[quote="jayk15, post:9, topic:266681"]
Yes. It also didn't call for lating to be completely thrown out of the liturgy as we read through through the rest of the document didn't it?
Right, though I think that was probably expected. This is why all the bishops who signed Sacrosanctum Concilium then went home and approved translations containing no Latin. If it were actually the case that the Council intended for significant amounts of Latin to be retained for ordinary Masses on a day-to-day basis, then you would think that at least one bishops' conference, somewhere, would have proposed such a thing, right? Or that some non-negligible quantity of the Council Fathers would have said, "Wait a minute, this isn't what we agreed on."
The fact that that didn't happen at all is pretty good evidence of what the intention was, just like the fact that same Congress which approved the First Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification also appointed a chaplain and called for sessions to begin with prayer is pretty good evidence that the First Amendment wasn't intended to forbid the government from employing chaplains and starting official functions with a prayer.
Don't misunderstand, (1) this is intended to be a purely descriptive, not an evaluative, account of what happened, and (2) I don't think the Council intended the positive hostility to Latin that in fact resulted, although this should perhaps have been foreseen. Nevertheless, accounts which reason that, you know, the Council intended for maybe the readings -- maybe sometimes -- to just possibly be in the vernacular, but with lots of Latin retained and the people happily reciting it, have to contend with the plain fact that the bishops who were there took no steps at all to bring such a state of affairs into being.