Why SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM is in Keeping With the "Spirit of Vatican II"

This is an extremely abridged version of an essay I am currently working on. I apologize for the lack of complete references/footnotes. It is a work in progress, so check back periodically to read the latest additions.

Most of the commentaries on Summorum Pontificum, especially those published in the secular press before the document's formal promulgation, seem to focus on its conciliatory aspect¹. That is, from such commentaries the reader would infer that the aim of the motu proprio is primarily on the narrow goal of achieving reconciliation with post-conciliar schismatics , nostalgic for the old days (such as the Society of St. Pius X), and accommodating young anachronists swept away by the old rite's novelty. Such a portrayal, however, gives only a narrow glimpse (and a condescending one at that) of the document's true import, and it does not take any liturgical expertise to see that the Holy Father has a much grander vision in mind. In articulating the correctness of an hermeneutic of continuity, rather than rupture, for understanding the ramifications of the council (with respect to the liturgy in particular), he writes

In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place

The extraordinary use of the one Roman Rite is thus something that ought to be preserved, even if there were no schismatics or nostalgic curmudgeons demanding it. But why is it worth preserving? Below we shall see that the "revival" of the extraordinary use, far from detracting from the spirit of Vatican II, should be construed as both having a basis in the council's teachings and as helping to fulfill the council's mission. These assertions shall be argued from the post-conciliar applications of the principles of inculturation and ecumenism, respectively.

Since the Second Vatican Council, Inculturation has loomed large in the project of liturgical reform. For our purposes, we will loosely define this term to mean an effort to ensure that the cultural riches of the various peoples who compose the church militant are preserved and accorded their rightful place in public worship. Whether or not inculturation is a good thing is a topic for another article. Let us assume,for the moment, that it is beneficial and that it has been one of the successes of post-conciliar reform.

One can find very vivid examples of inculturation even in papal liturgies. John Allen gives, for example an account of the indigenous celebrations that were featured during the canonization of Juan Diego. Such celebrations, I surmise, give those participating a sense of reclaiming their heritage and integrating that heritage with the tradition of their faith. It could be argued, that inculturation rights a wrong; in some cases (as in Latin America), it is a corrective to the cultural genocide that denied the rightful place of indigenous heritage in the salvific work of the church.

If the preceding is true( and I think that many zealous post-conciliar reformers would agree that it is) and if in fact the denial of the importance of indigenous heritage was in some cases a sort of cultural genocide, then the complete replacement of the church's preconciliar patrimony with Marty Haugen's "Mass of Creation" could be described as cultural suicide. It is some how incongruous to suggest that suddenly there is room for native exorcism rites in papal liturgies, but that my heritage is exhausted by innovations made in the 70's.

It might be tempting to think that I am simply asserting that the Tridentine ritual pertains to my "European" heritage the same way that indigenous exorcism rites pertain to native American culture. I am, in fact, asserting a more nuanced claim. In particular, the rites as they developed up until the Second Vatican Council pertain to the culture of he entire Church. This culture is diachronic (and, accordingly, I am here making a theological as well as a sociological argument). Even if the Tridentine Mass had its inception long before the evangelization of a given people, it still belongs to that people, nonetheless, since the accumulated heritage of the Church universal becomes their birthright upon their reception into communion. Accordingly, I claim any argument that can be made to enshrine the cultural riches of a particular culture in divine worship, can be generalized to assert the permanent dignity of the riches that belong to to the Church's universal culture.

¹There is no need for a specific citation here. Simply search for "latin Mass" in Google news and voila

Isabel Peron

For some reason I find myself irked by much of the coverage of the election of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. The linked article, and even the omniscient Stephen Colbert, report that she will become Argentina's first female president.
While it is true that she will be the first elected female president, the honor of "first female president" goes to Isabel Peron, third wife of Juan Peron.

This fact was seared into my mind during a college bowl competition. I was the captain of USD's college bowl team, about to lead my team to victory against Stanford in a close match. With one minute left on the clock, the moderator began his question, "This woman, the first to be a head of state in the western hemisphere..." I tapped my buzzer and immediately answered "Isabella Peron". My heart sank as a three minute time-out was taken and the moderator consulted with "experts" to see if my having added an "a" to madam presidente's given name made the answer wrong. Fortunately they let it slide, and USD went on to victory. Go Toreros!

So I guess I feel like I am now the special custodian of this piece of trivia. No wonder, then, I should be annoyed by the media's oversight.