But again, the Holy See denied that the Archbishop and others were masons. So how does the flock arrive at the truth if the shepherd is supposed to be lying? What if it’s NOT true? What if the Holy See is not lying? In the balance, who should we believe? Has anyone claimed that they saw the Archbishop engaged in masonic ceremonies, saw him take an oath or make a pledge or a funny handshake? Who were they and why, in the balance, should we believe them over the Holy See? In the absence of definitive proof, how do we know that all of this isn’t the sin of calumny?
If there was evidence it was kept by Pope Paul. One thing is certain,he was dismissed from his position twice for reasons not disclosed.In his book *Reform of the Liturgy *Bugnini admits that he was dismissed from his position twice, once by Pope John and once by Pope Paul. Here he explains what happened. Throughout his book he often speaks in the third person.
Footnote pg 30 “ at the same time that Father Bugnini was dismissed from the secretariat of the conciliar commission , he was also discharged from his post as teacher of liturgy…of the Lateran university…the basis for the dismissals was the charge of being a “progressivist,” “pushy,” and an “iconoclast.”…no proof was offered, no clear justification”-October 20,1962
Pg –91-92 In July of 1975 Bugnini was relieved of his post as the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship, which he had held for over six years, and was sent as pro-nuncio to Iran. Here he comments on his dismissal. “Toward the end of the summer a cardinal who was usually no enthusiast for liturgical reform told me of the existence of a “dossier” which he had seen on [or brought to?] the Pope’s desk and which proved that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason…the charge was absurd, a malignant calumny…I have never had any interest in Freemasonry: I do not know what it is, what it does, or what its purposes are.”
What happened to the dossier? He admits that there was one.
One thing is clear. He was obsessed with “active participation” as you can see here where he thought this idea was ingenious.
Pg 209 Footnote 11. “The use of things mechanical also make headlines at the beginning of the liturgical reform…the “offertory machine” at Ferrara. This was a machine that allowed the faithful to make a host drop untouched into baskets, which were then taken to the altar at the time of the offertory. It was a clever way of letting the people express their participation and of consecration as many hosts as would be needed at the celebration, while at the same time safeguarding hygiene. But some journalists discovered the ingenious device and spread word of it; in the process, however, they misrepresented its function and spoke of it as though it were a machine for the automatic distribution of communion. Here again the Consilium had to intervene; it dealt with the matter in general terms in a short piece entitled “Mechanique et liturgie.”
There is no doubt that he ran the Consilium. He often butted heads with Pope Paul. For instance Pope Paul wanted to start the New Mass with the sign of the cross. Bugnini was completely against it. Pope Paul insisted and eventually won out.
pg 371 Bugnini stated that beginning the Mass with the sign of the cross, “ would be an innovation contrary to the entire liturgical tradition."
It is clear that from the beginning Bugnini wanted to put an end to the Latin Mass.
Pg114 “But how difficult it is to take an ancient building in hand and make it functional and habitable without changing the structure. Peripheral alterations are not enough; there had to be a radical restoration”
