JPII and the Tridentine Mass

*Preliminary note: JPII gave canonical recognition to the Fraternity of St. Peter for celebrating the Tridentine Mass in 1988, apart from SSPX.

Little did I know that there was a schismatic movement in the Church toward extreme traditionalism, until I began to follow the history of the latin mass in the ponitficate of JPII.  The society of Pius X formed and was excomunicated in the 1980s, in direct opposition to the authority of Pope John Paul II and the Magisterium.  More than just protesting the novus ordo Mass of Paul VI, Archbishop Lefebvre denied the second Vatican council altogether--including the popes who called for it.  The 'Tridentine' Mass stands as neutral ground in the schism, still ripe for the teachings of Vatican II and the New Evangelization, but also tainted with the ordinations of men who are outside of Apostolic succession.

For my purposes, I want to just highlight the continuity of the Mass.  Namely, the 'ordinary form' or the 'novus ordo' and the 'extraordinary form' or the 'missale romanum'.  I am unable to follow the modern history of the Mass without mentioning the schism, because it provides good reason for why the early efforts of John Paul II--and the later efforts of Pope Benedict XVI--brought about/are bringing about reconciliation between extreme traditionalists and those who take the novus ordo for granted.  Three documents particularly stand out as crucial in the history of the modern Mass: (starting with the most recent) Summorum Pontificum, Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, and Quattor Abhinc Annos.


From experience, I can say that I have attended Tridentine Mass on numerous occasions--both Sunday and daily liturgy--but never became a zealous advocate for its propagation.  If anything, I take more of the stance that it is too antiquated to benefit average Catholics.  That said, now that I know the history behind it--including the disputes and efforts of popes to reconcile and re-incorporate it--I am much more interested in the Latin Mass.
So, I begin with Pope John Paul II's letter regarding Archbishop Lefebvre--but, more importantly, his permission for Catholics to participate in the Latin Mass with their Bishop's oversight:
A Commission is instituted whose task it will be to collaborate with the bishops, with the Departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities, or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions, in light of the Protocol signed on 5 May last by Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre  http://www.adoremus.org/EcclesiaDei.html
Here, JPII touches on the fact that the Latin Mass is indeed neutral ground between the schismatics and the Pope.  He urges the faithful to return to obedience, while still being able to celebrate the Mass under supervision.  My thought is that it was too soon after the schism for JPII to grant full freedom of priests to celebrate the Tridentine Mass without supervision.  The potential for error from the society of Pius X was still hanging over the liturgy.

Just prior to his Apostolic Letter, he had written--alongside the Bishops--an 'indult' allowing for the Latin Mass to be celebrated with Bishops' supervision.  While his Apostolic Letter was dated 1988 (ten years into his pontificate), the permission from himself and the Bishops was available as early as 1984.  Together, these two documents laid the groundwork for Pope Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum.  Ironically, Joseph Ratzinger had already been heavily involved in these proceedings--as proven by his signature on both earlier documents.  Therefore, as the disputes over the liturgy unraveled through the years, it is easier and easier to see how the most recent popes were committed to implementing Vatican II directly into the Tradition of the Church--as was its proper place. 

Pope Benedict's pontificate clarified what JPII was more or less unable to reconcile so soon after the schism.  In fact, today, although the society of Pius X still exists separate from the Church--there is very little tension between Orthodox Catholics and reasonable traditionalists.  Summorum Pontificum effectively reunited what could have become more and more splintered over the years.  Pope Francis' decision to stay on the path of support for the Tridentine Mass has also continued the legacy of JPII and Benedict XVI.  It speaks to the validity of Apostolic succession, Vatican II, and the novus ordo as consistent with the Tradition of the Church.

