I have attended Masses in languages that I don't understand at all, and the beauty of the Mass comes through, nevertheless. Polish, Spanish, Italian, Lithuanian - the Mass is the Mass. It is never "meaningless" - Jesus is present, always - and if it is meaningless, then you have forgotten why you are there. I generally bring a copy of the day's readings with me - easily available via Intenet these days, if I know ahead of time that I will be visiting a foreign church. And that takes care of that. As for Latin - it's the international "lingua franca" of the Church. Theorectically, a Cardinal from Africa and a Cardinal from Brazil can communicate with each other in Latin, whereas otherwise they'd have no common language - thus the continued use of Latin as the "official" language of the Vatican, over the centuries. It is still the "official" languge of the Mass, whether the public is aware of it or not - with the "vernacular" being allowed in local parishes with permission of the bishop

Lisa, Westfield, MA

It may be true that most people can't speak Latin, but they're not being required to keep up one side of a spontaneous conversation - they're participating in a ceremony with which they should be familiar. If they don't understand the meaning of what they're saying, the priest is always available to explain.

The use of Latin would link congregations around the world, with the past and with the future. It's surely no coincidence that when the church originally split it did so into Latin and Greek speaking halves. By adopting the vernacular the Catholic Church has, in the long term, dobe itself no favours.

Alex Swanson, Milton Keynes, UK

All translations to some extent relect the bias of the translator. The difference with "inclusive language" is that there is a deliberate attempt to write that bias in.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford , UK

Latin is a beautiful language, and when I have attended Mass in Latin, it has been a beautiful experience. The prayerbooks are printed with English on one side, and the Latin on the other, so a person can follow along quite easily. If you can't understand what's going on, you'd have to be asleep, or really not paying attention! As for the priest having his back to the congregation - the priest is standing WITH the congregation, facing the same direction that they are making the same offering that the congregation is - not performing TO them. The symbolism is actually quite powerful, if you understand what's going on. As for hearing the priest - most us a mini-microphone these days... I have had no problems hearing. Those who rail against Latin seem to be terrified of something they haven't experienced - like a child yelling "yuck!" about a new, strange food!

Lisa, Westfield, MA

Anyone with a half decent Missal, that had Latin on one half of the page and English on the other could not possibly fail to follow and understand what was being said and besides, it was the altar boys who responded to the Priests intonations and the rest of the congregation followed, if they chose, and, meanwhile, at a high mass, the choir would sing the Confiteor, the Gloria and the Credo. Religion is something personal first, a belief and a desire to pray, and a community act second and the Latin mass did not in any way create a barrier between the celebrant and the congregation. One reason for no longer attending church services is that with the introduction of the vernacular I can no longer follow the proceedings when travelling to different countries and because the Mass changed to a totally participative programme with standing up, sitting down and shaking hands and trotting out responses which no longer appear to mean a great deal. The connection with the past has been broken.

Kenneth Armitage, Suffolk, England