Catholics vs the SSPX

[St_Isidore]

LOL! If Pope Paul VI was canonized at this early date there’d be a whole lot of people on these forums whining and crying about that too.

BTW, he has already been given the “Servant of God” title which is the first step in the canonization process so to say that he’s not ever considered for sainthood would be wrong.

Bear006,

On a serious note, are you saying, in your opinion, he will be canonized? (Since there are many servants of GOD).

What is your explanation for the Archbishop Bugnini’s demise and the decades of waiting for the canonization of Pope Paul VI, ** After all is it not (NO mass) sometimes referred to the Pauline Mass?**

What up with that?:ehh:

 

[St_Isidore]

stmaria,

This is lame.

It’s never been proven and what’s more it doesn’t really matter. The Mass he worked on is what it is. It doesn’t get any better or any worse if we find out that Bugnini was a freemason or wasn’t. It won’t change the text of the Missal either way.

So you like Archbishop Bugnini and his great contributions to the NO mass, but his book is lame.

I like the part when he claims he does not know what Freemasonry is.:bigyikes:
And this was the Primary Architect of the Pauline Mass?:newidea:

 

[BobP123]

LOL! If Pope Paul VI was canonized at this early date there’d be a whole lot of people on these forums whining and crying about that too.

Was or were, these fora are for whining and crying. For our souls. Not LOL.

Any pope can relax accepted rules and standards. And Pope Paul certainly did a lot of that. The question is whether it is an abuse of Papal authority, never mind sainthood.

 

[Sure]

So you like Archbishop Bugnini and his great contributions to the NO mass, but his book is lame.

Show me where I said that??? All I said was whether he was a freemason or not won’t make the text of the Mass any better or any worse. I never said I like him and I never called his contributions great. Here’s an idea: respond to what I actually write and not what you imagine I might believe.

I like the part when he claims he does not know what Freemasonry is.:bigyikes:

So, we’re supposed to imagine a huge conspiracy of evil based on this quotation?

And this was the Primary Architect of the Pauline Mass?:newidea:

Which goes back to my point…whatever he knew or didn’t know or was involved with or was not involved with doesn’t change a thing in the Mass either way. It is what it is.

 

[Sure]

Just using Bugnini’s own words to answer the poster.
I do find it interesting that Saint Pope Pius V, who codified the Tridentine Mass, was canonized yet Bugnini and Pope Paul VI, who wrote the Novus Ordo, aren’t even considered for sainthood.

Well, let’s compare the two situations:

Pope Pius V died in 1572. Process for canonization began in 1696…Yeah, that’s right 124 years after his death! Then, he was canonized 140 years after his death.

Pope Paul VI died in 1978. Process for canonization began in 1993…15 years after his death.

Look, I don’t care either way whether he is canonized or not. He did some helpful things and some not so helpful things. But it is definitely premature to begin drawing conclusions from the fact that he is not yet canonized.

 

[bear06]

Bear006,

On a serious note, are you saying, in your opinion, he will be canonized? (Since there are many servants of GOD).

What is your explanation for the Archbishop Bugnini’s demise and the decades of waiting for the canonization of Pope Paul VI, ** After all is it not (NO mass) sometimes referred to the Pauline Mass?**

What up with that?:ehh:

Sigh! I would have no way of knowing whether he will or will not be canonized. My point is that he is being considered and your statement was wrong. If he shows up with the required miracles then I’d assume he would be canonized. I’d like to say I’m shocked that you seem to know who is a saint and who is not but I’m not.

As far as Bugnini goes, I don’t spend to much time on conspiracy theories. Nor do I really give a hoot too much on what happened to him.

 

[bear06]

Was or were, these fora are for whining and crying. For our souls. Not LOL.

Any pope can relax accepted rules and standards. And Pope Paul certainly did a lot of that. The question is whether it is an abuse of Papal authority, never mind sainthood.

What’s it to you? If he is canonized, is he not a saint or are you one of the people who questions canonizations?!!! It’s sad when something that has always been considered infallible is suddenly not because they no longer like it. It was infallible because of the process, it was infallible because it was.

 

[stmaria]

Well, let’s compare the two situations:

Pope Pius V died in 1572. Process for canonization began in 1696…Yeah, that’s right 124 years after his death! Then, he was canonized 140 years after his death.

