"Latin is not essential, and that's a point that needs to be recognized."
Why? To what other class of thing would we apply a "not essential" test?
How about dental anasthetics?
"They're not essential."
"But it's immensely better to use them than not."
"But they're not essential."
Where is that argument going?
Latin doesn't have to be "essential," whatever that might mean, before we can say that it's immensely better to use it than not.
Dsc, I don't think you're understanding where I'm coming from. I would be wholly in favor of suppressing the ICEL-butchered Novus Ordo entirely, and leaving the church in the U.S. with the Latin 1962 Missal and the Anglican Use only. I go to a Latin Mass every week. So no argument about the usefulness, and appropriateness of Latin--all I am saying is that rw's point about it not being *essential* is correct. He thinks we are *insisting* that a Mass has to be in Latin for it to be valid/spiritually beneficial, and I want to make it clear to him and every one else that that is *not at all* reflective of Catholic thinking.
I'm on the same page as you--I just don't like using sloppy reasons to get there, especially ones that scandalize well-meaning Protestant folks.