I think the "Latin purists" would reverse the Vatican II reforms in a heartbeat if given the opportunity.
And the reason I keep arguing about Latin is that the "Latin purists" keep making irrational statements about Latin--to wit: "Latin is more reverent", "Latin is more melodious", "Latin is sacred"---all of which are malarkey. Latin is just another language. There is nothing "special" about it. Jesus Christ never spoke Latin. No Apostle ever performed a Mass in Latin. There is no reason whatsover that Latin should be the preferred language for the liturgy other than sheer sentimentality.
I agree with the Vatican II reformers that performing the Mass in the vernacular helps in understanding and deepens the faith. I also agree with the traditionalists that the specific translation and language used in the Novus Ordo liturgy is badly done---but that's fixable.
A ridiculous statement, how would you know if Jesus ever spoke Latin or not. As for the Apostles who knows how much Latin was or wasn't in any of St. Peter's sermons in Rome, no one really knows. We have some indications in the Apostolic Constitution that there was a Latin liturgy of some kind as early as the 2nd century and Tertullian speaks of a Latin Liturgy in the early part of the 3rd century. I certainly do not argue with you that the Liturgy has been in many different languages in the past. Has anyone on this thread argued that point with you? Has anyone on this thread called for the use of Latin only? What does it mater what the "Latin purists" as you call us would do in heartbeat? We can't reverse anything only the Vatican can do that. I could just as easily say the Liturgical Reformers would erase all traces of the Latin Liturgy and Gregorian Chant from the face of the earth in a heartbeat if given the opportunity? Oh...wait, they were given the opportunity or more accurately, they seized the opportunity and almost suceeded.
Then you fall into the other category, not the lier that is. Vatican II specifically states that Latin should be given pride of place. If anything we wish to see that injunction adhered to. In the larger sense we also wish to undo the abuses done in the name of Vatican II, because as it stands now the Latin liturgy is a prettier form than the English one. You may disagree, but there is no "objective" grounds to.
And the reason I keep arguing about Latin is that the "Latin purists" keep making irrational statements about Latin--to wit: "Latin is more reverent", "Latin is more melodious", "Latin is sacred"---all of which are malarkey.
Why should such sentiment bother you unless you had a personal animus against the use of Latin. No, your argument doesn't make sense otherwise. Why be so snotty to us unless you really believed Latin to be inferior. Perhaps your problem is that you are, because of either aesthetic atrophy or cultural myopia, not capable of understanding that there are people, who with every right to the opinion, prefer Latin.
If we feel that Latin is better, of what concern of yours is it? You can't claim that we are wrong. You'd never be able to win that argument. You might as well say we're wrong for filling our observances with 'outdated' pious ritual. Your argument, and especially your tone, are akin to that.
Your continued determination to argue with us latinists, and your arrogance in proclaiming us 'sentimental romantics' has a diabolical character to it. I am serious, I say this as a warning. St. Michel protect us. .