On the Latin Mass.

 What kind of a Mass do you prefer?   Do you prefer the Latin Mass or the Vernacular Mass?   Ever since the Mass was changed into English in the 1970's the debate has carried on.    There is little point today in going over the historical arguments of whether the Latin Mass should or should not have survived, today many enjoy the Mass they have in their own language and nothing will change that fact.    Yet hostility to either the English Mass or the Latin Mass survive.     As for myself I have never thought of language as important for in the early days in Rome most Masses were said in Greek until about 180AD when Latin became prominent.    Indeed throughout the East the Masses are still said in Greek, and should I say Jesus said the first Mass in Aramaic.      However I have a great problem with those who want to ban the Latin Mass.   While living in England I have no difficulty with the English Mass but when I go to France, since I do not speak French, I am completely lost, and that goes for the many countries throughout the world, so the vernacular benefits only the local Churches.     Again if ln English priest goes abroad without English pilgrims, how can he offer Mass in a local Church in the country he has visited?     The benefit of the Latin Mass is this.   The Church following the prophet Malachi 1.10 sees the Mass as one Sacrifice, so from earliest times it saw the Mass as one sacrifice in one language.   And throughout the world the stranger was able to join in the Mass in any country, and as I pointed out the priest was able to say the Mass to the people in the Latin Language.     

What I am arguing is not that the vernacular Mass should be abandoned, for I have benefited much from listening to the Mass in English, but that the Latin mass should not just be tolerated but encouraged.   If I go to Rome and visit a local parish, perhaps there would be a Latin Mass I could attend.    I am sure Christ is still sacrificed whatever language is used.