Replies

The Roman Liturgy is generally celebrated in Latin. The reason why a liturgical language began to be used and is still retained must be distinguished in liturgical science from certain theological or mystic considerations by which its use may be explained or justified. Each liturgical language was first chosen because it was the natural language of the people....
This diversity of tongues was by no means parallel to diversity of sect or religion. People who agreed entirely in faith, who were separated by no schism, nevertheless said their prayers in different languages...
In the West the whole situation is different. Greek was first used at Rome, too. About the third century the services were translated into the vulgar tongue, Latin...
It is a question how far one may speak of a special liturgical Latin language. The writers of our Collects, hymns, Prefaces, etc., wrote simply in the language of their time. The style of the various elements of the Mass and Divine Office varies greatly according to the time at which they were written. We have texts from the fourth or fifth to the twentieth century. Liturgical Latin then is simply late Christian Latin of various periods...

The principle of using Latin in church is in no way fundamental. It is a question of discipline that evolved differently in East and West, and may not be defended as either primitive or universal. The authority of the Church could change the liturgical language at any time without sacrificing any important principle. The idea of a universal tongue may seem attractive, but is contradicted by the fact that the Catholic Church uses eight or nine different liturgical languages. Latin preponderates as a result of the greater influence of the Roman patriarchate and its rite, caused by the spread of Western Europeans into new lands and the unhappy schism of so many Easterns (see Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 431). Uniformity of rite or liturgical language has never been a Catholic ideal, nor was Latin chosen deliberately as a sacred language. Had there been any such idea the language would have been Hebrew or Greek....

*Quotations from Adrian Fortescue's RITES Catholic Encyclopedia

It is our Triune God who protects Doctrinal certitude, not a particular language. Too many calling themselves traditionalists imagine the old liturgy in Latin a panacea. It is wrong-headed to imagine a return to an old rite will set right that which is wrong. What is wrong with the world is me, and thee. And all restorations begin with metanoia, repentance, penance,humility, and obedience. It doesn't begin with a demand others change

I know you would like to hijack this thread to attack traditional Catholics who you exclude from the "civilization of luv" you profess to be building, but I'm going to ignore your efforts to do that. Since you seemed to have missed it this is the point of the article:

"we prefer the ancient rite because it more accurately reflects the faith of the Church in the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice than the new liturgy, which instead emphasizes it as a communal banquet."

Now if you would like to make an argument that the NO more accurately reflects the faith of the Church I'd be most interested to hear how you think it does.