Those who live in the present are joyful that there are two forms of the one Roman Rite, a progressive act by a future pope, who is now an emeritus Pope, that changed the course of liturgical history by allowing such a flexible reality in the present, which of course neither Pope Pius V envisioned or Pope Paul VI envisioned and neither did Trent or Vatican II, but the Holy Father acting alone, did envision it!
The unreformed Mass of the Council of Trent (which in fact is reformed):
The reformed Mass of the Second Vatican Council:
IDEOLOGICAL RIGIDITY of ultra traditionalists, as it concerns the Mass of the Council of Trent, is that Vatican II and Pope Paul VI had no right to change the Mass that the Council of Trent ordered codified and subsequently mandated by virtue of Pope Pius V. And usually they refer to the following dogmatic statement from Pope Pius V after the Council of Trent to back up their premise:
"It shall be unlawful," said Saint Pope Pius V, "henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by us. Should any venture do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
Now, in a strange twist of ecclesiastical fate, ultra-progressives use the same reasoning for the Second Vatican Council as ultra-traditionalists use for the Council of Trent:
Father Anthony Ruff, a Benedictine of Collegeville, MN and editor of Praytell an ultra progressive blog, sums up the ultra progressives point of view as it concerns Vatican II and Pope Paul VI codifying only one form of the Mass, the reformed one post-Vatican II, who sounds quite a bit like the ultra traditionalists as it regards Trent and Pope Pius V when Father Anthony writes:
"They [Bishops of the Second Vatican Council and ultimately Pope Paul VI] clearly intended that there would be one Roman rite, the reformed one. They clearly had no opening whatsoever in mind for there ever being an unreformed rite staying around. To [say] they were neutral is to miss what is rather obvious in the entire liturgy constitution. Whatever we think now about changed circumstances and the (alleged) need or legitimacy of the unreformed rite being in use now, 50 years later, we have to look at the clear intent of what SC said 50 years ago."
My final comments: This is where I find the progressive point of view as it concerns Pope Benedict's Summorum Pontificum to be utterly laughable. The progressives are talking like the ultra-traditionalists who oppose Vatican II's reordering and reform of the Mass on the same grounds that it wasn't intended by a particular group of bishops or a pope, during and after an ecumenical council all long dead but not forgotten.
In fact the ultra-traditionalists have more ammunition for their position of no future change in liturgical customs than the progressives as Vatican II and Pope Paul VI have no dogmatic, unambiguous statements concerning freezing the liturgy as they developed it in the same dogmatic way Pope Pius V did after Trent. Interesting, no? And all Pope Benedict did was to release from the shackles of obscurity the Mass of Pope Pius V! He didn't dramatically overhaul or abolish Vatican II's Mass.
BOTH GROUPS IN LIVE IN THE PAST AND PREFER DEAD MAGISTERIUMS IN PLACE OF THE LIVING ONE. INTERESTING NO?