Sir, As one of his arguments in favour of the use of Latin in the Roman Catholic Church, Paul Kokoski claims (letter, May 16) that as the Church’s “official language”, it “prevents church liberals from translating words into the vernacular using ambiguous and inclusive terms that undermine church doctrine”.

Apart from the fact that the earlier documents of the Roman doctrinal tradition were written in Greek, surely no language consists of terms that are unambiguous? Does not the meaning of terms depend on the interpretations of the use to which those terms are put in some language game? So translating Latin into the vernacular might be more of an attempt to understand what certain terms mean, than part of some unattested liberal plot to “undermine church doctrine”.

These considerations would, of course, not forbid a return to Latin for healthy devotional or antiquarian reasons; but such a return would hardly suit the general faithful.

ROBERT BUTTERWORTH, Uxbridge, Middx

Sir, The irrelevance of the Mass in Latin can easily be recognised when it is remembered that perhaps only 1 in 1,000 can read and understand Latin. The priest has his back to the congregation, who can therefore hear only a little, and can understand nothing. It becomes a meaningless ritual – a “false god”.

I prefer and readily accept the Holy Spirit’s guidance, expressed through Vatican II, that the vernacular should be used.

I agree that the Latin text of the Mass is a useful reference work, to be used when an up-to-date translation is required, in order that the faithful should always be able to participate fully in the prayer of the Mass. After all, we are participants, not merely an audience. The fundamental point is that no barrier should be placed in the dialogue of prayer between the individual and the Lord.

MICHAEL WINTERS Arundel, W Sussex

Explore Letters

• Feedback