By 
In the article on Father Holtzman (Watertown Current – February 27, 2025), Brandon Heim states, “Most notably, Vatican II called for use of the common language in place of Latin.” This is incorrect. In fact, the documents of the Council state explicitly that, “…Latin and Gregorian chant are to have pride of place in the liturgy.”
The change to vernacular came shortly after the Council, and, in my opinion along with many other people, was unnecessary and even harmful to the reverence and mystery of the Mass. Laity always had access to the vernacular in the Latin-English missals that were, and still are, available.
The most common reason given for change to English is that people would participate more. Well, the first element of participation is to be present at Mass. In the years and decades following Vatican II, church attendance has plummeted, vocations to the priesthood and religious life are much lower than prior to the council, and, perhaps most importantly, belief in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist is less than 30% today, compared with over 70% in the 1950s.
Having lived through the period prior to Vatican II, and now in the decades after, I am convinced that it has been a failure.
Kenneth Dagel
Watertown
