There's a reason behind Paul VI's nickname of The Hamlet Pope - a man deeply conflicted in very troubling times.

I wouldn't put it so nicely. He was wishy-washy and could never bring himself to call a spade a spade or a shovel a shovel.

Now we're on to psychoanalyzing Paul VI? Can we do Pius XII next?

Is this what some folks mean when they refer to internet pornography?

And, BTW, everyone knows that the pope who did more to drive the stake through the heart of the Latin liturgy was St. John XXIII, whose apostolic constitution Veterum Sapientia of 22 February 1962 was the ultimate signal that Latin was on its way out. (Besides learning to read a Latin text, one also has to learn to read its subtext.)

Bear in mind that there was a LOT of misinformation concerning the vernacular in the aftermath of Vatican II. Some priests were actually told that they *had* to do Mass in the vernacular, that they *had* to face the assembly, etc.

It is a great error to ascribe to the vernacular all the liturgical ills that have followed the recent council. All should know by now that I have a deep love of our Latin heritage and of the mass in Latin, as well as an equal love of it in English. It most emphatically is not the English language which is at fault for our post-counciliar liturgical chaos. It is liturgically rebellious priests (many of whom, as is mentioned on another thread, are far more ego-centric and clerically domineering than most of their pre-conciliar brethren), and a, shall we say, 'spirit of the times' which ushered in all manner of highly subjective and willful innovations. One might do well to ask what these darlings would have done to the Latin mass in the same times! It was the chic and fashionable sickness of an age to which we can assign blame for our liturgical debacle. English, in and of itself, is no more nor less sacral that Latin, as any sensitive person of Anglican heritage can attest. Heiratic Latin is no more sacred or sacral than heiratic English. Both can be and have been abused by those of all ranks who, in and out of holy orders, have thought that the liturgy was their playground. Both have been the crucible of deep devotion and profoundly spiritual enlightenment. It is folksy musicians and their misguided clerical allies together with a large number of ordinary people who had no sense of the travesty they were doing, who are to blame for our liturgical ills. Latin would not have stopped them. The fault lies with 'The Church' and its hierarchy, which displayed a disgusting paralysis of liturgical will (when they weren't actually aiding and abetting the iconoclasts!) in an age in which 'a certain trumpet' was needed. No, English is nor was not the problem. The problem is and was people, people who had no concept of the profound gravity of their presumptuous shenanigans in the house of the Holy of Holies.

(One does not nor never will encounter the abuses which are commonplace in the Catholic world amongst the Orthodox, who have always worshipped in English or their various vernaculars. This is a Catholic sickness - which is a strain of the same sickness that afflicts the very soul our entire Western Civilisation.)

Well, at the very least, Paul VI did little to stem the tide of vernacularization though the 1960s. And in spite of what he wrote in Sacrificium Laudis, he gave permission for the Benedictines to say their office in the vernacular. And this is what he had to say about the vernacular in his general audience on the eve of the new order of mass (November 29, 1969):

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. . . We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.

So, just to clarify: Is the subtext of Veterum Sapientia the simple fact that it needed to be written in the first place? That an apparent enforcement of the use of Latin could only result in quite the opposite effect? A bit like saying the Gregorian chant is to be given pride of place....

Hopefully we can be clear that the Vicar of Christ had to quietly and humbly endure this adolescent rebellion. He was not part of it anymore than a kind father is part of his child's unjustified anger and sinful behavior.

Heitor, with respect, as a convert (1972) I really came of age vis a vis the ecclesiology of the OHRCAC during S. JPII. If JPII were to have said "Jump," I'd had no problem with responding "How high?"
During the all too brief pontificate of B16, same question? "As high as I am capable, Holy Father." I may not know B.Paul 6 psychology, but I know sullen, I voted for Carter. Yeah, that worked out well.

Paul VI complained of the smoke of Satan entering the church. Paul held the door open for Satan to enter by his own waffling, indecisiveness, and pathetic leadership. He was the worst pope of modern times in terms of effective leadership. He was widely ignored because he squandered away the authority of the office he held. He may have been a holy man, which I don't doubt. But surely, if the Holy Spirit had anything to do with electing him, it was to give us the pope we deserved, not the pope we needed. Paul's pontificate was a disaster and he caused a loss of faith in the church not seen since Luther.

