Dear Kevin:

There are many problems expressed by the fanatical ultra-traditionalist. Insisting that the Mass must be in Latin, as if Latin is God's own language is one of their "silly-isms." The original language of the Mass was probably Aramaic and certainly Greek. Later Latin became the official language of the Mass and of the Church because by the 4th and 5th centuries Latin was the language of scholarship. It was, of sorts, the universal language much like English is today. Latin is my preference, but English is just fine.

Jerome's translation of the Bible into Latin was really the first "Bible for the people." Since Greek had fallen into disuse, and Latin the predominate language of those who read, Latin was, in effect, the "language of the people."

The Church has always been sensitive to bringing the Gospel to the average person. When most were illiterate the Church created or commissioned great works of art to be, in essence, a "picture-book" to teach the faith to those who could not read.  Later the Church began to translate the Bible into other languages to make it more accessible to the people. The first English translations were by the Catholic Church, not the Protestants, around the 9th century. The Douay-Rheims Bible was published BEFORE the King James.

The Church, being sensitive to the people understanding the faith, properly allowed the vernacular in the Mass. The problem was not allowing the vernacular. The problem was the vernacular becoming the norm and Latin falling into almost total disuse. Vatican II did NOT intend this. The lack of the current Mass said in Latin is the fault of the Bishops in their dioceses, not Vatican II.

Latin is STILL the official language of the Mass--the current "Vatican II" Mass, not just the Tridentine Mass.

Latin, by the way, is the best choice as an official language of the Church precisely because it is a "dead language." Languages evolve. If we read a Bible in English from the 17th century, we could bearing understand it. That is how much the English language as evolved. As a language no longer in cultural use, Latin no longer evolves therefore it can be the ROCK we can rely upon. The problem then is translating the Latin into the language of our generation (which is why the Bible translation is update about every fifty years or so). But the Latin remains trustworthy and rock solid.

Anyway, one of the primary problems of these ultra-traditionalists is their lack of ability to distinguish form from substance.

For example, I had one ultra-traditionalists tell me that the "new" Mass was invalid because in the words of consecration the word "cup" is used instead of "chalice." I could only smile. Earth to ultra-traditionalist, Earth to ultra-traditionalist, a chalice IS A CUP.

Because the form changed (the use of the word cup instead of chalice) does not mean that the substance changed (that we are talking about a vessel containing the Blood).

It is downright silly, not to mention ignorant, to argue the current Mass is invalid because of the word "cup."

"A rose by any other name is still a rose" is a great cliche to illustrate the issue of form vs. substance.

Another example of ultra-traditionalist errors is that they seem to think their interpretation of Church documents outranks the interpretation of the Church herself. This thinking that their opinions are of higher rank than the Holy See, ironically, makes them liberals. A Religious Liberal is a person who thinks their ideas outrank the Holy See and who thus acts contrary in thought or deed to the teaching of the Holy See on some point. That makes the ultra-traditionalist LIBERAL. Of course, that drives them nuts, but they are just the opposite side of the same coin of the so-called "liberals" in the Church thinking they can create their own definition of orthodoxy.

I could go on, but this subject tires me. The bottomline is that if we wish to know what is or is not the proper interpretation of Church teaching, we DO NOT rely upon rebellious or obstinate people, but upon the Holy See.

The problem of the Ultra-traditionalist is that they have lost their faith. They do not believe Jesus when he said the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. They have no faith in the Magisterium (unless, of course, the Magisterium agrees with THEM on some point.). That is arrogance and childishness.

One last example and then I will quit with this, is the contorted delusional thinking of ultra-traditionalist in interpreting anything the Pope does as wrong, without even trying to understand the reason he did what he did whatever he did (e.g. kissing the Qur'an)-- they jump to conclusions, which, by the way, is the grave sin of "rash judgment. They interpret things as infallible things that are not even eligible for infallibility (such as the Tridentine Mass), take statements out of context, quote cardinals who criticized Vatican II but conveniently not tell you that the same cardinal may have changed his mind (as if the opinion of an individual cardinal means squat against the official decision of the Holy See anyway). And the big silliness of accusing the Church of duplicity with the Protestants because Protestant observers were at Vatican II. Sheesh, there were also Anglican, Orthodox, and other faith groups observing at Vatican II. So what? Observers DO NOT LEGISLATE.

The cute fact is the the Pope invited Protestants to observe at the beloved Council of Trent. emm, maybe we should suspect the Council of Trent too. :) such stupidity.

These people suffer from the religious version of the compulsive/obsessive personality disorder called, scrupulosity.

As irritating and idiotic as they can be, we need to pray for them to be healed of their disorder and to come into full communion with the True Church (which is a Church that has a holy spirit filled council called Vatican II).

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary