Y'know, you really ought to read all the posts in the thread before mouthing off. If you did, you would know that my position is (and always has been) that any parish that wants it should be allowed to have the Latin Mass as ONE OPTION along WITH the vernacular Mass.
But, the REAL position of you Latin purists is that you want to eventually drive out all liturgies other than Latin, and go back to the pre-Vatican II condition.
I also disagree emphatically with the ridiculous assertion that keeps being made that Latin is somehow "special" (more reverent, more melodious, better body odor, shinier teeth, you name it).
At the risk of upsetting the moderator I will ask you again, as I asked in post 262 to direct me to a post that states this intention on this thread. I have certainly never said it is what I want.
You will note that I did not, in fact claim, that that was not your "professed" opinion. It is, however, I believe not your real opinion. That was my point. Your real opinion must be that Latin and us latinists are bad. Further I'll tell you why I believe that is your real opinion. I believe it is your real opinion, weather you admit it even to yourself or not, because nothing else explains your attitude. If you really believed that, as you say "the REAL position of [us] Latin purists is that [we] want to eventually drive out all liturgies other than Latin, and go back to the pre-Vatican II condition," you would be a fool. As it is I'm merely accusing you of being a lier.
Please note that in this I'm giving you as a self-professed "rationalist" the benefit of the doubt. Some people, especially those who pride themselves on being "realists" and disdaining all that "foolish sentimentality" are usually less offended by the accusation of dishonesty- since after all, the "realist" can always say that dishonesty has its place in debate- then they are offended by the accusation of being a fool.
So assuming that you are not a fool, which you would be if you actually believed that we want to eliminate all liturgies other than the Latin rite, I will call you a lier. For nothing else explains your continued insistence on arguing with us. If we are trying to establish universal latinity, we would be fools, and you would have no logical reason to argue with us. You would be arguing with fools.
However that is not what we wish, and you know it. For example, do you think we "traditionalists" want to do away with the Greek Rite? You would be a fool to think so.
Thus your attitude MUST be based on something other than fear of us Latinists. I submit that, based upon you continued argumentativeness, and your infantile tone, you are in fact against us Latinists on a more basic, anti-traditionalist, level. To claim otherwise is to claim either that you have been arguing with people you believe to be fools, which begs the question “why waist your time?”. Or else, you would be a fool yourself to actually believe, in the face of all ACTUAL reality, that we want to establish a mono-rite Church with no other language than Latin.