Pope Paul VI died in 1978. Process for canonization began in 1993…15 years after his death.

Look, I don’t care either way whether he is canonized or not. He did some helpful things and some not so helpful things. But it is definitely premature to begin drawing conclusions from the fact that he is not yet canonized.

I brought it up because, as I understand it, Pope John Paul II is on the “fast track” for canonization. Just wondering why Father Bugnini and Pope Paul VI are not.

 

[bear06]

I brought it up because, as I understand it, Pope John Paul II is on the “fast track” for canonization. Just wondering why Father Bugnini and Pope Paul VI are not.

I’d say that JPII is probably on the fast track thanks to the media age we live in. People knew him more and probably loved him more simply because of that. Not only that, he was a really long reigning Pope so he transcended generations.

I just don’t claim to know who and who is not in heaven until the Church confirms they are. Paul VI may be there right now whether or not he has been canonized.

 

[St_Isidore]

Show me where I said that??? All I said was whether he was a freemason or not won’t make the text of the Mass any better or any worse. I never said I like him and I never called his contributions great. Here’s an idea: respond to what I actually write and not what you imagine I might believe.

Your transparency eludes you.
here is a truism:
My imagination is far better used elsewhere than to figure what it is you believe.

So, we’re supposed to imagine a huge conspiracy of evil based on this quotation?

It is not a mere matter of conspiracy since any simpleton can formulate one. It is what is logical and what is truth. If you honestly believe that Archbishop Bugnini and his quote of not knowing what Freemasonry is, him being a Catholic and one of education, then I think that is far as we need to discuss.
here is an exit strategy for you: Good Night and Good Luck.

Which goes back to my point…whatever he knew or didn’t know or was involved with or was not involved with doesn’t change a thing in the Mass either way. It is what it is.

It is what it is, this is true. But that does not not change the fact that the primary Architect of the Novus Ordo Mass never made Cardinal, but instead was awarded banishment, so to speak (in comparison to his Entitlement to Cardinal Status!).

Pope Paul VI should be in line for sainthood. Is not the NO mass synonymous with the name Pauline Mass? What has it been now, >30 years since V2?

 

[St_Isidore]

Sigh! I would have no way of knowing whether he will or will not be canonized. My point is that he is being considered and your statement was wrong. If he shows up with the required miracles then I’d assume he would be canonized.

Can’t wait to see what his miracles were can you!

I’d like to say I’m shocked that you seem to know who is a saint and who is not but I’m not.

I apologize if you mistakenly received this impression from me. But suffices to say, I am sure you know this not be be my intention.
So your sarcasm is noted although unwarranted.

As far as Bugnini goes, I don’t spend to much time on conspiracy theories. Nor do I really give a hoot too much on what happened to him.

Regrettable and sad. I on the other hand, as a Catholic, do care what occurred to this Archbishop. He was an important figure in Catholic History as the Primary Architect of the Pauline Mass. I am suprised at your lack of support, since you support his work (i.e. the Novus Ordo Mass). Not very Christian or logical for that matter
BTW, I could care less for conspiracy theories also. If anyone believes that Archbishop Bugnini did not know of Freemasonry (as per his quote), well enough said.

 

[bear06]

Can’t wait to see what his miracles were can you!

I absolutely hope that he will be canonized. Why wouldn’t I? Why wouldn’t I want miracles for the rest of us?! And why wouldn’t I want to see any member of the faithful canonized? Like I said, if the Church says it’s so then we should rejoice!!!

I apologize if you mistakenly received this impression from me. But suffices to say, I am sure you know this not be be my intention.
So your sarcasm is noted although unwarranted.

 

[TMC]

Do you really think that Pope Paul removed Father Bugnin on a whim? He had know Bugnini for over 30 years. That were part of the reform movement in1948.

From Father Bugnini’s book { he wrote much of it in the third person]
*REFORM OF THE LITURGY *PG 8-9 “ **On May 28, 1948 **a commission for liturgical reform was appointed…Father Annibale Bugnini…was appointed secretary…In the twelve years of its existence the commission held eighty-two meetings and worked in absolute secrecy…the commission enjoyed the full confidence of the Pope { Pius XII}, **who was kept abreast of its work by Monsignor Montini {Pope Paul VI **}

He was first removed by Pope John and** banned from Vatican II**
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

Here he reveals that a Bishop brought information to Pope Paul that claimed he was a freemason.

