I'd like to see some documentation on this claim. In fact, Pope Paul VI himself named the New Mass and called it the "Novus Ordo" when he introduced it. This is not a nickname, nor was it applied by others.
In fact, Latin is the normative language. Priests need permission from their Bishops to say this Mass in the venacular language (for America, English), not the other way around.
Try telling that to the priests who have been refused permission to say the New Mass in Latin. Start with the priest in Dallas just within the past few months. The chancery there made some very critical comments about him being a reactionary, the priest was transferred before his term was up, and the chancery official stated that official permission from the bishop was required to say the New Mass in Latin.
It was never the intention of Vatican II to banish Latin, quite the opposite.
If that was the case, then why did the constitution on the sacred liturgy give permission to the bishops' conferences to determine the extent of vernacular usage? As we have seen for the past 40 years, there was nothing preventing those bishops from deciding that vernacular usage would be 100%. And that has been the case, as a direct result of the implementation of Vatican II.
Additionally, despite the fact that Priests of the Latin Rite are supposed to know Latin, many do not. This excaberates the problem.
This is true, in fact quite understated. We are consecrating so-called priests who don't know a word of Latin. I was speaking with my parish priest (who was generally quite conservative) in Massachussetts when I mentioned "As it says in Casti Connubii," and he replied, "Sorry, I don't know any Latin." Not only was I shocked beyond words to discover that he doesn't know any Latin, but "Casti Connubii" is not really even Latin per se, just the title of a document. So besides not knowing any Latin, he clearly has never read any of the major encyclicals either.