Dear Father: Please Stop It

[Peace]

OK. I am pretty much convinced by that. Those are some good reasons.

But if all 1.2 Billion Catholics learn Latin the language will no longer be non-vernacular or immutable!

[Nihil Obstat]

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

OK. I am pretty much convinced by that. Those are some good reasons.

But if all 1.2 Billion Catholics learn Latin the language will no longer be non-vernacular or immutable!

That sounds like FP's hypothetical "what if all Americans just stopped paying taxes?"

Sorry I still have not made that post I promised. The weekend absolutely destroyed me, and this week is already filling up.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Nihil Obstat

[MarysLittleFlower]

Peace, no there isn't anything wrong with understanding a liturgy (that's why we have missals ;)) - I meant something else.. I meant how certain things seem to emphasise a more horizontal approach. Yes we can see that the Mass is a Sacrifice in the Church teaching and language, but to me at least, the TLM emphasizes that in some other ways too. Regarding comparing liturgies... Every Mass has infinite *intrinsic* merit. But what graces we actually receive depends on our disposition. Certain things can help a disposition more or less. Of course graces do come through any valid Mass because of the Eucharist. But I've noticed that certain things like kneeling for Communion, more silence, chant, etc, go beyond aesthetics - they actually help me to worship God and receive more. They help me to pray. Yet they are mostly or only present in the TLM at the moment. Also i just find the Latin prayers very good.

There's also something called extrinsic merit to a liturgy that is different from intrinsic merit. 

Edited January 27, 2016 by MarysLittleFlower

[Credo in Deum]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

OK. I am pretty much convinced by that. Those are some good reasons.

But if all 1.2 Billion Catholics learn Latin the language will no longer be non-vernacular or immutable!

Latin would still be considered non-vernacular and immutable. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Peace, I will post this link to a book here. The link is to the entire book in pdf form, so do not click on mobile unless you have lots of data. I highly recommend the book, and I have a hard copy, but one can never resist freebies.

The Bugnini Liturgy and the Reform of the Reform - Laszlo Dobszay

I am not going to ask that you read an entire book just because I think it supports my opinions (although it absolutely does). But I do highly recommend it, and I consider it one of the most influential books I have ever read. Particularly when read in conjunction with his second book, Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite. In a sense that second book is a continuation with a different focus, though personally I consider the two as the first and second volumes of a single work. The second book, however, is not available for free. At least as far as I can tell.

The table of contents shows that the subjects dealt with in Bugnini Liturgy are: The hymns of the Divine Office compared with the newly created LOTH, the Holy Week ceremonies, the Divine Office itself, the Proper chants of the Mass (especially contrasted with the devastating allowance for so-called "other appropriate songs"), the cycle of readings and the calendar, the concept of "reform of the reform", and the current state of Catholic liturgical music.

 

If I might post only the introduction, as a bit of a teaser...

 

Introduction

The growing displeasure with the "new liturgy" introduced after (and not by) the Second Vatican Council is characterized by two ideas. 1) A large part of the objections was raised on account of theological failures or distortions in the new liturgical texts, rubrics or practice. 2) The alternative advised is the 1962 Missale Romanum as the source of the traditional Roman liturgy.

It is rare, however, to meet a communication (publication?) analyzing the new liturgy as a liturgy, i.e. according to the proper nature of this special field of religious life. It is, perhaps, because it was mostly theologically well educated Catholics who tried to find a justification for their instinctive aversion, and not those who were familiar with the details of liturgical affairs.

The theological objections might prove strained but even if everything were right with the theology, the liturgical problems would still remain.

The problem with the second approach is that an absolutism of change is opposed by an absolutism of constancy. Supporters take the 1962 Missal as if it were identical with the Tridentine rite, and as if the Tridentine rite were identical with the traditional Roman liturgy. (We discuss this question in the sixth chapter of this volume.)

Concerning the first point: I admit that the quality of the liturgy reflects the quality of the theology, discipline, morality and spirituality, and also reacts on them. But now we wish to ponder the liturgy as a liturgy.

