Bugnini: Not all bad?

[James0235]

Love him or hate him Annibale Bugnini was certainly an interesting character. My opinion of the man tends to run pretty negative. But, I just read something that shows that he was capable of generosity and compassion when it came to the Old Rite - at least to St. Josemaria Escriva.

The present Opus Dei prelate Bishop Javier Echevarría Rodríguez said that Escrivá strove to follow whatever was indicated by the competent authority regarding the celebration of Mass. When the new rites were adapted by the Catholic Church after Vatican II, Echevarria said that Escrivá “accepted the reform with serenity and obedience.” Since his prayer was much integrated with the liturgy for the past 40 years, Escrivá found the shift difficult and asked Echevarria to coach him in celebrating the new rites. Although he missed the practices of the old rites, especially some gestures such as the kiss on the paten which showed love, he prohibited his followers to ask for any dispensation for him “out of a spirit of obedience to ecclesiastical norms.” “He has decided to show his love for the liturgy through the new rite,” commented Echevarria. However, when Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, Secretary of the Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy, found out about Escrivá’s difficulties, he granted Escrivá the possibility of celebrating the Mass using the old rite. Escrivá celebrated this rite only in private.

Source: Wikipedia article on Saint Josemaria Escriva (Emphasis Mine)

James

 

[Pious_Mat]

I agree. Bugnini wasn’t a bad guy, and he did some good things. The played a major role in the new Easter Triduum (1955), and Pius XII seemed willing to work with him. I think he was just a little overzealous, and had a poor understanding of Liturgical Continuity. He doesn’t seem to have been a theological liberal in anything but the liturgy.

I don’t much like what he did, and I don’t see how he could justify changing the liturgy so much so quickly (and arguably for the worse is some respects), but I have no hatred for him as a person, and think that he had the best of intentions. Many traditionalists paint Bugnini as an Anti-Christ, which is entirely unfair, and must stop before we can make any real progress.

 

[rwoehmke]

I agree. Bugnini wasn’t a bad guy, and he did some good things. The played a major role in the new Easter Triduum (1955), and Pius XII seemed willing to work with him. I think he was just a little overzealous, and had a poor understanding of Liturgical Continuity. He doesn’t seem to have been a theological liberal in anything but the liturgy.

I don’t much like what he did, and I don’t see how he could justify changing the liturgy so much so quickly (and arguably for the worse is some respects), but I have no hatred for him as a person, and think that he had the best of intentions. Many traditionalists paint Bugnini as an Anti-Christ, which is entirely unfair, and must stop before we can make any real progress.

Why do we blame Bugnini and even malign him as a Mason, etc. when over 400 individuals, including bishops and cardinals were closely involved in renewing, updating or whatever you want to call it, the liturgy of the Latin church?

 

[Our_Refuge]

=James0235;3765685]Love him or hate him Annibale Bugnini was certainly an interesting character. My opinion of the man tends to run pretty negative. But, I just read something that shows that he was capable of generosity and compassion when it came to the Old Rite - at least to St. Josemaria Escriva.

The present Opus Dei prelate Bishop Javier Echevarría Rodríguez said that Escrivá strove to follow whatever was indicated by the competent authority regarding the celebration of Mass. When the new rites were adapted by the Catholic Church after Vatican II, Echevarria said that Escrivá “accepted the reform with serenity and obedience.” Since his prayer was much integrated with the liturgy for the past 40 years, Escrivá found the shift difficult and asked Echevarria to coach him in celebrating the new rites. Although he missed the practices of the old rites, especially some gestures such as the kiss on the paten which showed love, he prohibited his followers to ask for any dispensation for him “out of a spirit of obedience to ecclesiastical norms.” “He has decided to show his love for the liturgy through the new rite,” commented Echevarria. However, when Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, Secretary of the Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy, found out about Escrivá’s difficulties,

**he granted **

Escrivá the possibility of celebrating the Mass using the old rite. Escrivá celebrated this rite only in private.

