[old republic]

I may be wrong but it seems to me that this article whitewashes what really happened to the Liturgy under Bl. JPII's pontificate in an attempt to place Bl. JPII's role in the liturgical revolution in a more rosy light. It completely ignores all of the liturgical monstrosities and abuses that occurred during his papacy and even in his papal liturgies. He was not some champion of traditional liturgy as far as I am aware. I'm not saying that Bl. JPII wasn't personally supportive of a more reverent liturgy, but I am saying that I think that this article way overplays its hand in painting him as a liturgical conservative.

This article also gets a lot of factual errors, which demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the topic of developments in Catholic liturgy which draws its reliability into question. First of all it implies that Quatturor Abhinc Annos (1984) was promulgated in reaction to the SSPX ordaining bishops. That was not Quattuor, it was Ecclesia Dei Adflicta which was promulgated on July 2, 1988. Furthermore, that action was not done to enhance the liturgy. It was very likely done to minimize the size of the schism by throwing those priests who would have gone with the SSPX had Rome not thrown them an olive branch. For the most part, this papal command was also almost entirely subverted by the bishops who refused to enforce its terms, with a few exceptions, for nearly 20 years. Also, it could be argued that Ecclesia Dei actually placed a restriction on the older liturgy. If we accept Benedict XVI's legislation in Summorum Pontificum, which asserts that the Latin mass was never forbidden, then JPII would have actually placed a restriction on the Latin Mass, because his Ecclesia Dei required every priest to get permission from their bishop to say the old mass, whereas no permission would have been required before Ecclesia Dei Adflicta if it had been legal as Benedict XVI asserted in Summorum Pontificum.

[AnAmericanMother]

As one of Kipling's characters says, "Have patience. Link by link is chain-mail made."

If JPII had not done what he did, BXVI could not have done what he did.

It is always easier to destroy than rebuild, no one man can do everything and not all at once. JPII prob could not get a complete indult on the EF through, but his limited permission was an intermediate step.

[sitetest]

Dear old republic,

I don't know. Things were already very loosey-goosey by 1978. Things stayed that way for quite a time, as I recall, but eventually, long before the end of John Paul II’s pontificate, things started getting much more orthodox and by the book, at least in my archdiocese.

There were (and still are) plenty of abuses even by the end of John Paul's pontificate, but 1) at least where I am, they were on the decline and 2) lots and lots of folks were, in the latter years of his pontificate, much more aware of what was a liturgical abuse, and were willing to say something about it.

Just my impression.

sitetest