Concerning the second point: one should not conceal the fact that the Roman liturgy has changed in an organic way and with small modifications over the past centuries. The traditional Roman liturgy can be found in what is common in spite of the changes on the surface. I agree that we have to return to the traditional Roman liturgy and not be content with the removal of some "excesses" of the Neo-Roman rite. The true "Reform of the Reform" is the reform of the traditional Roman liturgy in the sense intended by the Council: organic changes in the measure of previous organic reforms in history, in accordance with the real necessities of the Church (and not with the creative will of commissions).

But do we know what kind of changes and what measures can be introduced justifiably without demolishing the identity of the Roman rite? I wish to scrutinize these questions in the following studies.

The following studies contain critical reflections on the Novus Ordo. We start with a seemingly unessential theme, the position of hymns in the Office. It is, however, suitable to make clear some basic aspects. The second study concerns the very center of the liturgy: the Holy Week. The Divine Office is a much more important element in this affair than many regard; it stands in the focus of the third chapter. The proper chant of the Mass is connected with the organism of the liturgical year, and the fifth section on the pericopes and calendar completes this theme.

Three more tracts (published elsewhere) have been appended to the series. The first addresses the friends of the Tridentine Movement, and its intention is to convince them that the long-term alternative of the Novus Ordo is not simply the restoration of the 1962 Missal. The last two treatises are about music, but some remarkable theological and pastoral issues are also discussed in them.

* * *

By way of introduction, let me draw the lines immediately so as to separate myself from certain views on the one hand, and on the other to exclude some other topics, albeit important, from discussion:

1. The critical approach to the "Bugnini Liturgy" presented here reflects neither disobedience toward higher church authority nor a practical opposition to liturgical regulations. In everyday life, I am ready to accommodate myself to the currently valid liturgical prescriptions even though as an expert dealing with the liturgy, I consider them wrong or unsuccessful in many respects. Thus, my remarks are made in a spirit of service and not of contestation.

2. The reason why I think that the Bugnini liturgy is unsuccessful for the most part is not because it has introduced innovations and thus is a reform-liturgy, but because it has introduced defective reforms and has thereby caused damage. There is no doubt that a liturgical reform was necessary, but it is not so clear that this liturgical reform was needed. Consequently, I decline to accept the grouping of opinions into "progressive" and "conservative" categories, as well as the attempt to seek the main cause of the present troubles in these "progressive" and "conservative" extremes. I am convinced that the scholar may undertake the awkward task of examining both the old and the new elements in the liturgy, each according to its own specific truth, as long as he is willing to observe the regulations of the Church in daily practice.

3. The liturgy has its own particular laws and truth, and what is more, its own immanent laws and truth, and not only legal statutes. When in the following pages the Bugnini liturgy is criticized, it will be done from the standpoint of this particular "liturgical truth" and not from a theological point of view, in spite of the fact that at certain points (e.g., the rites of the sacraments) the liturgical solution suggests a problematic dogmatic attitude. The liturgy seems to have no measure apart from the lex credendi; everything can be imagined and verified by means of speculation. Yet the liturgy is one of the most important repositories of holy TRADITION, the dynamic handingdown of the wisdom of the Church even in its stylized state. Its dogmatic contents are constituted, in addition to the normative system of dogma, by the sum of spiritual, socio-psychological, aesthetic, cultural, emotional, historical and pedagogical factors which preserve at the same time the role of the liturgy connected with the other spheres of religion but not identical with them. Theological speculation may warrant the harmony between lex orandi and lex credendi; liturgical legislation can protect the values of liturgy against arbitrariness; and yet for grasping the specific truth and validity of the liturgy, theological speculation proves inadequate and the law insufficient. To touch this sacred sphere, utmost tact is required, since our reasoning is in much the same way secondary to reality as any speculation about life is to the fullness of life.

