Trent was a reaction against a growing Protestant threat. And the "anathema" regarding same is meaningless, as the language of the Mass is not a matter of faith and morals, and thus not an infallible teaching of the Church.
And I'm talking about HISTORY, not the "Council of Trent". The use of the vernacular by the early Church is a matter of historical record.
"And by the way, the arguments for the TLM are not only about the language, the TLM is different than the NO, the NO is not the TLM in the vernacular."
I'm well aware of that. Sure, the language of the NO is trite, ugly, and badly done. But it IS possible to have all of that fixed---IN ENGLISH. That is NOT an adequate argument for a return to "all Latin, all the time".
Trent was an infallible council. The Protestantization of the mass and the faith today is partly due to the general disregard for this "meaningless" anathema as you call it.
To quote the source in my first link to you, which you seem to have chosen to ignore, a quote by Dom Prosper Gueranger:
""Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome. They recognize it as the bond among Catholics throughout the universe, as the arsenal of orthodoxy against all the subtleties of the sectarian spirit. . . . The spirit of rebellion which drives them to confide the universal prayer to the idiom of each people, of each province, of each century, has for the rest produced its fruits, and the reformed themselves constantly perceive that the Catholic people, in spite of their Latin prayers, relish better and accomplish with more zeal the duties of the cult than most do the Protestant people. At every hour of the day, divine worship takes place in Catholic churches. The faithful Catholic, who assists, leaves his mother tongue at the door. Apart form the sermons, he hears nothing but mysterious words which, even so, are not heard in the most solemn moment of the Canon of the Mass. Nevertheless, this mystery charms him in such a way that he is not jealous of the lot of the Protestant, even though the ear of the latter doesn't hear a single sound without perceiving its meaning .… . . . We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in ever destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated, from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one's work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. . . ."
very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one's work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. . . .
Just chilling how prophetic these words turned out to be:
Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church since Vatican II
Here's some history for you, the three languages used in the TLM are Latin, Hebrew and Greek, the same three languages used on the Cross. (Which of course is what The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is...the Sacrifice on the Cross.
"I'm well aware of that. Sure, the language of the NO is trite, ugly, and badly done. But it IS possible to have all of that fixed---IN ENGLISH. That is NOT an adequate argument for a return to "all Latin, all the time".
That one thing may not be adequate, but there are many other reasons which, taken together, do add up to adequacy.
Nothing unites like language. The power inherent in Latin scholarship around the world is incalculable.
I have described my conviction that it is impossible to retain reverence and worship without their traditional forms. Of course there will always be people who are so filled with grace that they can pray even when the means of prayer have been ripped from their hands. Many people, too, concerned about these issues, will ask, "Isn't it still possible to celebrate the new liturgy of Pope Paul VI worthily and reverently?" Naturally it is possible, but the very fact that it is possible is the weightiest argument against the new liturgy.(Emphasis supplied.) How odd that I hear proponents of the Novus Ordo point out that 'it's a valid Mass', the equivalent to pointing out that 'it meets the Sunday obligation'.
...
Perhaps the greatest damage done by Pope Paul VI's reform of the Mass (and by the ongoing process that has outstripped it), the greatest spiritual deficit, is this: we are now positively obliged to talk about the liturgy. ... Those of us who are defenders of the great and sacred liturgy, the classical Roman liturgy, have all become -- whether in a small way or a big way -- liturgical experts. In order to counter the arguments of the reform, which was padded with technical, archaeological, and historical scholarship, we had to delve into questions of worship and liturgy -- something that is utterly foreign to the religious man. We have let ourselves be led into a kind of scholastic and juridical way of considering the liturgy. What is absolutely indispensable for genuine liturgy? When are the celebrant's whims tolerable, and when do they become unacceptable? We have got used to accepting liturgy on the basis of the minimum requirements, whereas the criteria ought to be maximal. And finally, we have started to evaluate liturgy -- a monstrous act! We sit in the pews and ask ourselves, was that Holy Mass, or wasn't it? I go to church to see God and come away like a theatre critic.