1. Apostles didn't require it
2. Scripture doesn't record it
3. Cultures around the world don't speak Latin
4. It comes down to personal preference and what people grew up doing.
Better to be bound together by Christ - The Word of God.
We’re not Protestant.
What religion were the Apostles and their descendants following before the Church collected the 72 books of the Bible 300 years after the death of Jesus?
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass developed organically for over 1900 years before these modernists decided to make the Mass more Protestant-friendly. That has worked so well. By their fruits, you shall know them.
If all you have to contribute is anti-Catholic boilerplate...
To a Latin Mass Catholic those objections are laughable.
Hi, aMPU my friend.
My parish has Latin Mass just two Sundays a month. Singing with the choir, I find it moves me on so many levels, because of its reverence, majesty and tranquility.
Note to both Catholics and non-Catholics who may not know this: the text of the Tridentine Mass (one that was so many centuries-in-the-making, and finally adopted as the norm for the West at 16th century Trent) is a daisy-chain of Scripture all through: there's scarcely a word in it that's not Scripture.
That's why there's no dichotomy between being "bound together by Christ" (which is what I wish for ALL of us without exception) --- and the Latin Mass. It's not as if it were an either-or proposition.
Some Protestants may understand if I compare it to a preference for the KJV. It embodies a kingly dignity; so it appeals to a certain inner yearning to give God His own, in the most fitting form we can.
Blessings to all who read these words.