Everybody knows that Latin wasn't the original language of the Mass. The Aramaic fell by the wayside quickly as Christianity spread, and Greek took over. But by 250 A.D. Latin was the Church's primary tongue.
So you've got basically 800 years of a Latin tradition, which is significant. It's not "just another language" - it has been the Church's language, and of course it was the universal language of scholars for a good 500 years, and the parent tongue of most of the languages in the West.
That is a substantial tradition.
And that time period is long dead---time to bury it. The notion that Latin is somehow "special" is simply ridiculous. The retention of Latin was a convenience for the church heirarchy--nothing more. It saved on translation needs, because everyone in the heirarchy was required to know Latin. It is needed no longer.
"Everybody knows that Latin wasn't the original language of the Mass. The Aramaic fell by the wayside quickly as Christianity spread, and Greek took over. But by 250 A.D. Latin was the Church's primary tongue."
Who's tradition? For the eastern Christians (Orthodox and Catholic) the traditional language was certainly not latin. I happen prefer the 'other' substantial tradition that says Divine Liturgy should be celebrated in the vernacular. And chanted.