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.”

Do you really believe that a man involved in the Church most of his life did not know what a freemason was? Was he? Who knows? But Pope Paul removed him so that that information would not be released.

Can we just clarify something? Are you saying that Paul VI knew that Bugnini was an agent of the Masons and was deliberately working to destroy the Mass?

If yes, then Paul VI either allowed the Mass to be perverted and is an evil man, or he fixed the harm and it doesn’t matter.

In no, then that cannot not be the reason that Bugnini was “sent away” and the fact that some imagine he was punished cannot prove your allegations.

So the only way your allegation have even internal logic is if you believe that Paul VI was willfully involved in perverting the Mass. Is this your allegation? If so, why do you think he did that? If not, what other reading of your allegations makes sense?

I would allow a possibility that Paul and Bugnini did a poor job, or even that they were misguided, (although I don’t believe either) but I it strains credulity to suggest that they were evil people actively working against the Church.

 

[BobP123]

I would allow a possibility that Paul and Bugnini did a poor job, or even that they were misguided, (although I don’t believe either) but I it strains credulity to suggest that they were evil people actively working against the Church.

Would you allow their being “control freaks”?

 

[TMC]

Would you allow their being “control freaks”?

I don’t doubt they had any manner of personal and professional flaws. But to call them evil and accuse them of colluding to damage the Bride of Christ is simply wrong.

 

[BobP123]

I don’t doubt they had any manner of personal and professional flaws. But to call them evil and accuse them of colluding to damage the Bride of Christ is simply wrong.

Perhaps, but you have to admit that Paul VI and Bugnini took some very heavy soul-risky steps in order to provide any pastoral value in the Church. Defiance to the point of incurring the wrath of God (and Apostles Peter and Paul) to me is a serious matter.

 

[TMC]

Perhaps, but you have to admit that Paul VI and Bugnini took some very heavy soul-risky steps in order to provide any pastoral value in the Church. Defiance to the point of incurring the wrath of God (and Apostles Peter and Paul) to me is a serious matter.

I am not sure I understand who Paul VI was defying. He was the successor to Peter and had all the authority that Peter did. If thought the NO was the right liturgy for the Church then he fulfilled his responsibility. If he knew that the NO was not the right liturgy then he did not. I have always believed that he thought the NO was the right way to go.

I personally disagree with a number of things that Paul VI did. I just take offense to the suggestion that he or Bugnini was deliberately damaging the Church. Call them incompetent all you want. I think that judging their intentions is morally wrong, especially without more evidence than wild conspiracy rumors.

 

[cam100]

cam100;2978061:

… the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See. – Pope Pius XII

The words of Pope Pius XII above should also be kept in mind during this debate. Although we may prefer that the TLM be the only form, we must remember that the liturgy is not subject to our discretion and approval, but to the Holy See’s.

Let’s not take Pius XII’s words out of context. He is saying that changing the liturgy is not a discretionary option for the laiety or priests. He had no idea that 19 years later virtually every one of the abuses he warned about would become policy.

Yes, he was talking about priests and lay people trying to change the mass. He reminded them that only the Holy See has the authority. That’s why those who try to use this document (Mediator Dei) to challenge the authority of the Holy See to determine liturgical changes are off base. That was my point.

cam100;2978061:

Also, recall that the gate of hell will never prevail against the Church. Let’s say for agument’s sake that freemasons and protestants have infilltrated the Church to destroy the mass.

That doesn’t mean that the gates of the Church will prevail against Hell. The Church Militant has to wage war against the powers of Hell in order to smash their gates. Not roll over and let the powers of Hell have their way while the Church Militant does nothing.

I’ll say it again: the gates of Hell will not prevail over the CHURCH. It doesn’t matter what churchMEN roll over and let Hell have its way – they can’t destroy the Church or her liturgy.

cam100;2978061:

They can try, and they can claim to have succedded, but they cannot destroy the mass, for it is protected.

Correct and when the Pope (Paul VI ) did not protect it, God raised archbishop LeFebvre and a few others to defend it.

Now how do you know that Archbishop LeFebvre was sent by God to save the mass? I agree with his desire to preserve the TLM, but I have good reason to question the legitimacy of his methods.

cam100;2978061:

We can be sure that the mass that is promulgated by the Holy See will be authentic,and holy and pleasing to God.