Lastly, I want to list a few detailed points of contention that laymen still encounter in the liturgy since the schism.  In the grand scheme of the Church they are minscule, but to Catholic families in parish life they can be deal-breakers:
1) The male only requirements of the Latin Mass (servers, priests, lectors, ministers)
2) The sign of peace
3) silence in the sanctuary and congregation
4) The saying of the rosary and St. Michael prayer
5) Communion rail

*Personally I am in favor of all items listed, and I see no contradiction between the 'old' and 'new' Mass in their regard.  Thankfully, the parish I attend has all 5 (as did the parish I got married in--St. Isidore's, MI)

JPII, Francis, and Jesuit reform

Update 11/25/16: Francis' Amoris Laetitia may very well "suspend" his Magisterium altogether.  I pray he may correct the document and clarify his teaching to be more in accord with Familiaris Consortio and Veritatis Splendour.
________________________________________________

Since the election of Francis I, formerly Jorge Mario Bergoglio S.J., much surprise and misunderstanding has surrounded the Jesuit order.  Known for bordering on unorthodox social teaching, including liberation theology, the Jesuits have produced the likes of Pedro Arrupe and others who outrightly enacted the 'spirit of Vatican II' as opposed to the 'hermeneutic of continuity' of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.  However, Pope Francis I may stand as a direct descendant of true orthodoxy from the council fathers, even in the throes of various Jesuit disorders.  

Blessed John Paul II attempted early on in his pontificate to reform the Jesuit order with mixed results.  Indeed, George Weigel claims that the Jesuits were like a thorn in the side of JPII--always evading his strategic reforms with more and more unorthodoxy: 
(speaking of the election of Francis I)
   I suspect there were not all that many champagne corks flying last night in those Jesuit residences throughout the world where the Catholic Revolution That Never Was is still regarded as the ecclesiastical holy grail. For the shrewder of the new pope’s Jesuit brothers know full well that that dream was just dealt another severe blow. And they perhaps fear that this pope, knowing the Society of Jesus and its contemporary confusions and corruptions as he does, just might take in hand the reform of the Jesuits that was one of the signal failures of the pontificate of John Paul II.  GEORGE WEIGEL--http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342964/first-american-pope-george-weigel?pg=3

Apparently, the Jesuits were more or less forerunners in the brain-child of liberation theology (please reference my 2012 post on "JPII vs Liberation Theology").  Not only that, but they espoused outlandish teaching on women's ordination, homosexual activity, and contraception.  For an order that originally was formed to pledge absolute allegiance to the seat of St. Peter, Jesuits had fallen far away from the tree.

It is easy, then, to guess that JPII did very little to correct such disobedience.  Likewise, it is easy to think him aloof in addressing problems that constantly arose during his days as Pope.  On the contrary, JPII acted somewhat harshly on the Jesuits soon after their vicar general, Pedro Arrupe, passed away from stroke:

  The Pope picked his own team to head the powerful order. The Jesuits swear an oath of obedience to the papacy but, throughout their 441-year history, their independent ways and elitist style have ruffled many Popes. John Paul II, no stranger to controversy, last week took a bold step to bridle the Society of Jesus. In a move interpreted as a warning to all religious orders, he suspended the normal workings of the Jesuit Constitutions, removed the acting leader of the organization and replaced him with two Italian Jesuits who enjoy the Vatican's confidence: Paolo Dezza, 79, and Joseph Pittau, 53.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,922654,00.html#ixzz2NdE9ES00

And, the New York Times reported similar measures in 1999:

The Jesuits, formally the Society of Jesus, an order founded in the 16th century, grew politically divided in the social unrest of the 1960's and 70's. One of the first concerns of John Paul II's papacy was ridding the Roman Catholic Church of Marxist-tinted 'liberation theology' movements in Latin America, of which Jesuits were often leading advocates. Jesuits in the United States and Europe were also prominent in theological rifts with Rome.
In 1979 the newly elected pope warned a gathering of Jesuits that their order was 'causing confusion among the Christian people and anxieties to the church.'

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/22/world/cardinal-paolo-dezza-98-guided-the-jesuits.html

Based on those events in JPII's lifetime, it becomes much more clear why George Weigel notes Jesuit reform as one of the few 'failures' of Blessed John Paul's pontificate.

