Because Latin is the "native language" of the Church, and all original documents are issued in Latin. This is different from the language USED in the execution of the Mass, which is the vernacular language of the different nations. That's the way the system works. The problem (disconnect) occurred "in translation" between step 1) and step 2).
"I am not causing scandal. I am upholding the teachings of the Church and of the Holy Father. You are not."
If you are advocating a return to the "traditional Latin mass" then you are NOT "upholding the teachings of the Church and of the Holy Father", and are thereby causing scandal. My position throughout this thread (and other threads on the same subject) is that BOTH the Latin Mass and a vernacular Mass should be available (which is in exact accordance with Church teachings, both in letter and in spirit). I know what the Church's teachings are. You, apparently know as little about the Church's actual teachings as you do about the history of the first centuries of the Church.
May I remind you of what you have written:
“And that time period is long dead---time to bury it. The notion that Latin is somehow "special" is simply ridiculous. The retention of Latin was a convenience for the church heirarchy--nothing more. It saved on translation needs, because everyone in the heirarchy was required to know Latin. It is needed no longer.” Post 70
“I simply don't understand this gigantic fixation on Latin. The Church switched to Latin from Greek for the very practical reason that it was the most widely spoken language in the "known world". And it retained the use of Latin because of it's conservative nature and the practical advantages for translation among the church hierarchy. In today's world, the language that fills both of those critera is ENGLISH.” Post 75
“Yes. The notion that a Pope can bind the church to a specific liturgical device for all history is simply ridiculous. The language of liturgical celebration is NOT a "matter of faith and morals", and can be changed at any time (as it WAS changed MANY times). In the early church ALL masses were "in the vernacular". Why not stick to REAL historic practice instead of the phoney one of "all Latin, all the time"??” Post 84
“Latin was used for a long time---so what!! I say again--there is NOTHING SPECIAL about Latin. It's just another (dead) language.” Post 90
“I'm not opposed to a Latin mass--AS AN OPTION. If any parish wants to have a Latin mass as well as a Novus Ordo mass, then more power to them. But there is NOTHING MAGIC, special, or anything else about Latin. It's a historical language, used for a long time, and now dead.” Post 94
“The idea of "all Latin, all the time" is simply not supported by the history of the Church.” Post 160
“More "magick Latin" malarkey.” Post 162
I, as well as others, have pointed out to you that according to Vatican II and the Holy Father, LATIN IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE CHURCH – and has been for a very long time, whether it be the TLM or the Novus Ordo, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. The Holy Father has celebrated the Novus Ordo in Latin several times, and it (including all four versions of the Eucharistic Prayer) can be found in Latin along with ICEL translation in "The Adoremus Hymnal."
Your comments on this thread have been very rude to individual posters and very high-handed and arrogant with regard to facts, which have been pointed out to be in error. Would it possible for you manage to have a civil discussion without being so rude?
Please direct me to the post where you were told this would not be the case.