On what mistaken notion of infallibility do you believe this? Where is there a doctrine of the Church that a new revelation about the Liturgy will be inspired by the Holy Ghost and recieved by a liturgical committee?
The Novus Ordo is a diminished liturgy. It’s not a reward, it’s a punishment from God for lukewarm Catholicism. Just because a consecration is valid, doesn’t make a liturgy surrounding a consecration pleasing to God.

Actually, infallibility is NOT divine inspiration. It is preservation from error. Although we can believe that the TLM is more pleasing to God than the NO, you can’t say that the NO is DISPLEASING to God. How is the sacrifice of Our Lord displeasing to God? Now, the NO lacks some of the prayers and ceremonies from the TLM that help express the mystery of the sacrifice. But those externals weren’t in the mass as instituted by Our Lord, so they aren’t essential to making the mass pleasing to God.

 

[GerardP]

I am not sure I understand who Paul VI was defying. He was the successor to Peter and had all the authority that Peter did. If thought the NO was the right liturgy for the Church then he fulfilled his responsibility. If he knew that the NO was not the right liturgy then he did not. I have always believed that he thought the NO was the right way to go.

I personally disagree with a number of things that Paul VI did. I just take offense to the suggestion that he or Bugnini was deliberately damaging the Church. Call them incompetent all you want. I think that judging their intentions is morally wrong, especially without more evidence than wild conspiracy rumors.

TMC,

What do you think of Paul VI’s mysterious statement just prior to the closing of the council to Jean Guitton? “I am about to blow the seven horns of the Apocalypse.”

I find that a very disturbing statement and a sign of possible instability on the part of Paul VI.

There is an interesting chapter in Atila Sinke Guimareas’ “Animus Delendi” volume 1 where he examines a version of “kenosis” prominent among the liberal theologians that seemed to hold sway to this day. (eg. Von Balthazar being one that I remember because his book “Razing the bastions.” is quoted extensively.)

They deliberately encouraged the dismantling (emptying out ) of the Church and the allowance of abuse and deliberately provoked the crisis we are in. Paul VI and JPII were definitely aware of these ideas.

All in all, it is what Malcolm Muggeridge called “the liberal death wish.”

 

[GerardP]

Yes, he was talking about priests and lay people trying to change the mass. He reminded them that only the Holy See has the authority. That’s why those who try to use this document (Mediator Dei) to challenge the authority of the Holy See to determine liturgical changes are off base. That was my point.

It’s not about challenging the authority of the Holy See. It’s about pointing out the theological differences between then and now and questioning the wisdom of what Pius XII questioned the wisdom of.

The modern Popes have capitulated to (or actually were ) the liberals that had screwy ideas for the Church that would be bad mistakes. Pius XII was right.

I’ll say it again: the gates of Hell will not prevail over the CHURCH. It doesn’t matter what churchMEN roll over and let Hell have its way – they can’t destroy the Church or her liturgy.

They certainly can destroy the liturgy. Not the Eternal Sacrifice.

Repeating and reducing Our Lord’s words about the indefectibility of the Church into a slogan does nothing to prevent millions of souls from leaving the Church due to the influence of weak Churchmen.

I’m not worried about the Church. It’s the faithful that are in danger.

Now how do you know that Archbishop LeFebvre was sent by God to save the mass? I agree with his desire to preserve the TLM, but I have good reason to question the legitimacy of his methods.

Fair enough. It’s a matter of personal belief for both of us.

Actually, infallibility is NOT divine inspiration. It is preservation from error. Although we can believe that the TLM is more pleasing to God than the NO, you can’t say that the NO is DISPLEASING to God. How is the sacrifice of Our Lord displeasing to God? Now, the NO lacks some of the prayers and ceremonies from the TLM that help express the mystery of the sacrifice. But those externals weren’t in the mass as instituted by Our Lord, so they aren’t essential to making the mass pleasing to God.

There were no positive errors in the sacrifice of Cain vs. the Sacrifice of Abel. Yet God was displeased with Cain’s because of the intention behind Cain’s sacrifice.

And we’re talking about the Liturgy as distinct from the Sacrifice of the Mass. To cite an extreme example, If you have a valid priest conduct a Black Mass. Our Lord will be present. But there is no way that, that Liturgy is pleasing to God.