But, I repeat that the 'redemptive suffering' endured by JPII on behalf of the Jesuit order may have, at long last, opened the door for true reform in the pontificate of Francis I.  The Jesuits are bound to re-discover their roots of allegiance to the chair of St. Peter, because one of their own will call them out of error! 

Final note on a tangential Catholic/Jewish connection between JPII and Francis I--within the first 3 days of his pontificate, Pope Francis issued this statement to the chief rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni:

'Trusting in the protection of the Most High, I very much hope to be able to contribute to the progress that relations between Jews and Catholics have experienced since the Second Vatican Council, in a spirit of renewed collaboration and at the service of a world that can be ever more harmonious with the will of the Creator.'  

(Please reference my 2013 post on Jerzy Kluger and Karol Wojtyla).  It appears that the Jewish/Catholic relations begun by JPII will be picked up again with Francis, just as they were with Benedict XVI!

Update as of Cannonization of Argentine Blessed Jose Brochero (proponent of Ignatian Spiritual Exercises):
http://opeast.org/2013/10/01/holy-cowboy/ & http://www.news.va/en/news/argentianian-priest-fr-brochero-beatified

JPII vs Abuse Crisis

In recent years, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has publicly confronted the sexual abuse crisis in the Church.  He has prayed, sought pardon for priests, and visited victims and locations where the abuse occurred.
His predecessor helped to lay the groundwork for such difficult reconciliation and healing.  Together, the two men turned shame into purification, disaster into opportunity for reform.

In my lifetime, I have observed the Church undergo transformation and renewal, even in the midst of some of the darkest days of her history.  Certainly, nothing can ever fully heal wounds as deep as abuse--but, the measures taken to not only avoid such abuse in the future, but to guarantee good priestly formation and child safety for generations to come far outweigh the wounds inflicted in a few decades.  Again, I do not excuse the behavior of Christian leaders (since it was not just Catholic clergy responsible for the abuse), but I do propose that men like Blessed John Paul II and Benedict XVI took painful measures to repair what was broken--far beyond what was expected of them as shepherds.  I would even go so far as to suggest that by working on magnum opuses like Love and Responsibility, The Theology of the Body, and  The Acting Person, JPII went after the lost sheep on a man-to-man basis--offering to pick them up and carry them with his teaching.  Even so, several disobeyed.

What was the cause of such disobedience?  And, why were there not immediate consequences?

Based on the subject matter of much of Blessed John Paul II's writing, namely the admonishing of leadership to address sexual ethics in an age of birth control and promiscuity, I would say that plenty of sound preventative material was available to the faithful post-Vatican II.  Not only that, but early on in his pontificate canon law was updated by the holy father to swiftly deal with 'crimes' associated with clergy:
The Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1983 updated the whole discipline n can, 1395, § 2: 'A cleric who in another way has committed an offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the delict was committed by force or threats or publicly or with a minor below the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants'.

Why then, were there abuses in the light of such measures?  My guess is that on a local, diocesan level, leaders were not getting the preventative training that exists today--Protecting God's Children.

Wide in scope and sparing no leadership position of necessary accountability, on a local level, Protecting God's Children came into effect toward the end of JPII's reign.  It required leaders to be certified in overseeing youth, in addition to being accountable to other leaders in a parish or school.  In my opinion, it successfully, and finally made an impact on parishes-- to such a degree that it has become the undisputed norm (along with JPII's teaching on human sexuality to back it up). 
Another key to the implementation of his teaching was the collaboration between laity and clergy--a simultaneous goal of the new evangelization.

Therefore, the unstoppable teamwork of JPII and future pope, Joseph Ratzinger, bore fruit in a swift and effective solution to abuses in the Church:
Finally Pope John Paul II decided to include the sexual abuse of a minor under 18 by a cleric, among the new list of canonical delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Prescription for these cases was of ten (10) years from the 18^th birthday of the victim. This new law was promulgated in the motu proprio 'Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela' on 30 April 2001. A letter signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, respectively Prefect and Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was sent to all the Roman Catholic Bishops on 18 May 2001. This letter informed the bishops of the new law and the new procedures which replaced the Instruction 'Crimen Sollicitationis'.
The Catholic Bishops did well to 'clean house' in their own dioceses.  As the old scripture says, 'judgment begins with the house of God'.  Truly, such judgment calls for reform and ultimately, a purified and more ordered house--focused on doing the will of God and not hampered with confusion, fear, and blame. 

