Dies Domini, "Lord of the Sabbath" and JPII

To preface this post, it's necessary to point out that I have lived with my new family in a Jewish Orthodox neighborhood for the past year. There, a rabbi lives a few blocks away from us, and we are surrounded by young families who routinely set aside Friday evening to Saturday evening as their "shabbat".

Interestingly, Karol Wojtyla grew up in Wadowice with similar circumstances as my family's current neighborhood described above (please see my previous post: Catholics and Jews for further reference). Suffice it to say, that the Catholic/Jewish neighbohood Wojtyla grew up in made a major impression on him, shaping his understanding of Judeo-Christianity worldwide. Again, not because he went out of his way to seek such a worldview, but because the relationships he was involved in with friends like Jerzy Kluger formed him as such.

The Apostolic Letter on the Lord's Day or "Dies Domini" explores the Church's need to re-discover the cultural catalyst of celebrating the Lord's resurrection each Sunday! I will draw largely from the text of Dies Domini, as well as a Master's thesis for Sacred Heart Seminary written by Nico Angleys on the same topic. Together, these sources do not merely conclude that the jewish understanding of Sabbath in anticipation of the messiah is enough. Instead, they conclude that the Messiah has already come in the Person of Jesus who rose from the dead three days after celebrating the passover, wherein he instituted the Eucharist, and the day on which he rose is the same Sunday we celebrate! Therefore, Sunday has replaced Saturday as sabbath, and ultimately become "the day of the Lord".

Within the first few paragraphs of his letter, JPII admits to such a strong impression of "the Lord's Day" from his early days as a Bishop in Poland:
Many of the insights and intuitions which prompt this Apostolic Letter have grown from my episcopal service in Krakow. I see this Letter as continuing the lively exchange which I am always happy to have with the faithful, as I reflect with you on the meaning of Sunday and underline the reasons for living Sunday as truly "the Lord's Day", also in the changing circumstances of our own times. (Dies Domini #3)

He goes on to point out that for numerous reasons, including: economic instability, secularism, persecution, etc. the practice of observing the holiness of Sunday has been gradually declining since the early 1900s. The fact that the early Church, he says, had to literally shed blood for the sake of observing the Lord's Day on Sunday should make us grateful for the little persecution we have in the same regard today. JPII says of Justin Martyr and others under the persecution of Diocletian: "many were courageous enough to defy the imperial decree[banning Eucharistic assembly] and accepted death rather than miss the Sunday Eucharist." (ibid, #46) As for the history and logic behind Sunday as the given day for celebrating the Lord's Resurrection, I will summarize his points below:
1) Jesus rose from the tomb on Sunday, "first day after the sabbath" (Mk 16:2;Lk 24:1;Jn 20:1)
2) "Sunday" was originally named by the Romans as 'day of the sun'; Christianized by the early Church (and met with persecution)
3) Accoring to St Gregory of Nyssa and Maronite Liturgy, the early Christians of Jerusalem viewed the Jewish "shabbat" and Christian Sunday as two "brother days" (De Castiatione 46), with Sunday taking the highest place on account of the Lord's resurrection on that day
4) The necessity of conscience to participate in Eucharist on Sunday

Late in the Apolostolic Letter, JPII references the "Lord of the Sabbath" (Mk 2:28) as the authoritative principle in transferring the Jewish day of rest to the day of the Lord's Resurrection on Sunday. That is to say, Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, has the authority to be "Lord of the Sabbath" on Sunday, rather than Saturday, because he proved his authority by rising from the dead on that day! Nico Angleys' thesis brings this idea to the fore in his introductory paragraphs of "Keeping the Lord's Day Holy" by linking the decalogue, the new evangelization, and the authority of Jesus:
Time belongs to God. In his eternal and infinite wisdom, he gave us a command pertaining to time: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8). Jesus upholds this command and is given the title “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28, Matthew 12:8, and Luke 6:5). In the Great Commission, Jesus tells his disciples: “teach them [the disciples of all nations] to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20). Thus, in our day, the work of evangelization involves teaching the third commandment and declaring the blessing of sanctified time to a culture fixated on time. (part 1, Introduction to "Keeping the Lord's Day Holy")