4. Tradition plays such an important role in liturgy because, among other things, it provides the most essential point of departure. The Constitution on the sacred liturgy made a clear statement in this respect: it allowed for the introduction of innovations, but only on condition that they meet 11 two requirements. One is that the new forms should spring organically from the existing ones; the other is that only innovations yielding real and genuine profit to the Church are to be introduced. Unfortunately the Constitution itself contradicts these two requirements in certain respects, and in subsequent years the regulations fell into serious contradiction with the Constitution on these two points, and in so many other areas as well. It is, therefore, all the more problematic if Rome, which acts as a guarantee of the regulations, wishes to reduce the whole matter to a question of obedience. In this case her own commission could also be called upon to account for obedience to more universal and comprehensive laws. What makes the claim of obedience psychologically difficult is that an arbitrary construction — based to a large extent on individual initiatives and opposed to the centuries-old customs of the Church -, now claims the reverence due to the usage of the Church, a procedure which though perhaps valid legally, is yet contestable from the point of view of contents.

5. In the following discussion, Tradition will not be identified with the Tridentine liturgy. In fact, the Tridentine liturgy is but one - and not the most successful one - of the branches of the Roman liturgy; one which existed in many variants, side by side in remarkable orderliness. Thus our point of departure will not be the Tridentine but the Roman liturgy as it appears in the variety of forms found in various localities, religious orders and historical periods. Once we know this tremendously rich system of variants, and even in spite of this knowledge, we can scarcely include the Bugnini liturgy in the category of the Roman liturgy, since it is arbitrary to such an extent that we can neither regard it as something developing organically from the older liturgies, nor can we claim that its innovations were called into life by the "real and genuine" spiritual interests of the Church.

6. In practice, the introduction of the Bugnini liturgy went hand in hand with the change-over to the use of the vernacular. These two changes are not "liturgical reforms" in the same sense, because the latter brought about changes in the manner of the transmission of the liturgy, whereas the former affected the contents of the liturgy. Although the change-over to the vernacular is not lacking in difficulties, it is not treated in these articles.

7. The liturgical reform has given rise to a certain conception about the liturgy in public opinion - primarily among the clergy - which manifests itself in beliefs, judgments, the celebration of the liturgy, in teachings, and in practical endeavors. An analysis of this new mentality and its effect on the whole spirituality of the clergy, ought to be carried out before all else. However, this and similar theoretical issues are passed over in silence or mentioned only briefly in these studies.

* * *

I cannot begin to treat this subject, however, without first expressing my deepest gratitude to Rev. Prof. Robert A. Skeris, the President of the Church Music Association of America, who gave me continuous and unwavering support, shared his inspiring thoughts with me, and corrected some of the chapters in this book both as regards content and language. I would also like to thank Judit Feher PhD and Ervin Janos Alacsi theologian, for proof-reading and perfecting the script with their numerous suggestions.

But I render special thanks, most of all, to His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger for granting me permission to dedicate this book to him.

[superblue]

2 hours ago, BG45 said:

Funny, that's the same verse I quoted on another forum in my profile, when I left, after you told me "Understanding is not required, only obedience" in regards to a question I had about the faith.  Forget the question now, but the response has remained with me as exactly how not to respond to someone going through a Dark Night of the Soul.

Part of me ponders if you lived in the part of the Midwest around where I do now, or if this is simply a thing done by Polish priests who are doing their work in America.  I think it's the Marian Fathers from Poland who run a parish in town here, that pretty much do everything you just mentioned.  Doing the rosary before Mass, a Hail Mary and St. Michael Prayer included in the course of the Mass, Angelus afterwards.  Daily confessions too on 6/7 days of the week. 

The last ya mentioned, the Angelus was prayed after each mass but only by a few seminarians and even then the remainder of the seminarians and congregation would act as if nothing was happening , the Rosary is rarely prayed any where I know in town before mass, but there is a scheduled Rosary group at my parish,,, the St. Michael Prayer is printed on the back of our books and that is about it..... I would probably have to travel to one of these Polish dioceses to experience any of what you mentioned.

