess all those catholics in the first few hundred years who did the liturgy in Greek were doing it all wrong too. Did it ever cross your mind that the change was made from Greek to Latin simply because Latin was the vulgar language of the people and that fewer and fewer understood Greek? Sheesh....to listen to some of you talk, I feel like I am broadcasting a "newsflash" to some of you.

[ultima ratio]

As a matter of fact, we don't really know if the first Masses in Rome were in Greek as you say. There is some evidence they were always in Latin. Excavations in Rome and Pompeii of ancient altars with Latin inscriptions have called this assumption this assumption into question.

But even if you were correct, there is a reason for much of what had evolved over the ages. The further removed we get from apostolic times, the more we have need of whatever furthers a sense of the sacred. The need is particularly acute in a modern age in which we are bombarded daily with noisy messages in the vernacular.

The great religions, moreover, have always reserved a language for speaking to God alone. Latin, like Hebrew for the Jews, or ancient Arabic for the muslims, serves this lofty purpose, in addition to its unifying all Catholics liturgically. It has the added benefit of being fixed in its meanings--so that there cannot be a semantic erosion over time.

Finally, my argument is not for the Latin alone. Latin is not enough. The Novus Ordo in Latin would still be deficient and Protestant in its theological underpinnings, rather than truly Catholic. It would still play down the dogmas of Transubstantiation and Propitiation, whatever language is used. It would therefore still be a danger to most Catholics.