Nico Angleys effectively points to Christ as central to the Lord's Day, fittingly celebrated on Sunday as stated above. He quotes from Dies Domini in regard to the linkage between Jerusalem of the old covenant and the New Jerusalem under the Messianic reign of Jesus:
In one of the concluding paragraphs of Dies Domini, he writes that “Sunday has the additional value of being a testimony and a proclamation” and then launches into an inspiring crescendo of reasons for this proclamation that culminates in the unending Sunday of the heavenly Jerusalem described in Revelation 21. (Part 1, #2 "Proclamation" of "Keeping the Lord's Day Holy")

Lastly, both JPII and Nico Angleys agree that Jesus completes the old covenant remembrance of the sabbath by A)Instituting the Eucharist on the night of Passover [the event where God delivered his people with the blood of a lamb] B) re-creating the order of nature by rising from the dead on Sunday [restoring to grace the fallen creation of God's creation account in Genesis].

What does that all mean practically? Or how does the layperson incoporate the practice of keeping Sunday (Saturday night through Sunday evening) holy besides going to Mass? JPII gives a few examples:
1) recitation of Saturday evening Vespers in family homes or local parish
2) dialogue between parents and children, especially thankfully remembering God's work in their lives
3) Catechesis for preparation to enter into the Mass, receive the Eucharist
4) family meal
5) Pilgrimage to nearby shrine

In today's culture, these examples go a long way with evangelization. "Fighting for Sunday" may become more intense as things continue to disintegrate, but having the teaching in place from JPII and others will strongly reinforce efforts to live God's law of love.

JPII vs Modernism

Due to the upcoming canonization of Blessed John Paul II, some suspect him of having invested himself in the heresy of 'modernism' as refuted by St. Pius X in "Pascendi Dominici Gregis". In fact, it is suspected that all of the Second Vatican Council fathers, including John XXIII (who will be canonized soon) and BXVI, were invested in modernism to such a degree that they were consciously allowing the gates of hell to prevail over the Church.  {Please see my previous post on the Tridentine Mass for background of the schism that occurred during JPII's reign}.  I want to simply refute the already refuted heresy of modernism by St. Pius X in the life and teachings of Karol Wojtyla.

It is essential to define exactly what 'Modernism' is, as it has become a rather popular term among traditionalists to critique Church leaders of the past fifty years. What St. Pius X means by 'Modernism' is more or less the following:

Laymen and clergy who lack the protection of sound philosophy and theology are setting themselves up as would-be reformers of the Church and her faith. Typically, they are men of erudition and strict moral probity. But they also, in his words, ‘double the parts of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error’. They know perfectly well at what they are aiming which is a total ‘make-over’ (in our contemporary parlance) of revelation as hitherto understood.[1]

Right off the bat, does this sound like the man who--together with Joseph Ratzinger--compiled the most thorough Catechism of the Catholic Church in light of the Nicene Creed that the Church has yet seen? Riddled throughout that Catechism, unlike the former Baltimore Catechism of happy memory, are footnotes upon footnotes of St Thomas Aquinas as well as early Church Fathers.

Granted, St. Pius X's definition of "Modernist" would seem to apply to Wojtyla's use of phenomenology and scientific method in some instances to research controversial issues like the morality of stem cells, IVF, sexual morality and fertility, etc. But, did not Cardinal Wojtyla, and later JPII himself, have the good of the faithful and glory of God in mind when publishing works like Love and Responsibility? Did he not merely use the means of reason and philosophy to aid the faithful in the inevitable fight between the culture of death and the culture of life?

The real question is, and is sadly misunderstood by many who would too quickly dismiss Wojtyla's genius, were the methods of philosophical inquiry used by Karol Wojtyla "protected by sound philosophy and theology"? The answer is resoundingly, "Yes, they were sound and rooted in Catholic tradition".

Here is why the above answer is true: not only did Karol Wojtyla rely on St. Thomas Aquinas as a basis for objective reality and absolute moral truth, he also relied upon St. Augustine for inquiry into the 'intersubjectivity' of man--that is, the 'immanence' of the follower of Christ both consciously active in the Church and unconsciously (see my post on JPII vs. solipsism for further notes on subjectivity).