 

[Peace]

26 minutes ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

Peace, no there isn't anything wrong with understanding a liturgy (that's why we have missals ;)) - I meant something else.. I meant how certain things seem to emphasise a more horizontal approach. Yes we can see that the Mass is a Sacrifice in the Church teaching and language, but to me at least, the TLM emphasizes that in some other ways too. Regarding comparing liturgies... Every Mass has infinite *intrinsic* merit. But what graces we actually receive depends on our disposition. Certain things can help a disposition more or less. Of course graces do come through any valid Mass because of the Eucharist. But I've noticed that certain things like kneeling for Communion, more silence, chant, etc, go beyond aesthetics - they actually help me to worship God and receive more. They help me to pray. Yet they are mostly or only present in the TLM at the moment. Also i just find the Latin prayers very good.

There's also something called extrinsic merit to a liturgy that is different from intrinsic merit. 

I think so, and if the TLM helps you dispose yourself better I totally get why you prefer it. I suppose the point I was trying to make was that the same need not necessarily be true for everyone.

23 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Latin would still be considered non-vernacular and immutable. 

I dunno bro. If Latin is as great as you say it is it could make a comeback and replace English as the common language pretty quick! Stranger things have happened.

Nihil - thanks. I will try to check it out, although I think you know how I already may feel about some of those issues. Are you a pre-Vatican II baby by any chance? Just wondering.

[Nihil Obstat]

9 minutes ago, Peace said:

I dunno bro. If Latin is as great as you say it is it could make a comeback and replace English as the common language pretty quick! Stranger things have happened.

That would be excellent for philosophy.

[Credo in Deum]

24 minutes ago, Peace said:

I dunno bro. If Latin is as great as you say it is it could make a comeback and replace English as the common language pretty quick! Stranger things have happened.

 

Correction: "If Latin is as great as the Church says it is..." 

 

[Peace]

I am gonna just bypass all of that jazz and learn Hebrew and Greek .

Peace

[Credo in Deum]

11 minutes ago, Peace said:

I am gonna just bypass all of that jazz and learn Hebrew and Greek .

Peace

You should learn all three.  They all are included in the EF liturgy.  Primarily Latin, a little Greek at the Kyrie, and little Hebrew at the Hosanna. All three languages above Christ on the cross.  

[bardegaulois]

5 hours ago, BG45 said:

Part of me ponders if you lived in the part of the Midwest around where I do now, or if this is simply a thing done by Polish priests who are doing their work in America.  I think it's the Marian Fathers from Poland who run a parish in town here, that pretty much do everything you just mentioned.  Doing the rosary before Mass, a Hail Mary and St. Michael Prayer included in the course of the Mass, Angelus afterwards.  Daily confessions too on 6/7 days of the week. 

Nope, I'm in New England. There aren't a huge number of Poles in New England generally, but there are pockets here and there, particularly in what were once mill-towns. The priest actually wasn't from Poland; I believe he was of Polish descent and born here. Likewise, most of the parishioners, excepting a few who were elderly, were born in the States, though of Polish descent.

[PhuturePriest]

4 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Peace, I will post this link to a book here. The link is to the entire book in pdf form, so do not click on mobile unless you have lots of data. I highly recommend the book, and I have a hard copy, but one can never resist freebies.

The Bugnini Liturgy and the Reform of the Reform - Laszlo Dobszay

I am not going to ask that you read an entire book just because I think it supports my opinions (although it absolutely does). But I do highly recommend it, and I consider it one of the most influential books I have ever read. Particularly when read in conjunction with his second book, Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite. In a sense that second book is a continuation with a different focus, though personally I consider the two as the first and second volumes of a single work. The second book, however, is not available for free. At least as far as I can tell.

The table of contents shows that the subjects dealt with in Bugnini Liturgy are: The hymns of the Divine Office compared with the newly created LOTH, the Holy Week ceremonies, the Divine Office itself, the Proper chants of the Mass (especially contrasted with the devastating allowance for so-called "other appropriate songs"), the cycle of readings and the calendar, the concept of "reform of the reform", and the current state of Catholic liturgical music.

