Why nobody did inform me that Latin was abolished?

Aurelio Porfiri

I remember! I don’t mean the title of a movie about civil issues; rather, I mean the state of mind I have when I think about the level of dishonesty some people can reach, even without the intention of harming others.

Now, here it is: many years ago, in the 1990s, I assisted in a dialogue between a Deacon,  and an organist who was trying to ask about the use of the Missa de Angelis setting during the Mass. The request freaked the Deacon out, and, through sweat, he answered that the Council had abolished Latin.

Having listened to this, I started to ponder about the words of the Deacon and asked myself what Council may have abolished Latin: Calcedonia? Nicaea? Trent? Lateran IV? Pistoia? (Yes, it must be Pistoia, for it was not a piece of cake for the Pope to condemn the many erroneous theses coming from there).

But instead I learned that it was not Pistoia the Deacon was referring to, it was Vatican II! When and where had this happened? What documents are there abolishing the Latin 'now and forever’ (et in saecula saeculorum), amen? There aren’t any. But this is the method: Use the Council to affirm every possible thesis, to incredible effect, because most people have never read the real documents.

Anyone who has seen Sacrosanctum Concilium, even in passing, knows that a word is used about the use of Latin: “servetur” (preserved). Yet, the aforementioned tactic is the method of many bad servants of Vatican II: they use it to cover themselves with the hope that other people have not looked at the real documents. We should always be on the alert, or at least counter react that Vatican II cannot abolish something declared forever from the Council of Pistoia. And don’t worry, very few have studied the documents of this XVIII c. Council; at least at the level of lies, it’s an equalizer.

Let us look at the famous Sacrosanctum Concilium from Vatican II: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters” (my emphasis). Have someone considered this properly? Maybe not.