Now, 'immanence' is a potentially bad word among traditionalists, and St. Pius X has almost no tolerance for experiential believers and Pentecostalism divorced from the true and reasonable parameters of conscience described by St. Augustine in his Confessions. Allow me, then, to draw a line between the two types of 'immanence' that St. Pius X describes in "Pascendi", with the help of Fr. Nichols and St. Augustine:

Pius admits that an appeal to immanence can have an acceptable sense. Semi-quoting Augustine, it can be a way of saying God works in a way even more intimately present to me than I am to myself. But Modernists mean more than this: they mean that divine action always invests itself in the activity of nature: so revelatory divine action doesn’t differ in principle from any other manner in which creative processes have divine causality behind them. The implication, thinks the pope, is pantheism.[2]

To pinpoint exactly where Fr. Nichols is drawing his information in the letter of Pius X, it is in paragraph 19, the section titled "The Modernist as Theologian". Another way of saying Fr. Nichol's summary of the nineteenth paragraph is that the Christian is allowed to recognize God as closer to him than he is to himself, but he is not allowed to insist on changes in revelation based on his own feelings, sentiments, or subconscious desires. Believe it or not, this is one of the main dangers that Pius and every Pope since his time has made clear to both be wary of and to balance with objectively acceptable absolute truths identified by St. Thomas Aquinas, namely, natural law and the doctrine of the Magisterium.

At this point, is there any inconsistency between JPII and St. Thomas Aquinas, or St. Augustine for that matter? Let us use Wojtyla's own words:

It is for this reason that the Church has given preference to the method and doctrine of the Angelic Doctor. Quite other than exclusive preference, this deals with an exemplary preference that permitted Leo XIII to declare him to be inter Scholasticos Doctores, omnium princeps et magister. And truly such is St Thomas Aquinas, not only for the completeness, balance, depth and clarity of his style, but still more for his keen sense of fidelity to the truth which can also be called realism: fidelity to the voice of created things so as to construct the edifice of philosophy; fidelity to the voice of the Church so as to construct the edifice of theology.[3]

And again on St Augustine, drawing largely from Leo XIII's "Aeterni Patris":

Pope Leo XIII praised his philosophical teachings in the Encyclical Aeterni Patris; later, Pius XI made a brief synthesis of his virtues and teachings in the Encyclical Ad salutem humani generis, declaring that, of those who have flourished from the beginnings of the human race down to our own days, none—or, at most, very few—could rank with Augustine, for the very great acuteness of his genius, for the richness and sublimity of his teachings, and finally for his holiness of life and defense of Catholic truth. Paul VI later affirmed: 'Indeed, over and above the shining example he gives of the qualities common to all the Fathers, it may be said that all the thought-currents of the past meet in his works and form the source which provides the whole doctrinal tradition of succeeding ages.[4]

Is this just lip-service from one modernist to another? Or, is this the truly prayed over material of the Slavic Pope who found in himself the continuation of these great Catholic thinkers? I strongly suggest the latter.

In conclusion, I have argued the following:
1) JPII is far from being a Modernist heretic, but is profoundly rooted in Tradition
2) St. Pius X allows for the teachings of Vatican II in his letter
3) St Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine are the objective and subjective litmus tests for true continuity with Tradition


For more info, please see JPII's "Fides et Ratio", section "The Magisterium's discernment as diakonia of the truth" in paragraphs# 54-56

