I don’t normally follow the arguments over the Traditional Latin Mass very closely. I know a fair number of people who advocate its use or seek it out whenever they can. And I read the occasional post by someone, like Michael Brendan Dougherty, whose normal stock in trade is politics but who occasionally turns out another Ain’t It Awful piece about the Catholic hierarchs who place obstacles in front of those who want more of the Latin liturgy. Here's the thing, though, from my Methodist (though antiquarian) point of view: I can never get straight whether the thing that makes the TLM so precious to its supporters is the language itself or what’s being said in it. I mean, is the important thing the preservation of Catholic unity in the Latin tradition? I’ve written before about how rad trad RC folk seem to regard Latin itself as a holy relic. On the other hand, MBD seems to be making the argument that the vernacular translations mandated for use by the Vatican (including the English mass) do not in fact translate the Latin of the TLM very well, and that certain important truths are at risk of being lost or not emphasized properly because the English mass is in fact not saying (or doing) what Roman Catholics are taught to believe. If that were the case, then surely a better English translation would be just as good as the old, faithful Latin liturgy? In other words, could we junk the Novus Ordo and do a straight translation of the TLM? Would that make the traditionalists happy? I speak here as an heir not only of Thomas Cranmer, the beauty and holiness of whose liturgical English there are few who can match, but of the Old English scribes who translated the Bible and much of the liturgy into OE for use by the laity who desired to follow along in the liturgy and also to say their private prayers in their own language. If no translation can do justice to the original, no matter the skill and insight of the translator, then the Latin Vulgate itself cannot do justice to the Scriptures and we ought to be reading and chanting in Koine Greek, seems to me. Latin is a very flexible and precise language, capable of great subtlety. But I think modern English has far exceeded Latin’s ability to express all manner of distinctions. For that matter, if in the kingdom of heaven every tribe and tongue and nation shall be represented, even languages far more limited than English or Latin must be capable of expressing the truth of the Incarnate God. When the Son of God accepted human form, he accepted the limitations – as also the possibilities – of all human language. And the Holy Spirit it is who leads us into all the truth; even the best words on the page are capable of being misunderstood or misapplied by those who lack the Spirit’s guidance. So what is the crux of the argument? What is the core of the TLM’s attraction? Is it the language itself, or what is being said in it? And if the latter, then why the campaign for Latin, as opposed to agitating for a better translation into the vernacular?