 

If I might post only the introduction, as a bit of a teaser...

 

Introduction

The growing displeasure with the "new liturgy" introduced after (and not by) the Second Vatican Council is characterized by two ideas. 1) A large part of the objections was raised on account of theological failures or distortions in the new liturgical texts, rubrics or practice. 2) The alternative advised is the 1962 Missale Romanum as the source of the traditional Roman liturgy.

It is rare, however, to meet a communication (publication?) analyzing the new liturgy as a liturgy, i.e. according to the proper nature of this special field of religious life. It is, perhaps, because it was mostly theologically well educated Catholics who tried to find a justification for their instinctive aversion, and not those who were familiar with the details of liturgical affairs.

The theological objections might prove strained but even if everything were right with the theology, the liturgical problems would still remain.

The problem with the second approach is that an absolutism of change is opposed by an absolutism of constancy. Supporters take the 1962 Missal as if it were identical with the Tridentine rite, and as if the Tridentine rite were identical with the traditional Roman liturgy. (We discuss this question in the sixth chapter of this volume.)

Concerning the first point: I admit that the quality of the liturgy reflects the quality of the theology, discipline, morality and spirituality, and also reacts on them. But now we wish to ponder the liturgy as a liturgy.

Concerning the second point: one should not conceal the fact that the Roman liturgy has changed in an organic way and with small modifications over the past centuries. The traditional Roman liturgy can be found in what is common in spite of the changes on the surface. I agree that we have to return to the traditional Roman liturgy and not be content with the removal of some "excesses" of the Neo-Roman rite. The true "Reform of the Reform" is the reform of the traditional Roman liturgy in the sense intended by the Council: organic changes in the measure of previous organic reforms in history, in accordance with the real necessities of the Church (and not with the creative will of commissions).

But do we know what kind of changes and what measures can be introduced justifiably without demolishing the identity of the Roman rite? I wish to scrutinize these questions in the following studies.

The following studies contain critical reflections on the Novus Ordo. We start with a seemingly unessential theme, the position of hymns in the Office. It is, however, suitable to make clear some basic aspects. The second study concerns the very center of the liturgy: the Holy Week. The Divine Office is a much more important element in this affair than many regard; it stands in the focus of the third chapter. The proper chant of the Mass is connected with the organism of the liturgical year, and the fifth section on the pericopes and calendar completes this theme.

Three more tracts (published elsewhere) have been appended to the series. The first addresses the friends of the Tridentine Movement, and its intention is to convince them that the long-term alternative of the Novus Ordo is not simply the restoration of the 1962 Missal. The last two treatises are about music, but some remarkable theological and pastoral issues are also discussed in them.

* * *

By way of introduction, let me draw the lines immediately so as to separate myself from certain views on the one hand, and on the other to exclude some other topics, albeit important, from discussion:

1. The critical approach to the "Bugnini Liturgy" presented here reflects neither disobedience toward higher church authority nor a practical opposition to liturgical regulations. In everyday life, I am ready to accommodate myself to the currently valid liturgical prescriptions even though as an expert dealing with the liturgy, I consider them wrong or unsuccessful in many respects. Thus, my remarks are made in a spirit of service and not of contestation.

2. The reason why I think that the Bugnini liturgy is unsuccessful for the most part is not because it has introduced innovations and thus is a reform-liturgy, but because it has introduced defective reforms and has thereby caused damage. There is no doubt that a liturgical reform was necessary, but it is not so clear that this liturgical reform was needed. Consequently, I decline to accept the grouping of opinions into "progressive" and "conservative" categories, as well as the attempt to seek the main cause of the present troubles in these "progressive" and "conservative" extremes. I am convinced that the scholar may undertake the awkward task of examining both the old and the new elements in the liturgy, each according to its own specific truth, as long as he is willing to observe the regulations of the Church in daily practice.