And, a helpfully simple Peter Kreeft list against Modernism:
1) Is God a transcendent, supernatural, personal, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, providential, loving, just Creator? Or is God an immanent cosmic force evolving in nature and man?
2) Do miracles really happen? Or has science refuted them? A transcendent God can perform miracles; a merely immanent, naturalistic God cannot. The three great miracles essential to orthodox Christianity are the Incarnation, the Resurrection and the new birth.
3) Is there a heaven? Or is heaven just all the good on earth?
4) Does God really love me? Or is that just a helpful sentiment?
5) Does God forgive my sins through Christ? Or is sin an outdated concept? In other words, is Christ a mere human example or a Savior from sin?
6) Is Christ divine, eternal, from the beginning? Or is he only divine “as all men are divine”?
7) Did he physically rise from the dead? Or is the Resurrection only a myth, a beautiful symbol?
8) Must we be born again from above to be saved, to have God as our Father? Or is everyone saved automatically? Does everyone have God as Father simply by being born as a human being, or by being reasonably nice during life?
9) Is Scripture God’s word to us? Or is it human words about God? Does it have divine or human authority behind it? And can an ordinary Christian understand its true meaning without reading German theologians?
10 )Most important of all, can I really meet God in Christ? If I ask him to be my Lord, the Lord of my life, will he really do it? Or is this just a “religious experience”? This question is really one with the question: Did Christ really rise from the dead? That is, is he alive now? Can I say: “You ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart!”?[5]

---

[1] Aidan Nichols O.P., “Modernism a Century On" Crisis Magazine

[2] Ibid. & https://archive.org/details/popepiusx_1409_librivox

[3] POPE JOHN PAUL’S ADDRESS TO THE EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL THOMISTIC CONGRESS––13 th September 1980.

[4] Apostolic Letter to the bishops, priests, religious families and faithful of the whole Catholic Church on the occasion of the 16th centenary of the conversion of St. Augustine, Bishop and Doctor, 28 August 1986.

[5] http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/toward-reuniting.htm

JPII and Redemption

Throughout his life, Karol Wojtyla wrote extensively on Divine Mercy, but more personally, the Redeemer. As a powerful title for Christ, 'Redeemer' had specific meaning to JPII and can be found in most of his speeches, letters, and other works. Why did he refer to Christ under this title so often? How did JPII hope for members of the Church to identify with the Redeemer?

Three encyclicals that prove his affinity for the Redeemer, and his conviction that (in addition to Divine Mercy) redemption was the message for the modern world are: Remptor Hominis, Redemptoris Missio, and Redemptoris Mater. All three refer to the mystery of Redemption and its implications for man (both individually and collectively). I want to largely draw from the first two of these encyclicals in order to illustrate the profound relationship JPII had with the Redeemer, who paid for the Church with the gift of his own blood.

The 'mystery' of the Redemption is precisely that, a mystery, but it is still worth mining for truth, goodness, and beauty under the guidance of the Slavic Pope who explored the mystery so thoroughly. That is to say that the mystery is very much accessible to the layman with the help of the wisdom of the holy father. Therefore, it is safe to proceed with the basic understanding of Redemption as the price paid for man to be reconciled to God.

As the Redeemer, Jesus paid the price of his blood on the cross without reservation, and once dead, was raised on the third day in victory over sin and death. I want to emphasize, as does the Pope, that the Resurrection justified the price of Jesus' blood on the cross with inestimable value, efficaciousness, and life-giving centrality to the Church. JPII's very first encyclical began with these words: "THE REDEEMER OF MAN, Jesus Christ, is the center of the universe and of history" (Redemptor Hominis, ch. 1). Furthermore, in the sacraments, especially of baptism and the eucharist, we encounter the power of the Redemption firsthand:

By celebrating and also partaking of the Eucharist we unite ourselves with Christ on earth
and in heaven who intercedes for us with the Father, but we always do so
through the redeeming act of his Sacrifice, through which he has
redeemed us, so that we have been "bought with a price". The "price" of
our redemption is likewise a further proof of the value that God himself
sets on man and of our dignity in Christ. (ibid, ch. 20)

This statement in itself, comprises the whole of the message of Redemption which JPII wished to impart to the world. It was as though the Redeemer urged him to "tell my people that I value them to such a degree that I entirely spent my priceless blood for each of them". The message is very much in line with scriptural and traditional understanding of redemption as 'purchasing', and demands to be delivered with a particular urgency in a world where human dignity has all but been reduced to mere numeric value. Further evidence from Scripture for this same understanding of redemption appears in the books of Ruth and Exodus in particular, foreshadowing Christ as Bridegroom in the former and Christ as Redeemer from slavery in the latter.

