His Holiness Pope Paul VI's effect on the Church

[Pope_Noah_I]

Do you think that Paul VI’s reign was beneficial or detrimental to the Church as a whole? (no criticism of Paul himself)

 

[drafdog]

There is evidence that his encyclical “Humanae Vitae” was responsible for the decline in Mass attendence during his papacy. Before anyone claims infalibility for the encyclical, an encyclical is an exhortation, not a proclamation. In the encyclical he listed reasons for modifying the Church’s position on marital sex but did not present arguments to refute them. This left the laity with a bad taste in the mouth with regard the Church’s ability to reflect accurately the charism of marriage as lived by the Catholics in the pews. They have given lip service to the contribution of the married laity but have not managed to incorporate in their teaching.
Unfortunately this is one of the most noticeable features of his pontificate and it reflects poorly on him.

Matthew

 

[stmaria]

There is evidence that his encyclical “Humanae Vitae” was responsible for the decline in Mass attendence during his papacy

 

[Caesar]

Do you think that Paul VI’s reign was beneficial or detrimental to the Church as a whole? (no criticism of Paul himself)

In the 1960s and 70s the Church was in dire need of a strong Pope who would recognize the threat of modernism and relativism in an increasingly secular world. Instead Catholics got Paul VI. He closed his eyes to the problems in the Church and jumped on the bandwagon of the modernist bishops. His reign left the Liturgy in ruins. Though he was orthodox in terms of doctrine he did not possess the strength or the will to enforce it, instead allowing liberal and progressive clergy to run rampant, even over his own encyclical Humanae Vitae.

 

[m134e5]

Do you think that Paul VI’s reign was beneficial or detrimental to the Church as a whole? (no criticism of Paul himself)

He wrote Humanae Vitae- that alone was enough to make his reign beneficial.

I don’t like how crazy the liturgy got in the 70’s. I do not think God allows bad things to happen unless he intends to bring out a greater good. It hasn’t been long enough to see the depth of the good things that come out of it, but it is happening.

 

[havemercy]

In the 1960s and 70s the Church was in dire need of a strong Pope who would recognize the threat of modernism and relativism in an increasingly secular world. Instead Catholics got Paul VI. He closed his eyes to the problems in the Church and jumped on the bandwagon of the modernist bishops. His reign left the Liturgy in ruins. Though he was orthodox in terms of doctrine he did not possess the strength or the will to enforce it, instead allowing liberal and progressive clergy to run rampant, even over his own encyclical Humanae Vitae.

Jon,

Paul has always interested me as a person and Pope. You’ve doubtless read a few biographies. Recommend me one?

 

[Wolseley]

Harry Truman once said that the Great Depression was not made by Herbert Hoover, it was made for him. His point was that Hoover took office at just the wrong time, and got hit with the disaster that had been building up for years beforehand.

I would say the same thing about Pope Paul VI. He had the extreme misfortune to be Pontiff right at the same time that “the 1960’s” (violent shudder of revulsion and disgust) hit.

The ironic thing is that virtually everything he mentioned in Humanae Vitae has come to pass; no one can read it without seeing him as a literal prophet.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I simply look at the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae as the greatest pastoral blunder in the history of mankind. It has affected nearly every area of Catholic life as it seems as if the state of art, architecture, and catechesis in the Church have gone in the same direction as the liturgy.

I believe he was well intentioned, and truly thought that this New Mass would help bring about reconciliation with the Protestants.

Yet ultimately God is in charge and He will ultimately bring about good. However, one can also say that of every time God punished the Israelites, He allowed it to happen for a reason even if it was a very tough lesson.

 

[Formosus]

Humanae Vitae was good. Most everything else Paul VI (or his lack of response to it which I am not 100% sold that it all can be attributed to passive weakness on his part) was bad and it left the Church in shambles.

 

[stmaria]

It is puzzling to me, why Pope Paul abrogated the requirement for every priest to say the Oath against Modernism. What was in the oath that needed to be abrogated?

Oath against modernism
"I firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day …“Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the *encyclical Pascendi *and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion… The purpose of this [oath] is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way…I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God …”

It is also puzzling to me why his first act as Pope was to allow cremation which had previously been forbidden by the Church.
In 1917 the Code of Canon Law, signed by Pope Benedict XV, codified the Catholic tradition of burial and the sanctions incurred by those who broke with this tradition. It prescribed burial, forbade cremation, and declared null and void the will of a Christian who asked to be cremated (Can. 1203, #1)

He of course allowed, not an organic developement of reform, but a radical reform of the Mass to take place in a span of only a few years.

For 4 years he allowed Bishop Jean Bluyssen of the Netherlands the practice of communion in the hand and the laity distributing communion even though, at that time it was an abuse.

He invited six theologians, who had been banned from teaching by Pope Pius XII, to come to Vatican II as experts.

He allowed a group of reformers to form a Commission that wrote the New Mass, not according to the Constitution on the Liturgy, but according to their desires, their image of what the changes in the Mass should be.
His desire to rid the Mass of Latin is disturbing.

CHANGES IN MASS FOR GREATER APOSTOLATE
Pope Paul VI Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

1. So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves. **This novelty **is no small thing. … **This moment is shaking the Church… **
2. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language.** No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass**. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. **We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. **We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant…"
3. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. **What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? **We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values?
4. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.
5. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. **Participation by the people is worth more—**particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.

 

[Pious_Mat]

I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that Pope Paul VI was just in the wrong place in the wrong time. I believe that his particular personality and abilities would have been greatly suited to a different period in the Church, but he was not the firm giant that was need to tackle modernism. Someone like John Paul II or Pius X is better suited to such a task.

