Quite the contrary!!! Vatican II specifically required the retention of Latin (with small parts to be introduced in the vernacular, like the readings) as well as pride of place for Gregorian chant and the priest facing East with the people!
This is what is so frustrating/infuriating for orthodox Catholics. Post-VII Catholics have been so thoroughly propagandized by the false notions of the "spirit of VII" that they spout off nonsense like "There’s no question that Mass in Latin is beautiful, but the Church was clear that this practice must cease" without thinking twice or even realizing what a colossal falsehood it represents.
The mass as we know it since Vatican II (Novus Ordo, in the vernacular, with the priest facing the people, communion standing in the paw, hymns replacing the Gregorian chant propers, etc etc etc) was no where envisioned in the documents of VII.
Actually, I’m not Catholic. I’m Jewish, but many of my family members were Catholic, and I know more about being Catholic than I do being Jewish, in fact, I’ve been to Mass more than synogogue. (My parents were leftist Democrat Jews who were anti-Israel, so synogogue was out of the question. My grandfather was concerned for my soul, so he took me to Mass.)
In any event, upon further review, and based on the links I’ve received, I think you’re right. I stand corrected.