Source: Wikipedia article on Saint Josemaria Escriva (Emphasis Mine)

“He granted”? Father Bugnini had no authority to grant anything. The authority would have come from Pope Paul VI.

 

[Padua_Minded]

Fifteen bucks says that some self-styled “traditionalist” will come along and cite that famous ‘quote’ from l’Osservatore Romano.

 

[James0235]

“He granted”? Father Bugnini had no authority to grant anything. The authority would have come from Pope Paul VI.

Maybe it did come from Pope Paul VI.

Maybe Bugnini granted permission even though he had no authority too.

I really don’t know. But the article does seem to at least imply that Bugnini was in favor of allowing Josemaria Escriva to use the “usus antiquior”.

James

 

[James0235]

Fifteen bucks says that some self-styled “traditionalist” will come along and cite that famous ‘quote’ from l’Osservatore Romano.

OK.

Are you just trying to bait people into an argument?

James

 

[Our_Refuge]

Why do we blame Bugnini and even malign him as a Mason, etc. when over 400 individuals, including bishops and cardinals were closely involved in renewing, updating or whatever you want to call it, the liturgy of the Latin church?

The Concilium consisted of 61 members. There were an additional 217 advisors. It was divided into groups. Group # 10 wrote the new liturgy.It had only ten members including Bugnini’
The other groups worked on the new music, rites of baptism, confirmation and marriage and holy orders.

 

[rwoehmke]

The Concilium consisted of 61 members. There were an additional 217 advisors. It was divided into groups. Group # 10 wrote the new liturgy.It had only ten members including Bugnini’
The other groups worked on the new music, rites of baptism, confirmation and marriage and holy orders.

That is true, but those folks were working with many of the national bishops groups we now call Councils of Catholic Bishops which also had (name removed by moderator)ut as to what they wanted and believed was appropriate. The Liturgy of the Catholic Church goes far beyond the Pauline Order of the Mass. It’s not like they foisted something onto the majority of the Bishops that they didn’t want.

 

[AJV]

“He granted”? Father Bugnini had no authority to grant anything. The authority would have come from Pope Paul VI.

Yes, but he was the Secretary of the Congregation and thus one could say ‘in charge’ of such things.

 

[Our_Refuge]

Yes, but he was the Secretary of the Congregation and thus one could say ‘in charge’ of such things.

He is also the one that said that the Latin Mass had been abrogated and as we now know he had no authority to make that false claim.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Only God can judge Bugnini’s soul. He definitely had a colorful career- he was suddenly dismissed from his posts several times throughout his life for no specified reason.

 

[Auntie_M]

I really don’t know that much about Bugnini or who all was at the “writing of the new mass”. But I do think that the Pope had to give the final approval and that He had to have the Holy Spirit with him when he did. (Also, as I understand it, didn’t the “writers” of the new mass have to take all this in prayer before finalizing and submitting to the Pope.

And who are we to question the Holy Spirit.>>>>>>

 

[Auntie_M]

Bugnini has been publicized as a “mason”. But there were alot of other masons in the church at that time. Achille Leinart, also a mason, ordained Lefebvre.

But it has been Bugnini that has gotten all the “fame”…
I never knew either one, I just know Jesus and He WILL take care of His church then, now and forever. He WILL not allow it to be brought down by Bugnini, any other mason, or whoever.

We have HIS promised and that is all we need.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Fifteen bucks says that some self-styled “traditionalist” will come along and cite that famous ‘quote’ from l’Osservatore Romano.

"We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants."

L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.

I’ll add some more. These are by his Protestant sympathizers:

“We attach great importance to the use of the new prayers which we feel at home, and which have the advantage of giving a different interpretation to the theology of sacrifice than we were accustomed to attribute to Catholicism. These prayers invite us to recognize an evangelical theology of sacrifice.”

L’Eglise en Alsace, January 1974

 “Much of what Kung has called ‘the valid demands of the reformers’ has now been met by the Church of Rome in the new Eucharistic prayers, even though in these there remain echoes of the pre-Reformation language of Eucharistic Sacrifice.”