There was once a discussion on this board about this very subject, and another forum member and I (if you’re out there, perhaps you can help revive the progress we made) came to several conclusions about His Holiness Paul VI. First, he was a generally timid, and humble man. John XXIII called him “Our Hamlet” for his indecisiveness. He truly didn’t want to offend anyone, and was very concerned about the Church’s unity. He was also a creature of Roman habit for better or worse, meaning that he saw things through Roman eyes, where to this day the New mass is celebrated with such great reverence (and so often in Latin) that practise still seems close to that of 1962. It was often hard for him to envision the problems that were going on in the Church in America, simply because he didn’t know much about Catholicism in this continent. That gap between the Pope and his American spiritual children has existed for 400 years, and only seemed to be broken by JP2. The abuses he did know about he didn’t feel he could fix.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

CHANGES IN MASS FOR GREATER APOSTOLATE
Pope Paul VI Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

1. So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing. … This moment is shaking the Church…
2. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant…"
3. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values?
4. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.
5. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.

this is disturbing. to say the pope was responsible for the liturgical discontinuity after VII would be an understatement. this statement flies in the face of what was written of the liturgy by former popes like st. pius x and pius xii.

i guess the church didn’t understand what the liturgical development was all about. it took this blunder to realize the truth that the liturgy is not the product of a group of so called liturgical experts. B16 has bascially debunked everything paul vi said.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Humane Vitae is his wonderful gift to the Church. In my opinion, this document alone is proof that the Holy Spirit guides the Church. In 1967, a special Commission made up of 72 members voted that the Church should allow artificial birth control. Of that 72, only four disagreed. Pope Paul VI rejected the Commision’s recommendations and reafirmed the Church’s historical position on birth control, despite the fact that the vast majority had called for change. The result was Humane Vitae. It is clear that Humane Vitae is the result of guidance from the Holy Spirit.

However, the creation of the Novus Ordo Missae was a mistake. There was no need to change the liturgy in such a radical way; the faithful were used to the Tridentine Mass and there were no great calls for change. Moreover, Vatican II did not propose the creation of a whole new Mass but merely called for ways in which participation could be improved. The changes that occured were actually contrary to what the Council called for; for one, Latin was to remain the normative language of the Mass, with slightly more vernacular where appropriate. Despite my views, I think that it would be a mistake to get rid of the New Mass because a generation of Catholics have grew up with it and are used to it. The Mass of Paul VI is here to stay and will always occupy the main place in the life of the Church.

For the past 40 years, the Church has been in turmoil but I blame neither Vatican II or any of the Popes. The cause of the problem is the change of attitudes within society. Morals have laxed and the public has all but abandoned God. The Church is not immune from this and has suffered as a result. I believe that the sex abuse scandals and the liberalism of some laity are a consequence of the lack of morals within society as a whole. I don’t think that it is fair to blame Pope Paul VI for all of these things.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

after reading the entire statement by paul vi, i think i overreacted. he does mention that latin is to be used, especially those of the ordinary part or the mass.

the key to reading any document in the church is to read it in the light of tradition. if you take this document alone, or say sacrosanctum concillium, you will likely misinterpret it. B16 has written much of this mistake of taking vii documents out of context outside of the light of tradition.

latin and gregorian chant is to be retained in the latin rites. english was only meant for the readings and maybe the propers of the mass. the altar rail, high altars and ad orientem position of the priest can be seen as normative only when we see the liturgy in light of tradtion.

 

[TNT]

He wrote Humanae Vitae- that alone was enough to make his reign beneficial.

I don’t like how crazy the liturgy got in the 70’s. I do not think God allows bad things to happen unless he intends to bring out a greater good. It hasn’t been long enough to **see the depth of the good things that come out of it, **but it is happening.

Yea, like the Second Coming!

 

[ForeverAdam]

CHANGES IN MASS FOR GREATER APOSTOLATE
Pope Paul VI Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

Thanks for this link. It leads to a lot of interesting questions. In it, Paul VI mentions the change from Latin to the vernacular as being a reason for the Novus Ordo Missae. However, many Latin-rite Masses around the world were in the vernacular by 1968, which was a year before the promulgation of the new missal. He also mentions the greater simplicity of the ceremonies in the new missal, but fails to mention that as a result of the documents Inter Oceumenci, the *1965 Ordo Missae *and Tres Abhinc Annos, the traditional missal had already been greatly simplified.

Furthermore, he mentions the abundant of Scripture readings in the new missal, but also alludes to the weekday ferial lectionary that was implemented in the traditional missal around 1966. This weekday lectionary on a two-year cycle was the fulfillment of what Sacrosanctum Concilium desired, as it was the prime vehicle of how the faithful would get through the bible in a “prescribed number of years.” This is still true as the weekday lectionary is designed to give the faithful an overview of the Bible. The 3-year Sunday lectionary attempts to do this too, but the weekday lectionary does this more successfully. There was thus no need to enact the change of the Sunday lectionary as it was not necessary and only caused many works on the traditional liturgy to be scraped, as they no longer applied to the new liturgy.

In short, this document that was meant to serve as an introduction to the Novus Ordo Missae only shows how it was needless, as the reforms it was supposed to bring had already been introduced into the traditional missal in the years 1964-1968. The only difference between these two implementations was that those enacted before 1969 respected the inner cohesion of the traditional missal and sought to enrich the existing product, whereas those of the new missal were designed to create an entirely new product. This had a horrible impact on Catholicism as it gave everyone the cue (whether intended or not) that Vatican II was not meant to enrich what was already present in Catholicism, but was meant to start afresh. This attitude quickly spread to catechetics, devotions, theology and every area of Catholic life. People need to realize that not only do the prayers of the Liturgy impact the belief of the Church, but also how the Liturgy is treated sets the tone for how all other parts of the Faith will be treated.

God bless,

Adam