Replies

The Council of Trent infallibly decreed:

If anyone says...the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only...let him be anathema

Not exactly:

Canon 9.If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone,[snip]that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only[snip] because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema.

It does not work against the Sui Juris celebration of Mass in the vernacular, by other rites, as no person is saying that Christ requires celebration in the vernacular.

As a matter of background, a common objection of that time is that God was offended that Mass was celebrated in Latin, and was not understood by the laity, and that Fidelity to Christ required the Mass be said in the vernacular.

I could edit the 4 June canon:

Canon 2.If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church was not moved by just causes and reasons that laymen and clerics when not consecrating should communicate under the form of bread only, or has erred in this, let him be anathema.

and have it read:

Canon 2.If anyone says that [snip] laymen and clerics [snip] should communicate [snip] let him be anathema.

In this way, we could declare the Religion Forum anathema, but we all know we don't communicate here...

It does not work against the Sui Juris celebration of Mass in the vernacular, by other rites

Apologies, but I'm not sure what you mean by that, could you explain?

Also I don't believe how I cut and pasted it changed the sense at all, and it isn't comparable to your "communion under both kinds" example which is doing violence to the sense of the passage. I don't have the Latin in front of me, but the way I found it translated is as follows:

Canon 9.If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only; or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema.

The "contrary to the institution of Christ" part is referring to the chalice, not (as far as I can tell) the vernacular. That might not be the case in its original, I dunno--but I'm going with what I have with very clearly demarked semicolons.

I read the force of the anathema as being directly against those who think Mass should ONLY be celebrated in vernacular. Someone who think it is prudent in a given situation would not, naturally, fall under that--or else Ss. Cyril and Methodius would be heretics. :)