3. The liturgy has its own particular laws and truth, and what is more, its own immanent laws and truth, and not only legal statutes. When in the following pages the Bugnini liturgy is criticized, it will be done from the standpoint of this particular "liturgical truth" and not from a theological point of view, in spite of the fact that at certain points (e.g., the rites of the sacraments) the liturgical solution suggests a problematic dogmatic attitude. The liturgy seems to have no measure apart from the lex credendi; everything can be imagined and verified by means of speculation. Yet the liturgy is one of the most important repositories of holy TRADITION, the dynamic handingdown of the wisdom of the Church even in its stylized state. Its dogmatic contents are constituted, in addition to the normative system of dogma, by the sum of spiritual, socio-psychological, aesthetic, cultural, emotional, historical and pedagogical factors which preserve at the same time the role of the liturgy connected with the other spheres of religion but not identical with them. Theological speculation may warrant the harmony between lex orandi and lex credendi; liturgical legislation can protect the values of liturgy against arbitrariness; and yet for grasping the specific truth and validity of the liturgy, theological speculation proves inadequate and the law insufficient. To touch this sacred sphere, utmost tact is required, since our reasoning is in much the same way secondary to reality as any speculation about life is to the fullness of life.

4. Tradition plays such an important role in liturgy because, among other things, it provides the most essential point of departure. The Constitution on the sacred liturgy made a clear statement in this respect: it allowed for the introduction of innovations, but only on condition that they meet 11 two requirements. One is that the new forms should spring organically from the existing ones; the other is that only innovations yielding real and genuine profit to the Church are to be introduced. Unfortunately the Constitution itself contradicts these two requirements in certain respects, and in subsequent years the regulations fell into serious contradiction with the Constitution on these two points, and in so many other areas as well. It is, therefore, all the more problematic if Rome, which acts as a guarantee of the regulations, wishes to reduce the whole matter to a question of obedience. In this case her own commission could also be called upon to account for obedience to more universal and comprehensive laws. What makes the claim of obedience psychologically difficult is that an arbitrary construction — based to a large extent on individual initiatives and opposed to the centuries-old customs of the Church -, now claims the reverence due to the usage of the Church, a procedure which though perhaps valid legally, is yet contestable from the point of view of contents.

5. In the following discussion, Tradition will not be identified with the Tridentine liturgy. In fact, the Tridentine liturgy is but one - and not the most successful one - of the branches of the Roman liturgy; one which existed in many variants, side by side in remarkable orderliness. Thus our point of departure will not be the Tridentine but the Roman liturgy as it appears in the variety of forms found in various localities, religious orders and historical periods. Once we know this tremendously rich system of variants, and even in spite of this knowledge, we can scarcely include the Bugnini liturgy in the category of the Roman liturgy, since it is arbitrary to such an extent that we can neither regard it as something developing organically from the older liturgies, nor can we claim that its innovations were called into life by the "real and genuine" spiritual interests of the Church.

6. In practice, the introduction of the Bugnini liturgy went hand in hand with the change-over to the use of the vernacular. These two changes are not "liturgical reforms" in the same sense, because the latter brought about changes in the manner of the transmission of the liturgy, whereas the former affected the contents of the liturgy. Although the change-over to the vernacular is not lacking in difficulties, it is not treated in these articles.

7. The liturgical reform has given rise to a certain conception about the liturgy in public opinion - primarily among the clergy - which manifests itself in beliefs, judgments, the celebration of the liturgy, in teachings, and in practical endeavors. An analysis of this new mentality and its effect on the whole spirituality of the clergy, ought to be carried out before all else. However, this and similar theoretical issues are passed over in silence or mentioned only briefly in these studies.

* * *

I cannot begin to treat this subject, however, without first expressing my deepest gratitude to Rev. Prof. Robert A. Skeris, the President of the Church Music Association of America, who gave me continuous and unwavering support, shared his inspiring thoughts with me, and corrected some of the chapters in this book both as regards content and language. I would also like to thank Judit Feher PhD and Ervin Janos Alacsi theologian, for proof-reading and perfecting the script with their numerous suggestions.