Today, the Church is much more focused on the new evangelization.  So much so that, beyond accusers and fault-finders, many would have trouble guessing that the past 40+ years even had trouble with regard to abuse in the Church. 

 

from: http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_introd-storica_en.html 
THE NORMS OF THE MOTU PROPRIO
“SACRAMENTORUM SANCTITATIS TUTELA” (2001)HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

Karol Wojtyla and Jerzy Kluger (Catholics and Jews)

A few notes on the book entitled The Pope and I, by Jerzy Kluger:
Before WWII, in Wadowice, Poland, two men grew up in a Catholic/Jewish neighborhood.  The most famous of these men is Karol Wojtyla, but the second is his lifelong Jewish friend, Jerzy Kluger.  Together, they spent their elementary and highschool years in Wadowice, only to meet again after the War in Rome and in very different states of life.
Family Backgrounds:
A widower, Captain Wojtyla (Karol's father), led the Wojtyla family's life in Wadowice.  A tailor by trade, Captain Wojtyla later served as a Polish (then Prussian) officer in WWI.  He had three children with his wife Emilia: Edmund, Olga, and Karol.  Edmund became a physician just after WWI, caught scarlet fever while treating his patients and passed away a decade before WWII.  Olga also passed away much earlier on, not more than a few days old.  That left Karol as the only remaining son of Captain Wojtyla, whose wife even passed away when Karol was nine.

The Kluger family was a highly influential Jewish family in Wadowice.  Wilhelm Kluger was the president of the local Jewish community, and would regularly speak in the synagogue.  He had an eldest son, Jerzy (Jurek), and a daughter named Tesia.  Wealthy, well-educated, and gifted, Jerzy regularly noticed how much more advantaged he was than his friend 'Lolek' (Karol).  Here are some humorous examples:
--About skiing, "As we grew older, Lolek and I moved on to the tougher slopes around our area.  Lolek's technique was not as good as mine, and I was also afraid of his breaking my skis" (p.19)
--About ping-pong, "Lolek was also a good ping-pong player, although not as good as me, and I'd spot him ten points when we played together" (ibid).
--About soccer (and early indications of Wojtyla's deep understanding of Jewish/Catholic relations): "Usually Lolek would take his place between the goalposts...the spirit of competition was so fierce that even though he was not a Jew, Lolek showed no intention of taking it easy on the Catholics when he played goalie for the Jewish side" (p.25)
--About dancing with women:
"Lolek plunged into the action with Halina Krolikiewicz, the daughter of the principal of the boys' school.  I paired up with a girl named Olga, with blond hair and a floor-length green silk dress" (p.28)
Above are the lighthearted accounts of frienship in the book, but the two men also underwent tremendous tragedy in their lifetimes, mainly due to the Nazi take-over of Poland. The War proved to be devastating for both Kluger and Wojtyla families.  By it's end, only Wilhelm, Jurek, and Karol survived--and all apart from one another.  Wilhelm's wife, Rozalia, and daughter were both killed at Auschwitz.  And, Jerzy himself was taken with his father to a Soviet prison camp, Maryjskaja, only to be separated from him when obligated to join the Polish forces in Russia at Kara-Suu.
Without Lolek, Jerzy could have easily made the logical conclusion that all of Europe was anti-semitic, including Catholics.  Indeed, without the interactions that the Klugers had with the Wojtylas, Wilhelm would have also concluded that the entire world was against the Jewish people.  But Jerzy records a few touching stories that made a deep impression on him, and his father.
--Jerzy visits Catholic Mass, and is ridiculed by an elderly woman, only to be consoled by Lolek: "Believe me, Lolek, I didn't know Jews aren't allowed in here"...'Doesn't she know that Jews and Catholics are all children of the same God?' Lolek was barely ten years old'' (p.12)
--Lolek visits the synagogue: "I would like the Captain and Lolek to come to the synagogue on the Sabbath as well', father told me at one point.  I was immediately overjoyed, and I ran to extend the invitation to Lolek.  I thought again of what Lolek had told me a few years earlier, when I, as a Jew, had set foot in a church, and how my friend reassured me that this was not a sin, because Jews and Catholics come from the same God" (p.23)
Lastly, as I said, Jerzy and Lolek met again in two different states in life: Lolek as Pope, and Jerzy married, w/ 2 daughters, to a beautiful Irish Catholic woman.  They met regularly throughout JPII's pontificate, discussing Jewish/Catholic relations and ways of reconciling the two.  One such occasion arose when JPII got the idea to be the first Pope to attend Liturgy at the Roman synagogue:
--JPII in the Roman Synagogue: "You are our beloved brothers', he told them, 'and in a certain way, our older brothers'.  It was a phrase taken from Adam Mickiewicz, the author of Pan Tadewsz and Poland's greatest poet.  Hearing it again at the synagogue that day, I was suddenly brought back to those years before the war, and all of those old emotions welled up in me again.  When the pope finished speaking, there was again silence and prayer in the synagogue" (p.183).
Much healing took place in Jerzy Kluger's life on account of his friendship with Karol Wojtyla.  He was able to face the fear of returning to Poland, where his mother and sister had been murdered--he was able to serve as an ambassador to Israel for the Vatican--and above all, he was able to be a loyal friend to JPII on such a significant level that entire groups of people were reconciled by the sheer witness of their interactions, partnership, and love.



