[Wonder Warthog]

"...it is about the tradition of the liturgy. There is a difference in appreciation from where we came rather than appreciation for the sake of being old."

Uh, I restate my point about Aramaic and Greek, which is "where we came from" even more so than Latin. The fixation on Latin is not supported by either the history of the Church, nor by Church doctrine. Use of the vernacular IS supported by the history of the Church.

[vox_freedom]

Uh, I restate my point about Aramaic and Greek, which is "where we came from" even more so than Latin. The fixation on Latin is not supported by either the history of the Church, nor by Church doctrine. Use of the vernacular IS supported by the history of the Church.

I give up. 1,500 years of continuous Latin liturgical use and traditions must be meaningless in the "history" of our Church. Oh, and that "official language" of the Church stuff is also irrelevant. The two Vatican councils (including Vatican II, as earlier pointed out) which gave primacy to Latin and its use in the Mass and in sacred music also don't matter. I give up.