Trying to understand Paul VI’s ‘conflicted soul’ is rather like trying to psychoanalyze the mind of the man who demolished your home while asking you to admire his inner struggle. Whatever personal virtues he may have possessed, history must judge him above all by his public acts. He presided over the replacement of the immemorial Roman Rite with a new liturgy, promoted ecumenism unprecedented in the Church’s history, and oversaw the greatest collapse in Catholic belief and practice in modern times. Before asking us to sympathize with his inner conflict, perhaps we should first ask: what redeeming public act outweighed the devastation wrought under his “pontificate”?
The tell, is Paul VI and now the prelates today, actually blame Lafebvre for the chaos in the Church.
It's one thing to denounce what they're doing (let's ignore if they're right or wrong), it's quite another to blame them for the absolute chaos in the whole Church, which only started when YOU, Paul VI, decided to change everything.
Lefebvre didn't change anything. He and the sspx were a tiny little group, affecting very little of the Church. To blame them is pure projection.
Basically: If the SSPX is a tiny tiny fragment, why all the fuss? The fact that everyone can't stop talking about it is a sign that they represent something MUCH greater than themselves, namely, the Catholic Tradition that has been banished. And this gives people - especially churchmen - an incredible guilt complex. So they have to keep bashing on the SSPX as the malefactors to medicate their own guilt and to have a scapegoat.
"The tell, is Paul VI and now the prelates today, actually blame Lafebvre for the chaos in the Church."
With due respect, I think that may be how it looks from tradland. But off in the mainland of the Novus Order, I think the vast majority remain complacent and oblivious. "Chaos? What chaos? Eleven o'clock and all's well."
To the extent there is indeed a noticeable fuss, one can easily chalk that up to an accident of the inscrutable algorithms of social media.
Correct, 80+% know nothing of any of this. But those who do know, Paul VI obviously being one of them, have an opinion. This is where my critique is applicable.
But it matters, because even though 80+% of people know or care nothing about this, the small % who do know are who move things, and the 80+% tend to just go along with whatever happens. This is why entire nations became protestant almost instantly. The people weren't clamoring for anything like that. It was foisted upon them by a few princes priests and bishops, and they just went with it.
1. If V2 propelled Rome out of the gravitational pull of Catholicism, the abandonment of Latin in its universities locked in its trajectory and filled its fuel tanks. (Riffing on an observation made by Archbishop Lefebvre in “An Open Letter to Confused Catholics.”)
2. As described here, the remaking of the Mass ought to have been enough to end that papacy then and there.
That quote about anthropocentric religion oriented towards man versus theocentric religion oriented towards God is amazing… complete inversion between his actions and his words.
What is left undiscussed is the fact that the Nouvelle school represented a departure, if not a rupture… and almost overnight at the council under the rule of this pope, it got the upper hand. Everyone pretends like this is not a big deal, but it represented a sea change.
The die was cast with the election of Pope John XXXIII, who both called the Council and knighted Montini. Be interesting to read a biography of him since he was really the root cause of a radically changed Church. Paul seemed like an inexpert surfer trying to direct the waves triggered by John.
So enough, then, with all the blame on Bugnini, who was merely a Luca Brasi to Montini's Don Corleone. The Novus Ordo bears this Pope's name, and was rolled out with all the dogmatic power entrusted to the Pope via Pastor Aeternus, steamrolling over whatever tepid objections may have been put forth by a few bishops; most, it would seem, went right along with the Pope and implemented his New Rite with tremendous speed and universality - perhaps because they, for the most part, were of similar mind and formation as Paul VI as described here.
Which, if accurate, doesn't say much for the the Rite of Pius V and the entire ecosystem of formation pre-Vatican II. What was in the water then, and how would it be different if the TLM came back in full force? Somewhere inside was the cause to its rejection by all those bishops who were marinated in it.
I think you are underestimating the powerful "spirit of Vatican I" that some of us have called hyperpapalism. This is most definitely NOT taught by Pastor Aeternus, but it is the most common interpretation of it, as explained here:
All you need is an episcopate steeped in this false perspective, and voila!, what the pope says must be done. Cardinal Siri of Genoa said, basically, "I dislike the Novus Ordo but it's what the pope commands and I must obey." Cardinal Journet said the same.
To your other question, I will quote the incomparable insight of Dr. Alice von Hildebrand from a 2001 interview:
<< The devil hates the ancient Mass. He hates it because it is the most perfect reformulation of all the teachings of the Church. It was my husband who gave me this insight about the Mass. The problem that ushered in the present crisis was not the traditional Mass. The problem was that priests who offered it had already lost the sense of the supernatural and the transcendent. They rushed through the prayers, they mumbled and didn’t enunciate them. That is a sign that they had brought to the Mass their growing secularism. The ancient Mass does not abide irreverence, and that was why so many priests were just as happy to see it go. >>
Peter, I think you’re identifying an important contributing factor, but not the root cause. Hyperpapalism may explain why so many bishops submitted to the revolution. It does not explain how the Church’s own constitutional order could publicly produce and sustain it. That is the deeper question. If the ordinary exercise of the papal office can promulgate a liturgy that departs from immemorial tradition and oversee a revolution in doctrine and practice, then the problem is no longer merely an exaggerated theory of obedience. It becomes a constitutional question about the public exercise of authority itself.