further note:
Jerzy Kluger remained a faithful Jew his entire life.  His immediate family (wife, daughters, and grandchildren) were all Catholic.  The Pope himself baptized Jurek's granddaughter with his blessing!
This stands in stark contrast to a few references to the Inquisition and forced baptisms (of Jews) in the book.  Nothing was forced in Lolek and Jurek's relationship--it was a partnership forged in suffering, good will, and solidarity that resulted in the same outcome the Inquisitors tried to  force from Jews, but without the prosetylization.
Personhood, in this sense, proved to be foundational for their friendship.  In the end, the Kluger family found the fullness of truth through personalism

JPII vs. Solipsism

Much like the Divine Physician, John Paul II could diagnose world culture on epidemic proportions. His wise influence helped to topple the iron curtain, calm the storm of feminism and reconcile Jewish/Christian grievances. Like a good doctor, John Paul II had an effective remedy for major societal hurts.

A warning he gave to future generations of thinkers, moralists, and policy makers was the danger of solipsism in philosophy. Solipsism falls under two extremes: subjectivism and objectivism. Currently, our culture subscribes to the former version of solipsism, to such a degree that we are willing to redefine human constants to suit the moods of select individual's emotions. Things like abortion, euthanasia, and same sex marriage come to mind as extreme measures of subjective reasoning:

"Wojtyła pointedly asserts this danger: 'Failure to recognize this fundamental difference [between cognition as a guide to willing and consciousness as subjectively self-constituting willing] leads inevitably to solipsism, subjectivism and idealism, that is, to a situation in which the subject seems lost in its own specific reality or objectiveness.[1]'"

People are willing to passionately defend their "own specific reality" up against the natural law, up against tradition, and up against the dignity of personhood for the sake of both money and a false sense of justice. In the event that they succeed, their influence suggests to others that they are on the side of right reason, judgment, and legality. In all actuality, they have simply made solipsism a popular mode of thinking, but not the true reality.

What is the 'true reality' that John Paul II asserts as unchanging, reliable, and in accord with natural law? Personalim. It is important to note that John Paul II invented a philosophical system based on the human person's God-given dignity, called Personalism. Having experienced atrocities committed against the human person first-hand, Karol Wojtyla synthesized his experience and study of phenomenology to apply to society in such a way totally opposed to the atheistic communism he first encountered in Poland. Therefore, his theory of Personalism is holistic, touching on all aspects of God-given dignity in society: economic, moral, political, social, etc.

