What does this mean?

Every Lutheran owes it to themselves to look at Rome and ask, from time to time, if the Reformation is still relevant and if Rome has manifested the reforms that would make the Reformation superfluous.  I understand that some folks will turn red at this but I would suggest that it is entirely Lutheran to do so and that there is something not Lutheran in ignoring Rome or writing it off without considering what Rome teaches.  It is for this reason I am interested in Rome.  But I will admit, I am not much interested in Rome's dissidents -- folks who remain in the Roman Catholic Church but who either disagree with or ignore the teachings of Rome.  Who would pay attention to a Roman Catholic (or Lutheran or anyone) whose basic position is a condemnation of the Church they claim as their own?  So liberal Roman Catholics who are out of step with their own church teaching are not much interest or use to me (as I expect they are not much use to their own church!).  So if I read things about Rome, I read them from their staunchest supporters and most eloquent defenders.

That said, I am often mystified by what I read.  And the example for this blog post is this curious statement from a Latin Mass sort of priest:

Remember, the blessings in force in 1962 with the Rituale Romanum must be done in Latin or else, as the Rituale itself says, they do nothing.  No… really.  (Cf. Title VIII, Ch. 1, no. 2: Benedictiones sive constitutivae sive invocativae invalidae sunt, si adhibita non fuerit formula ab Ecclesia praescripta.)

This is my curiosity.  How can the language of a blessing affect its validity or effectiveness?  In Latin it does something but not in English???  I certainly know that Lutheranism is filled with idiosyncrasies that probably mystify those on the outside but this is one of those things a Lutheran would never ever say.  And I cannot figure out why official documents and books of Rome would say it either.  Now there is no explanation as to why only in Latin would this blessing be of effect so I am left to wonder on my own about this most curious statement.  

As I said, Lutherans might say many things but a Lutheran would never have said this.  Lutherans had qualms about the ability of theology to be rendered in English but it was not from the suggestion that the theology would be of no effect.  Rather it was an admission that Lutheranism had found a dogmatic home in the German language that was so familiar some Lutherans did not know how they a theological discourse could be possible without that vocabulary.  I do not know of any Lutheran who ever suggested that a baptism in English or a blessing given not in German would suffer any lack.  So it hits me funny that a Roman Catholic would say that language affects not simply the understanding but the very substance of the blessing itself and its validity.