No, the mistake was fabricating a liturgy that so abruptly breaks with the past and lends itself so easily to abuse. Never in the history of the Church was there such a radical reform of the liturgy in such a short peroid of time, and the results of the post-Vatican 2 reform illustrate so perfectly the wisdom of the pre-Vatican 2 Popes in resisting such reform.
But non-essentials are non-essentials.
For the last time, yes. This is not about whether it is possible to change non-essentials. It is about whether it is wise to change long-established non-essentials quickly and radically. I, along with nearly every pre-Vatican 2 Pope, say it is not. The last 30 years of the Church prove it is not.
Jesus tried to rid the Judaism of his day of silly laws and observances and strictures and requirements. "Strain at gnats and swallow camels."
Paul VI was not Jesus.
Well, I disagree, and I think the number of Catholics who would agree with me far outnumbers those who would agree with you.
And that doesn't count John Paul II, who agrees with me as well.
See, many traditionalists would like to do what was done in the 60s; that is, reimpose the Tridentine Rite and suppress the Novus Ordo.
That is not going to happen, traditionalist, nor should it.
But a much more generous use of the Tridentine Rite should be given.