Did it occur to you that it just "might" have been because I found the Church's DOCTRINES to be true, as attested by history and reason??? The use of Latin is a tradition, not a doctrine.
"The language of the liturgy DOES matter! “Lex orandi, lex credendi.” “The law of prayer is the law of creed,” or “how we pray affects how we believe.” As has been pointed out many times before, the use of “casual” English in the Mass has resulted in many Catholics not even believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Why would they believe Christ is Truly Present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, when the Priest and Mass are so irreverent? I'm not talking about the use of the vernacular for the Readings or Homily, but for the Canon of the Mass."
I can only say "malarkey" again. The "law of prayer is the law of creed" means that the liturgy should be true to the DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH. The language used (Latin, English, Croation, or Chinese) has nothing to do with the point (or with Catholics are failing to believe in the "Real Presence"--which is a failure of catechesis--not use of English).
"And another thing, the Early Church was part of the Roman Empire for several hundred years. Latin was the language of the Empire and everyone had to know it. You keep talking about history (post 106), but the history of the Roman Empire is that they forced their language, government, and customs on all the people that they conquered because that was their way of uniting everyone into the Empire.
No, actually they didn't. Aramaic was spoken in Judea, Greek elsewhere. And in fact, Greek was the language of choice for the more "sophisticated" Romans--just as French was the language of choice for "sophisticated" Russians. Latin was the language of law and in some areas, of commerce, and not much else. The native languages remained in place and continued to be used. Most folks did NOT speak Latin--only the "more educated" classes.
"In short, you have provided no sources for your claim and I don't believe it."
What claim?? You mean the claim that Latin was the third language of the Church?? Church history (and general history of the period) are my sources.
"You have belligerently argued and called people's posts “malarkey,” “balderdash,” “ridiculous,” and "bah-loney" even when they are quoting documents of the Church, while failing to provide any kind of source for your argument.
I calls'em as I sees'em. If a claim is ridiculous, I say so. I tend to assume that most folks here know basic history of the period of the Gospels. You obviously do not.
"But the more important question, which I will ask again, is: Why did you convert if you don't believe what the Church teaches?"
See point 1) above.
I stand by my assertion that you don't believe what the Church teaches. As has been stated before, Vatican II, as well as John Paul II, decreed that Latin **is** the language of the Church. There is a reason for it and it is not your place to argue. When you were confirmed you made a vow to believe what the Church teaches, and you obviously don't. If you want to privately think that this teaching is "balderdash," that is up to you and the Lord. But to publicly express your opinion, after vowing to uphold the Church's teachings, is just plain wrong. You are causing scandal to the faithful.