Trying to understand Paul VI’s ‘conflicted soul’ is rather like trying to psychoanalyze the mind of the man who demolished your home while asking you to admire his inner struggle. Whatever personal virtues he may have possessed, history must judge him above all by his public acts. He presided over the replacement of the immemorial Roman Rite with a new liturgy, promoted ecumenism unprecedented in the Church’s history, and oversaw the greatest collapse in Catholic belief and practice in modern times. Before asking us to sympathize with his inner conflict, perhaps we should first ask: what redeeming public act outweighed the devastation wrought under his “pontificate”?
I agree with everything you've said except the quotation marks around the last word.
The tell, is Paul VI and now the prelates today, actually blame Lafebvre for the chaos in the Church.
It's one thing to denounce what they're doing (let's ignore if they're right or wrong), it's quite another to blame them for the absolute chaos in the whole Church, which only started when YOU, Paul VI, decided to change everything.
Lefebvre didn't change anything. He and the sspx were a tiny little group, affecting very little of the Church. To blame them is pure projection.
A point made extremely well in this article:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/07/econe-sign-of-contradiction-by-come-de.html
Basically: If the SSPX is a tiny tiny fragment, why all the fuss? The fact that everyone can't stop talking about it is a sign that they represent something MUCH greater than themselves, namely, the Catholic Tradition that has been banished. And this gives people - especially churchmen - an incredible guilt complex. So they have to keep bashing on the SSPX as the malefactors to medicate their own guilt and to have a scapegoat.
"The tell, is Paul VI and now the prelates today, actually blame Lafebvre for the chaos in the Church."
With due respect, I think that may be how it looks from tradland. But off in the mainland of the Novus Order, I think the vast majority remain complacent and oblivious. "Chaos? What chaos? Eleven o'clock and all's well."
To the extent there is indeed a noticeable fuss, one can easily chalk that up to an accident of the inscrutable algorithms of social media.
Correct, 80+% know nothing of any of this. But those who do know, Paul VI obviously being one of them, have an opinion. This is where my critique is applicable.
But it matters, because even though 80+% of people know or care nothing about this, the small % who do know are who move things, and the 80+% tend to just go along with whatever happens. This is why entire nations became protestant almost instantly. The people weren't clamoring for anything like that. It was foisted upon them by a few princes priests and bishops, and they just went with it.
Hot take mid-read:
1. If V2 propelled Rome out of the gravitational pull of Catholicism, the abandonment of Latin in its universities locked in its trajectory and filled its fuel tanks. (Riffing on an observation made by Archbishop Lefebvre in “An Open Letter to Confused Catholics.”)
2. As described here, the remaking of the Mass ought to have been enough to end that papacy then and there.
That quote about anthropocentric religion oriented towards man versus theocentric religion oriented towards God is amazing… complete inversion between his actions and his words.
Yes. There is a LOT of that in Paul VI: impeccable speeches, and actions that betray them.
Thanks for this article. Very interesting.
What is left undiscussed is the fact that the Nouvelle school represented a departure, if not a rupture… and almost overnight at the council under the rule of this pope, it got the upper hand. Everyone pretends like this is not a big deal, but it represented a sea change.
The die was cast with the election of Pope John XXXIII, who both called the Council and knighted Montini. Be interesting to read a biography of him since he was really the root cause of a radically changed Church. Paul seemed like an inexpert surfer trying to direct the waves triggered by John.
So enough, then, with all the blame on Bugnini, who was merely a Luca Brasi to Montini's Don Corleone. The Novus Ordo bears this Pope's name, and was rolled out with all the dogmatic power entrusted to the Pope via Pastor Aeternus, steamrolling over whatever tepid objections may have been put forth by a few bishops; most, it would seem, went right along with the Pope and implemented his New Rite with tremendous speed and universality - perhaps because they, for the most part, were of similar mind and formation as Paul VI as described here.
Which, if accurate, doesn't say much for the the Rite of Pius V and the entire ecosystem of formation pre-Vatican II. What was in the water then, and how would it be different if the TLM came back in full force? Somewhere inside was the cause to its rejection by all those bishops who were marinated in it.
I think you are underestimating the powerful "spirit of Vatican I" that some of us have called hyperpapalism. This is most definitely NOT taught by Pastor Aeternus, but it is the most common interpretation of it, as explained here:
https://onepeterfive.com/spirit-vatican-one-post-revolutionary-political-problem/
https://onepeterfive.com/what-is-the-false-spirit-of-vatican-one/
And especially this: https://onepeterfive.com/dubia-vatican-one/
All you need is an episcopate steeped in this false perspective, and voila!, what the pope says must be done. Cardinal Siri of Genoa said, basically, "I dislike the Novus Ordo but it's what the pope commands and I must obey." Cardinal Journet said the same.
To your other question, I will quote the incomparable insight of Dr. Alice von Hildebrand from a 2001 interview:
<< The devil hates the ancient Mass. He hates it because it is the most perfect reformulation of all the teachings of the Church. It was my husband who gave me this insight about the Mass. The problem that ushered in the present crisis was not the traditional Mass. The problem was that priests who offered it had already lost the sense of the supernatural and the transcendent. They rushed through the prayers, they mumbled and didn’t enunciate them. That is a sign that they had brought to the Mass their growing secularism. The ancient Mass does not abide irreverence, and that was why so many priests were just as happy to see it go. >>
Peter, I think you’re identifying an important contributing factor, but not the root cause. Hyperpapalism may explain why so many bishops submitted to the revolution. It does not explain how the Church’s own constitutional order could publicly produce and sustain it. That is the deeper question. If the ordinary exercise of the papal office can promulgate a liturgy that departs from immemorial tradition and oversee a revolution in doctrine and practice, then the problem is no longer merely an exaggerated theory of obedience. It becomes a constitutional question about the public exercise of authority itself.