SJB wrote:
And your point is what, icterus?
As usual, your reading skills appear to be lacking.
The pithy comment "The Latin Mass has been trending for 2,000 years" (or something close to it) was made (which I think is pretty cute) and I simply corrected it to 'about 1,700'. The other posted asked me to clarify, and we have been discussing.
That's all. It's a side topic in a discussion about Pope Francis. I can see how a topic within a topic would probably blow all of your mental fuses.
It is true that the Church does not say that the Mass has to be celebrated everywhere in Latin. She has had any number of valid Masses in the vernacular: Slavonic (Glagolitic), Ukrainian, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic etc. Even though the Mass is celebrated in many places in the vernacular, the vernacular is NOT the norm. The norm is established by the Church. And the Roman Church decided long before Trent that the language of the rite in the churches in the territories specifically belonging to the Patriarch of the West (the Roman Pontiff) was not the vernacular but Latin.
Yeah. I know. Again, you need to work on your reading comprehension..your typing skills are obviously fine.
Deviation from this in a widespread manner is a novelty, not a return to antiquity, as some will have us believe.
SJB, you have your cranium so far in your own duodenum that you aren't following any of the discussions taking place. I'm not arguing for the vernacular. As you and the rest of the slack-jawed idiots seem eternally destined to keep forgetting, I'm a TLM'er.
Apparently, calling for honest argumentation that has rigor is far too complicated and nuanced a position for you to understand, and when your fuses blow, all you can come back to us 'Ugh, Icterus Bad. Icterus bad so he must like the Novus Ordo. Novus Ordo Bad! Icterus Bad! Icterus bad heretic!" and so forth.