Karol Wojtyla saw the worst of ideological indignity in nazism and communism. Yet, he found himself being led by the Redeemer, in the midst of both catastrophes, to communicate the message of Redemption to the world threatened by the allurement of such inhumanity. He challenges man, so strongly influenced by the likes of Freud, Nietzche, and Marx to adopt the "Ethos of Redemption" (Theology of the Body) to combat the "masters of suspicion" already mentioned. He does not settle for the excuse, 'we are only human flesh'. That is why, in Redemptor Hominis, he deals with the truth of redemption in a human dimension and in a divine dimension--as Christ united both in himself:

We can and must immediately reach and display to the world our
unity in proclaiming the mystery of Christ, in revealing the divine
dimension and also the human dimension of the Redemption, and in
struggling with unwearying perseverance for the dignity that each human
being has reached and can continually reach in Christ, namely the dignity
of both the grace of divine adoption and the inner truth of humanity, a
truth which—if in the common awareness of the modern world it has been
given such fundamental importance—for us is still clearer in the light of
the reality that is Jesus Christ. (Redemptor Hominis ch.11)

It is not enough for humanity to come to some greater appreciation of itself as reasonable, industrious, etc. Rather, man has to be raised to his crucial relationship of covenant with God in Christ in order to fully grasp his dignity and worth--and in humility, to acknowledge God as its source and summit. Revolutions like the Enlightenment and Marxism drastically fall short of this call. So too does any technological advancement invented by man that promises to alleviate suffering for a time. JPII covers all of these substitutes for the Redeemer in his writings. Furhtermore, he notes that the need for a redeemer is written on the human conscience ever since the first sin.

The need for a redeemer is clearly seen throughout Scripture. Especially one who could definitively reunite God and man. If we look at the depictions of bloodshed in the earliest recorded Judeo-Christian history, we see that Abel ends up to be the first martyr and victim of familial violence. His death is mentioned in the Letter to the Hebrews "the blood of Christ speaks more eloquently than that of Abel"(Heb 12), and is directly compared to the redemptive blood of the Son of God whose life continued beyond death. Just as the message of the Redeemer 'speaks' to JPII, so too does Abel's blood 'speak' of a need for the Redeemer. Abel's blood, like every innocent victim of violence since himself, demands an answer from God. Even God says, soon after the murder of Abel by Cain, "Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground!" (Gen 4). So too, the blood of the martyrs 'speaks' of the past, present, and future need for the blood of the Redeemer to restore life to man's mortality, and JPII captures the pulse of this communication in Redemptoris Missio (ch. 1):

Although participated forms of mediation of different kinds and
degrees are not excluded, they acquire meaning and value
only from Christ's own mediation

That is to say, that the blood of the martyrs does not suffice as redemptive unless Christ is raised from the dead! Abel's blood would have no answer from God had not Christ poured out his blood on the cross. Not only die, but rise to see his blood forever re-gain its vitality and 'speak eloquently'. This is exactly what JPII is writing about in his reference to the Eucharist as the living body and blood, or lifeblood, of the Redeemer. The dignity and value of man, paid for by the priceless and living blood of Christ, is nearly ineffable. In the Eucharist too, this price remains with man as enduring proof of his redemption. None can say that he is far from them or distant from one's suffering, dying, or loneliness. The answer to all of man's wounds is in the redemption!

That is why, as the first Slavic pope, Karol Wojtyla so strongly identified with the Redeemer. He had experienced firsthand, the extent to which Christ had taken on the human condition and with Divine Mercy raised it up to God. He explains (Redemptor Hominis ch.1):

In its penetrating analysis of "the modern world", the Second Vatican
Council reached that most important point of the visible world that is
man, by penetrating like Christ the depth of human consciousness and by
making contact with the inward mystery of man, which in Biblical and
non-Biblical language is expressed by the word "heart". Christ, the
Redeemer of the world, is the one who penetrated in a unique
unrepeatable way into the mystery of man and entered his "heart"

JPII goes as far as saying that Vatican II was an initiative of the Redeemer to more thoroughly influence wayward man! How great an emphasis he places on redemption, as to afford the council a special mission and goal toward this end of proving to man that Jesus loved him to death and beyond. Redemptor Hominis, as his first encyclical, effectively communicates JPII's burden for accurately instituting the teachings of the council and to bring the Church into year of Jubilee, 2000. Wojtyla lived to see that day, having done exactly what he proposed in the opening years of his reign.