Windsor Agreement, on the Eucharist

Jean Guitton quotes a protestant Journal as saying that the new Eucharistic prayers have dropped “the false perspective of a sacrifice offered to God.”

L’Osservatore Romano, 13 October 1967, p. 3

 

[PrayforMallory]

I really don’t know that much about Bugnini or who all was at the “writing of the new mass”. But I do think that the Pope had to give the final approval and that He had to have the Holy Spirit with him when he did. (Also, as I understand it, didn’t the “writers” of the new mass have to take all this in prayer before finalizing and submitting to the Pope.

And who are we to question the Holy Spirit.>>>>>>

We should read Lefebvre’s description of Bugnini’s actions before we assume Paul VI’s complete assent.

 

[patrick457]

Whilst Bugnini’s attempts at liturgical reform were in many if not most parts, misguided and does not exhibit a proper understanding of the Hermeneutic of Continuity, I don’t think Bugnini as a person is this highly evil character that some would like to paint him.

I don’t like many of what he did, but I wouldn’t go and judge his fate for it.

 

[AJV]

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”

L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.

This one is mistaken. You can find the whole article on my blog.

I’ll add some more. These are by his Protestant sympathizers:

“We attach great importance to the use of the new prayers which we feel at home, and which have the advantage of giving a different interpretation to the theology of sacrifice than we were accustomed to attribute to Catholicism. These prayers invite us to recognize an evangelical theology of sacrifice.”

L’Eglise en Alsace, January 1974

 “Much of what Kung has called ‘the valid demands of the reformers’ has now been met by the Church of Rome in the new Eucharistic prayers, even though in these there remain echoes of the pre-Reformation language of Eucharistic Sacrifice.”

Windsor Agreement, on the Eucharist

Jean Guitton quotes a protestant Journal as saying that the new Eucharistic prayers have dropped “the false perspective of a sacrifice offered to God.”

L’Osservatore Romano, 13 October 1967, p. 3

I would be slightly wary when dealing with Internet quotes. For example, the Eucharistic Prayers only came into universal use in 1968, yet the article is purportedly from 1967. And though the text was in use ad experimentum, that was not widespread. Certainly by examining the texts, or better still by comparing the changes made by Protestants in similar texts we can discern the objectionable bits. It would be reasonable to expect that if the quote is accurate, it is speaking of the unapproved and unauthorised Prayers that were springing up all over.

 

[PrayforMallory]

This one is mistaken. You can find the whole article on my blog.

I would be slightly wary when dealing with Internet quotes. For example, the Eucharistic Prayers only came into universal use in 1968, yet the article is purportedly from 1967. And though the text was in use ad experimentum, that was not widespread. Certainly by examining the texts, or better still by comparing the changes made by Protestants in similar texts we can discern the objectionable bits. It would be reasonable to expect that if the quote is accurate, it is speaking of the unapproved and unauthorised Prayers that were springing up all over.

I can’t read Italian, unfortunately, so the original doesn’t tell me anything.

It’s less important whether or not prots messed with the liturgy to me. What bothers me, is that they were consulted and involved at all.

What convinced me of Bugnini’s corruption, were the speeches by Lefebvre (whom I believe is not lying due to his undeniable principled nature—right or wrong) attesting to his actions trying to control Pope Paul VI, the interviews with a lot of people that were there, the way the Prots praised him, his dismisssal by Bl John XXIII, his second “exile” to Iran. I was convinced by Michael Davies argument, that whether or not Bugnini was a freemason, Pope Paul VI believed he was, or took it seriously enough to exile him to Iran, instead of making him a cardinal (which is what one would think would happen to an individual who implemented that many changes).

The new liturgy could have been received a lot differently and probably had a different character had he possibly not been involved.

Of course, he was one of those ones that somehow felt only the 1st century of the Church mattered when it came to liturgy (ironically he didn’t want to return to their forms of penance).

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Just shows how the hatred doesn’t always come from the traditionalists but from modernists who love to instigate.

OK.

Are you just trying to bait people into an argument?

James