On the other hand, John Paul II warns against a strict objectivism as well--making sure to guard against instances where individual's rights are not recognized as crucial to public policy. A summary of his warning consists in the following:

"The person then apprehends the truth objectively and understands it subjectively, objectivity and subjectivity being necessary epistemological compliments of one another. Thus, objectivity is protected from the danger of objectivism wherein fact alone is accepted and value is given no more meaning. Such a truncated objectivity results in the denial of value, tending solipsistically to negate the interior personal reality. At the same time, its complimentarity with subjectivity prevents the latter from degenerating into a subjectivism whereby fact and value take on a radically individualistic sense and devolve into solipsism. Ultimately, both objectivism and subjectivism trap the person in epistemological isolation. This deprives the individual of the full sense of his/her subjectivity and personhood and breaks the community bonds of shared value and meaning which arise from the spirit of the constituent persons[2]".

Again, being careful to guard against one extreme of subjectivism to another extreme of objectivism, JPII emphasizes the value of the human person in decision-making. It is a balanced approach, which gives weight to both interior personality and exterior absolutes of morality. Practical examples of such an approach to decision-making include: not resorting to 'mercy killing' out of a request for pain relief, not taking the life of a fetus because of financial hardship, or teaching someone with SSA about the value of abstinence in life-choices.

But to stop with just the human being in philosophy is not sufficient to create an enduring and realistic system of thought. John Paul II includes and credits God as the source of human dignity and personhood:

"Both objective and subjective reality are perfectly and eternally communicated by God because the uncreated Being is both knowing and communicative. As self-consciousness which is pure existence, the perfect act knows itself absolutely and communicates goodness, truth and love. Hence, it does not grow in self-knowledge which is already perfect; it does not become more from creation, because it is the fullness of being; existence is not indifference or randomness. Rather, from its source all being is purposeful, creative and intelligent; this is the key to subjectivity and personhood, and the foundation of its being relational and loving[3]".

Without God, as in communism, man has no lasting reference point and purpose for his existence. Yes, he can take a lifetime of dignified personhood to discover this truth, but the sooner he realizes it and applies it, the sooner that he becomes more just, in touch with reality, and capable of authentic love. To persist in atheism, while at the same time insisting on human dignity, is secular humanism. The unfortunate end to such a philosophy is, as JPII asserts, solipsism:

"Wojtyla argued that atheism, whether existential or Marxist, is inherently solipsistic, and is, therefore, unable to achieve a proper notion of intersubjectivity.[4]"

By ruling out the existence of God as Himself Personal, man has no basis for what his own personhood entails. Additionally, man has no moral compass for the conscience rights he so deserves in relating to government, labor, and free market capitalism, since he originally attributes his conscience to the voice of God within him--as formed by his moral formation. Therefore, along with JPII, I argue that God is crucial for determining the "intersubjectivity" of persons, that is, the common experience of God speaking through conscience to inform persons of their moral dignity.

It is no coincidence that the events Karol Wojtyla lived through in his lifetime would so influence his interpretation of those events for the glory of God and benefit of mankind. His philosophy of Personalism lines up beautifully with his work in Love and Responsibility and the Theology of the Body to create a consistent testament to the fact that man is made in the image and likeness of his Creator. Man's development depends substantially on the implementation of JPII's thinking, especially in the face of the threat of solipsism on modern thought.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Cardinal Karol Wojtyla. The Acting Person. Andrzej Potocki, Translator. A.-T. Tymieniecka, Collaborator on the Definitive Text. Boston: D. Reidel, 1979

[2] http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/III-16/chapter_x.htm) (LOIACONO: THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON AS THE BASIS FOR COMMUNITY)

[3] (http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/III-16/chapter_x.htm) (LOIACONO: THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON AS THE BASIS FOR COMMUNITY)

[4] (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/11/001-before-the-papacy-25)

See also Schindler's commentary on objective/subjective reality vs. ideas in Communio Magazine: http://www.communio-icr.com/files/DLS_Winter2014_final.pdf