But I render special thanks, most of all, to His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger for granting me permission to dedicate this book to him.

I'm amazed you didn't post Dobzay's The Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite.

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, PhuturePriest said:

I'm amazed you didn't post Dobzay's The Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite.

That would have entailed transcribing it myself, unless you know of a site from which I can cut and paste. I have transcribed a couple pages here and there in the past, but I was looking for a broader introduction-like overview this time.

[Cam42]

So, in summary.  This isn't a thread about personal preference, which seems to be a huge sticking point to some.  It simply isn't.  The Church is clear in her teaching through Vatican Council II.

I'm going to break this down pretty succinctly.

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (Sacrosanctum Concilium)  -  This is first.  Legally speaking this holds pride of place in the conversation.  Before all other things mentioned, this is what is to be understood as primary.

2. (SC) 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.  -  This doesn't mean that there is to be a wholesale abandonment of Latin.  No.  It is quite simply the opposite.  Latin is to be preserved and there are parts, which may, not will, not should, not can, but may be extended into the vernacular.  One has to understand English to understand the importance of the word may.  There is no edict as to it being a normative or accepted as universal action.  Which speaks to the larger point.

3. (SC) These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.  -  There is a great amount of discussion as to whether these norms are being observed as laid down in Article 22, 2.  The argument that has gained enough steam in the last few years to warrant another look is that the use of the vernacular is so abusive to the intent of the Mass and Sacraments that more Latin should be employed.  This is gaining favor among younger bishops and priests.

54. (SC) In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them....  -  We are commanded to know our parts in Latin.  While the readings and "the common prayer" (which has come to be known as the prayers of the faithful), it is very hard to argue that the exclusive use of the vernacular is applicable as Articles 22,2 and 36 envision.  That being said, the argument is still valid and sound that the use of Latin has been supplanted by the vernacular in an abusive way, as designed by the Council Fathers.

63. (SC) Because of the use of the mother tongue in the administration of the sacraments and sacramentals can often be of considerable help to the people, this use is to be extended according to the following norms:

a) The vernacular language may be used in administering the sacraments and sacramentals, according to the norm of Art. 36.  -  Again, the issue lies in understanding the term may, as well as the a proper application of Article 36.  If Article 36 has not been enacted in a normative and proper way, then it is easy to argue that the use of the vernacular is abusive.  Which speaks to the point of many, including myself, on this thread.

113. Liturgical worship is given a more noble form when the divine offices are celebrated solemnly in song, with the assistance of sacred ministers and the active participation of the people.

As regards the language to be used, the provisions of Art. 36 are to be observed; for the Mass, Art. 54; for the sacraments, Art. 63; for the divine office. Art. 101.  -  As we are clearly seeing there is a pattern forming.  There are normative actions which are in question.  Specifically, Article 36.  If Article 36 has not been properly enacted or provided, then we have a bigger issue.  And let's remember, aside from the Pope himself, no one (even if he be a priest, including a lone bishop) can change something in the Mass of his own accord.  This includes the language.  However, we have seen a full scale abandonment of Latin.

In closing, a word.  The legality of this is not a matter of personal preference or interpretation.  As we have seen, we are supposed to know our Latin.  This is universal.  You, me, the guy next to you and the girl next to him.  We cannot simply say, "Well, since the rest of the world does it, so should we."  That is disingenuous.  We have an obligation to be authentic in our Faith.  We are to succumb to obedience.  It is clear that we have not.  And to argue that Latin is a dead language is ludicrous.  It is not dead, it is static.  There are plenty of Latin speakers in the world.  I am one, there are others on this site.  It is the official language of a sovereign nation, today.  It is hardly dead.  I agree that it is unchanging or static, but certainly not dead.   

Illi qui latine loqui non est necesse appellare mortuum. Illi autem qui non sunt ab ecclesia praecepta discere satis respondet ad sacrificium.