Uh, there's this thing called HISTORY. There is no evidence whatsoever that Christ or any Apostle spoke Latin to their various audiences (other than possibly under the influence of the "gift of tongues"). It comes from the use of REASON by way of EVIDENCE (you know, what the Church uses to make decisions).
"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."
And there was even more evidence of a GREEK liturgy before that, and an Aramaic one even earlier---so what.
"I certainly do not argue with you that the Liturgy has been in many different languages in the past."
GEE, WHAT AN ADMISSION. I'm glad you acknowledge at least SOME historical truth.
"Has anyone on this thread argued that point with you? Has anyone on this thread called for the use of Latin only?
I don't know if it's on this specific thread, and I'm certainly not going to check back through all the posts to see, but I've seen a whole lot of it in this specific forum.
"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.
So, once again you imply that the "Latin liturgy" and "Gregorian Chant" are somehow "special" and shouldn't have been displaced. Did it occur to you that all those changes were done with the approval of all levels of the Church heirarchy, and it is you "Latin purists" with your constant "bitching and moaning" that have been "giving scandal to the faithful" FOR YEARS??
You can't argue from a negative like that, there is no proof either way. If you foolishly think that we prefer Latin because we believe Jesus spoke in it you're wrong. The language Jesus spoke in has no bearing on this issue for us, if it does for you then your whole argument for English collapses because then we should have the liturgy in Greek or Aramaic. Your statement to the effect that Jesus never spoke Latin is in the place unprovable and in the second, a non sequitur to this issue.
And there was even more evidence of a GREEK liturgy before that, and an Aramaic one even earlier---so what.
And absolutely no evidence of an English liturgy! (just a little levity here). You are still under the delusion that we want only Latin and no other language. Even if we believe that Latin is best liturgical language (admittedly as somewhat subjective position) you cannot draw from that that we believe it should be the only one.
GEE, WHAT AN ADMISSION. I'm glad you acknowledge at least SOME historical truth.
More than you have thus far, you consistently lie, condescend and in every manner portray yourself as a child on this issue. In insisting we believe something we do not, you are merely trying to argue with us for argument sake. Your whole position is intellectually bankrupt. You claim to be a realist but I don't see it.
I don't know if it's on this specific thread, and I'm certainly not going to check back through all the posts to see, but I've seen a whole lot of it in this specific forum.
No evidence then. Why, because there is none. It is becoming axiomatic as far as I'm concerned that your “position” and “reality” are two foreign inteties. Pelayo's right, get thee to an exorcist.