Paul VI laid down his crown, and decided he was just like all the other bishops. They went out of control to no one's great surprise other than his own. He wrote documents, then would seemingly almost apologize for them. He would anguish over events and situations within the church, then do nothing about them. He was a Vatican diplomat with little experience in dealing with the PIPs and it showed. I am not sure he even understood them. He held ecumenical positions that had gotten him into trouble with Pius XII. His ecumenical views caused him to believe in the brotherhood of man to the point he could see little evil where it was obvious to most others. He couldn't deal with enemies because he refused to recognize them as such. Paul even wrote in one document I remember reading, that mankind had reached a new age and was a new type of creation that didn't need all those old strictures and restraints of previous times. Boy, was he ever wrong on that one! A good man in the wrong job who did inestimable harm.

which leaders with non-authoritarian power did NOT have a problem with their effective influence ebbing during that time?

The Dalai Lama? Martin Luther King? Ayn Rand?
Sure, the Zeitgeist was (and is) anti-authoritarian. But that doesn't excuse failure to assert rightful authority.

Hopefully we can be clear that the Vicar of Christ had to quietly and humbly endure this adolescent rebellion. He was not part of it anymore than a kind father is part of his child's unjustified anger and sinful behavior.

A kind father would call the behavior exactly what it was, describe the end result, and wait for the child to experience that result and come back. Pope Paul did just that in Humanae Vitae. But he didn't do it regarding the liturgy.

I might add Malcolm X to JQ's list. His personal evolution didn't sit well with Elijah M, but his effectiveness as a leader grew so exponentially like MLK, that he too suffered assassination, but from his own. Man of conviction and action.

Kathy:

We are all fully realizing that the efforts of VII was a disaster and I don't think it will ever be fully realized in the future as much as declared obsolete.

It only amounts to unwarranted and uninformed venting in this life, and to great accountability on the next.

Nothing said was unwarranted or uninformed. I think what was said was pretty accurate. Interesting thing about that council and the 1960 date mentioned in the Fatima prophecies. Also interesting how the mismanagement of that council and its aftermath enhanced, if not created a loss of faith.

Francis, I think it's clear in this story that the damage was done not during the Council, but in the Postconciliar period of reception.

At that time, and even now, many have this whacky idea that the documents, rather than being the normative expression of the mind of the Council Fathers, are instead only the beginning of an increasingly progressive trajectory. That conviction, it seems to me, is at the heart of most of the erroneous interpretations that have followed the Council.

What will I use my vacuum for if not to store documents?

NOT Ayn Rand. Her flock was a group of cannibals, metaphorically speaking.

The question was this:

As a thought experiment, reflect on which leaders with non-authoritarian power did NOT have a problem with their effective influence ebbing during that time if they held office for more than, say, five years

Non-authoritarian, so that excludes any head of state. 5 years of influence, minimum. One could argue that Rand's influence waned because of her bad habit of Stalinist purges of friends and associates. But her main influence really had nothing to do with Movement Objectivism (and whether it was a GOOD influence was a question I never intended to explore.) And I just realized that all 3 of the people I named as influential had set themselves against the power structures around them.

Well, Malcolm wasn't exactly in favor of established authority, was he?

And, Jeffrey, I so do not buy your impliedly Objectivist interpretation of authoritarian (basically, all states because they have the power of the sword). II meant it in the more conventional fashion: a leader who could not be readily turned out of office (so, not only full totalitarians, but also the mafioso types, as well as absolute monarchs, et cet.).

Hmm, I think what wrecked the liturgy was what has always contaminated worship...sin and lack of conversion. what will save the liturgy will be the same as ever, repentance and conversion. Speaking as a somewhat folksy musician, turned Gregorian chant lover and schola director, I think if we work on the internals, the externals are mainly a matter of education.
If a car is going in the wrong direction, driving faster does not help. You have to turn it around first.
Of course, the externals of worship may help express and shape the heart. So I think of every bit of positive liturgical progress as a help towards building a virtuous cycle. For the rest...God disposes.