Advertisement
Your Email:
Subject:
Message: Entry: A Silence That Speaks Volumes Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/a_silence_that_speaks_volumes#8006 Post contents: Adriana, While this isn't the place to address all of the issues concerning Vatican II, your claim that Vatican II called for the abolition of Latin is false. In fact, Vatican II said exactly the opposite. In the document on the Sacred Liturgy it says: "36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." The implementation of the liturgical reforms called for in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was carried out by a commission after the council. That commission produced the rite of Mass that most of us are familiar with today. It is entirely in the vernacular, which is clearly contrary to what Vatican II called for. This is a complicated issue, but this proves my point about Vatican II--that there are legitimate concerns about whether or not Vatican II and its subsequent reforms constitute a break with the Church's condition. Concerning this very issue of the use of Latin in the liturgy, we have a case where Vatican II calls for one thing but what is implemented is the opposite. Catholics ought to be able to respectfully question whether such reforms are continuous with the Church's tradition without being labeled "Lefebrvists" by the likes of Fr. Neuhaus. As to whether Vatican II succeeded in presenting Catholicism to "modern man" in a more intelligible manner and renewing the Church ought to be judged by its fruits. Again, one ought to be able to respectfully say that it did not without in any way imputing heresy or error to the Council and thus being labeled as "rejecting Vatican II" or being "schismatic". One can claim that a council failed to achieve its intended purpose without denying the presence of the Holy Spirit in that council which prevents error from being taught. Sent at: 2008 07 23