picture: blood of JPII preserved as relic

Update "Unequal Exchange":
It is not as though the life of the Redeemer for our life is an equally valid and contractual exchange, no it is completely gratuitous. Pope BXVI says, "The mystery of the Covenant expresses this relationship between God who calls man with his word, and man who responds, albeit making clear that it is not a matter of a meeting of two peers; what we call the Old and New Covenant is not a
contract between two equal parties, but a pure gift of God." (Verbum Domini #22)

JPII and Ecumenism

It's important to keep in mind that the pope stands as "the servant of the servants of God". And, there are many servants of God! Many who have been legitimately baptized into Christ Jesus and have a share in his life. Therefore, JPII came among all of the servants "as one who serves" and not as one who lords over (Mt. 20:25-26).


The best evidence for his attitude of service toward the unity of all Christians comes from his encyclical letter "Ut Unum Sint". Like St. Peter, JPII pleads with all members of the body of Christ to recognize him as the one "visible sign and guarantor of unity" (World Council of Churches in Geneva 06/12/84). Not for his own glory did he make such a plea, but rather, for the sake of a more effective sign of unity among Christians in these last days.


JPII goes so far as to ask forgiveness from Christian brethren for all the wounds caused by himself or past popes (Section 89). He cites Jesus' rebuke of St. Peter, "you are a hindrance to me" (Mt. 16:23), as proof that not even Peter was perfectly aligned with Christ's mission. Yet, Jesus chose him as the Rock who would "be sifted life wheat" only to "return and strengthen his brothers"(Lk 22:31). So too, the servant of the servants of God strengthens all the brethren.

Karol Wojtyla learned this well when he had to attend clandestine seminary. He returned as a priest to a country infected by atheistic communism. To combat it, he saw to the preservation of literature and culture in Poland and abroad--teaching on subjects like Shakespeare, Sophocles, and more. Further evidence of his commitment to ecumenical dialogue and respect for man's conscience shows up in his lectures on Shakespeare to students in Poland:

After becoming a priest, as auxiliary bishop of Krakow, Wojtyła delivered a meditation to university students on the theme of conscience and conversion—one that included a brief, though telling, assessment of Shakespeare. In that meditation the future pontiff observed, 'We know that most of the major works of world literature center around the question of the conscience. . . . Shakespeare's plays are all concerned with the conscience, because this force of nature is such a characteristic human feature.' http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/log/summary/v010/10.1curtright.html.

Shakespeare was not the only Anglican that JPII made mention of to others. C.S. Lewis was also admired by the Pope, as seen in his interview with Englishman Walter Hoover:

In November 1994, I myself was asked to go to Rome to talk with John Paul II about Lewis. I met him after his general audience and he explained that he had greatly valued Lewis' 1960 study, The Four Loves. He also asked me a very pastoral question: "Do you still love your old friend?" I replied that I did, "both with storge [familial affection] and philia [friendship]." I did my best to answer his questions, thinking all the time how alike these two men were. At the end, the pope said something I found deeply moving: "C.S. Lewis knew what his apostolate was, and he did it!"...One could say the same about John Paul II, who appeared to know more about Lewis' works than I realized. I believe he was personally behind their translation into Polish. http://ncronline.org/news/art-media/cs-lewis-couldnt-touch-anything-without-illuminating-it

Karol Wojtyla's respect for man's conscience is the most crucial component to his ecumenical thought. As pope, he could not "lord over" the servants of God. Instead, he appealed to the conscience of every man by presenting him with the very truth of Christ--as found in his many profound writings, prayers, poetry and travels. Even if one could deny his way of Christo-centric thinking, one would be hard-pressed to refuse to believe the suffering JPII endured for the sake of the Gospel. Therefore, between his appeals for forgiveness and comradery in "Ut Unum Sint", and his broad-reaching influence on members of the body of Christ around the world--it is good and right to say that JPII was a true servant of God and bridge-builder(pontiff) for Christianity.

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)