I don't know what has gotten into you revisionists. Jesus spoke Latin at the Last Supper. He and the apostles sang Gregorian chant with Solesmes editorial markings and read from the lectionary of Trent - he was God and could see into the future. They were waited on by women in mantillas and skirts to their ankles wearing large rosaries around their waists.

The Roman Rite waffled a bit on languages in the earlier centuries.

So what? You're proposing that 300 years (or so) of local lingo should be prioritized over 1500+ years of Latin? Really? We all know that Latin is not subject to meaning-shift, as are vernaculars. So there *just may be* a case for it.

Probably more a case of sacred inertia than being organically developmental in any sense.

Got cite?

Hebrew had become more of a language used by the temple cult, not the everyday people.

THAT is the point. Hierarchic language, along with 'sacred time, sacred space, and sacred music' is the sine qua non of liturgy, rightly understood.

@Christ

Archaeologism has been condemned by the Church.

You're the one who brought up the Last Supper and the inscription on the Cross as evidence that God wants us to use Latin.

The same Church that condemned archaelogism, endorsed the vernacular. Condemnation of archaelogism is not a condemnation of development, even a development to restore prior practices. Vernacular liturgy was seen as a positive development in its own right, not because Jesus used it.

"in asserting that God wants us to worship Him in our own language (evil)."

Only if the assertion is specifically that God wants that to the express exclusion of Hebrew, Latin or Greek.....

Here's a thought: the Protestant notion of church on Sunday is very preacher oriented and the purpose of the service is only to hear the Word of God and listen to the pastors message. The Catholic notion (or at least is used to be this way) is more akin to the old Jewish idea of going to Temple: you come to church to pray and worship. Yes, you're going to hear the Word, but that's not it: there's also going to be a sacrifice, the words to whose ritual you do not have to understand to know that a sacrifice is taking place. So while youre praying and offering yourself to God, recalling your sins and asking Him for help, the priest is offering a sacrifice. From the Protestant notion, one can easily see how any language other than one easily understood by the common person would not be suitable: the whole idea is that you are going to listen and understand the Word and preaching. For them, I would imagine, when they are told that Mass was done entirely in Latin, they immediately conjur up images of their own Sunday services complete with preacher speaking a language they don't understand and trying to get the message out of it. My very Baptist mother in law reminded me that most Protestants don't understand that the Mass is a sacrifice and that its not all about the Word. However, from the Catholic notion of coming to the Temple, the Liturgy must necessarily contain aspects that remain solely in the realm of the ordained, who is called by God to perform the special function (which all else is forbidden to perform) of offering the true sacrifice of Christ on the altar. I am not sure that the "active participation" of the laity in that sacrifice makes anything better, even for the laity who now have an increased role. There is a prayer I recently learned and I have been reciting it like a litany ever since: "O Lord Jesus, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." This is a perfect summation of worship: we acknowledge who God is, and then we acknowledge that we are nothing without Him, and furthermore we acknowledge His power to save us and deliver us from the evils that torment us in our lives, and even further, we ask Him to do exactly that. In this short, poignant prayer, we run to the Lord in our time in of need, and also acknowledge Him for who He is. The Lord's Prayer does this also. Perfect examples of anthropocentric church services vs theocentric.

Thanks so much for this, and for mentioning the Jesus prayer. I just read somewhere the other day that the Kyrie was based on the plea of the ten lepers as Jesus passes by: Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me, a sinner. I like to say the Divine Mercy prayer during The Offertory and Canon of the Mass: "Eternal Father, I offer You the body, blood, soul and divinity in atonement for my sins and those of the whole world."

Liam
If Christ is truly present at each and every (valid) Mass, how can we say that one type of Mass is better than another (Minimalism above comment). Is a Papal Mass with thousands of people present 'better' than a private low Mass with just the priest present? Revelations to the Saints have implied that some saints / actions are more pleasing to God than others, the low Mass said by a saintly priest may be more pleasing, even though all valid Masses are equal.

Also the gathered Body of Christ will also contain the Church Triumphant...

The laws on indulgences imply that 20 Low Masses for the Holy Souls should be better than 1 concelebrated Sung Mass.

By focusing on the Word aspect we run the risk that poorly attended Masses are not as good. My parish has recently stopped one of the Sunday Masses (N.O.), the reason, Visiting supply priests were not happy to travel to celebrate Mass for less than 40 people!

Liam,
Yes I did not think you really meant this. I wanted demonstrate that a happy medium is needed as going to far the other way causes other problems.

In the debate about whether or not the first Pontifical High Mass (the Last Supper) offered by Our Lord was chanted in Hebrew or Aramaic, I only have this to offer: the Maronites originally come from the Holy Land. They were "the original Christians" says Fr. James Meagher in his book, "How Christ said the First Mass". They were forced to flee to the mountains of Lebanon because of several persecutions. They always chant the Consecration at Mass in Aramaic, which is the language Jesus spoke. Their Liturgy is one of the oldest in the Church. It predates the Roman rite. So I think that it is reasonable to conclude that at least the Consecration was offered in Aramaic from the beginning.

Inspired by Liam: The sacramental theology books of the 1950s are filled with references to St. Thomas and Trent, but also to the prayers in the rites of conferring the sacraments. That is a good thing, and I would argue that the fullness can really only come out with the external signs of the usus antiquior. I’m convinced even the more streamlined liturgy of 1964 (of the constitution) and of 1965 (Inter oecumenici) is less edifying. Now those books are worthless as far as the ritual comments go because it all changed.

Shouldn't "celaverunt" be "celauerunt" (it sort of jumped out at me)?