Actually, that is not true. Sacrosanctum Concilium says that the Latin language “is to be preserved” within the Latin Rites, which is arguably satisfied by having the typical edition promulgated in Latin and having the option to celebrate in Latin. The document didn’t say that Latin “is to be used” or anything like that. And I have never quite understood the function of the first phrase in the sentence: “Particular law remaining in force salvo particulari iure], the use of the Latin language is to be preserved . . . .” Does it mean that if particular law does not remain in force, the rest of the clause is inapplicable? Or that particular law must remain in force? Or just that this clause can be superseded by particular law controlling the matter more specifically? I suspect the last, but I really don’t know.
You’re probably thinking of the line in SC about Gregorian Chant, which says that, “other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” Arguably, “other things” are almost never “equal,” since that would seem to imply a situation where the congregation is as comfortable and conversant with Latin as with their vernacular. I can understand the logic of saying, “Sure, if people could hear, understand, and join the chants just as well as other types of music, then the precondition (equality of circumstances) would be satisfied for giving chant pride of place in the liturgy over other types of music.”
Don’t get me wrong, I read Latin, and I sing Gregorian chant every week in my parish and would love more. I just find the arguments that Sacrosanctum Concilium demanded that we all should be hearing tons of Latin and chant to be . . . if not wrong, then quite a bit flimsier than they are often presented as being.
You’re right, my use of pride of place was more properly referring to chant, however Latin is our liturgical language and therefore part of our unique Tradition. Therefore it is self evident that it is to be preserved. To abandon the Latin language would be to abandon our liturgical heritage.
There are
a few other good reasons for giving Latin its due place as the language of our rite:
The concern for dogmatic unity
The concern for stability
The concern for Tradition
The concern for universality
Latin has many linguistic qualities
Variety of Languages is the result of Sin
The Example of Christ Himself
From the same article:
"The Council of Trent summed up well the Church’s mind on Latin being the Language of Roman rite in the following words “ If anyone says that the Mass should be celebrated in the vernacular only, let him be Anathema . “ - Council of Trent (Session XXII, Canon 9)
Again Pope Pius VI, condemned the notion that the mass should said “in the vernacular” as “rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, and favorable to the charges of heretics against it” (Dz 1533)."
“The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism in respect of the Sacred Liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with laws and rubrics, deserve reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, (…) that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. They are, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august Eucharistic Sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates; those finally who delete from the prayer books approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.
The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth.” (Pius XII: Encyclical Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947)
Agreed? 
But DH has to go to that service for the early dismissal.
