The fact of the matter is that we don’t know whether or not Vatican II intended to abolish the Tridentine mass or not, nor do we know if the bishops intended for the Tridentine to be celebrated side by side with the Pauline mass. Neither of these two conjectures are either explicitly supported or invalidated by Vatican II documents. The only thing the Vatican II documents say about anything remotely related to this is that liturgical revisions were to take place, and they did. These liturgical revisions do not, in and of themselves, make the statement that the Tridentine mass is invalidated just because the revisions came about. A new missal was promulgated, which reasonably implies that Paul VI, by his virtue of promulgating it, coupled with the fact that the council documents are silent on the subject, intended to replace the Tridentine mass. Vatican II called for a revision of the liturgy, and said nothing about retaining the Tridentine mass or abolishing it after it was revised. Perhaps it was the intention of the bishops in attendance to leave that decision to later generations. Perhaps it was a mistake, they assumed that by the Pauline mass being promulgated that the Tridentine mass might as well not exist anymore. But whatever their intention was, Benedict XVI clarified in his Summorum Pontificum that the Tridentine mass was never, in fact, abolished, and that it can, and always theoretically could have been, celebrated freely.
“4. Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.”
If we break down your quote from Sacrosanctum Concilium, it technically mentions nothing at all that says whether the Tridentine mass is retained or abolished; strictly speaking, the quote just outlines what would be the case IF the Tridentine (or any other) rite were retained. It says that IF the rite is retained, then it is of equal right and dignity to the Pauline mass, and that it should be promoted in every way. It then says that the rites should be revised from time to time, taking into consideration tradition, to meet the circumstances of each era.
It takes a formal statement of abrogation to abolish the Tridentine mass. One was never decreed. Therefore, the Tridentine mass was never abolished. However, this particular quote from Sacrosanctum Concilium does not actually affirm or deny the validity of the Tridentine mass, nor does it affirm or deny that it was the intention of the council to promote the side by side celebration of the Tridentine and Pauline masses. Both of these statements are pretty big, and so I think that if either of them was made by the council in a document, that we would have heard about it long before now.
I do not believe that Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum was done as an affirmation of anything that the council intended. I believe it was done of his own accord.
With that said, in light of Summorum Pontificum, let us promote the celebration of the Tridentine mass.
