E
eelpis
Guest
I’ve heard it said several times that Bugnini was a freemason intended to destroy the Church, are there evidence for that kind of claims or are they just another conspiration theory?
- Status
E
eelpis
Guest
I’m sorry, it’s a stupid question but there so many thing you hear sometimes.
J
JuanCarlos
Guest
I have heard that he was not a freemason, but had close ties to freemasons. Which led to speculation.
T
Tommy_Joe
Guest
If I remember correctly, it was reported that evidence that was found to support his alleged involvement in Freemasonry, and was turned over to the Pope shortly before he was “re-assigned” to Iran.
Neither proof of his involvement in Masonry nor proof of his non-involvement has ever been publicized.
As a former Mason myself, I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone could ever be a member without the knowledge of at the very least, dozens of people.
Neither proof of his involvement in Masonry nor proof of his non-involvement has ever been publicized.
As a former Mason myself, I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone could ever be a member without the knowledge of at the very least, dozens of people.
G
GerardP
Guest
Here’s an article by the late Michael Davies. Well-researched and explores all the questions.
sspxseminary.org/apologetics/crisis/New_Mass/bugnini.shtml
sspxseminary.org/apologetics/crisis/New_Mass/bugnini.shtml
S
strugglingalong
Guest
To me the fact that the head of the Consilium for the New Mass was sent to be nuncio in Iran says something. Something changed. Something happened. That is an exile, not a promotion.
Pax Christi tecum.
E
EddieArent
Guest
Did he think of himself an enemy of the Church? Probably not. However, his thinking & actions have done much harm to the Church throughout the world. May God have mercy upon his soul and ours as well.
P
ProVobis
Guest
It took more than Bugnini to effectively bring about the destruction of the Roman Rite as he called it. We could gossip all we want about Bugnini as well as Markinkus and all the other scandalists in the Vatican but the Pope (Paul VI) had to have assumed the ultimate responsibility in this, I would think.
On another note, I find it interesting that the death of Pope John Paul I isn’t discussed more on CA.
On another note, I find it interesting that the death of Pope John Paul I isn’t discussed more on CA.
O
Our_Refuge
Guest
Father Bugnini did not write the new liturgy by himself. He was the secretary and editor for the Consilium. he did make the final call on the changes along with Pope Paul VI. In addition to Father Bugnini, the New mass was written by Fathers Wagner, Hanggi, Righetti, Schnitzler,Journel. Vagaggini, Franquesa, Jungmann ,P.M.Gy. Where they also Free Masons? I don’t think so.
There is no doubt in my mind that these men wanted to remove everything from the Mass that would be seen as an obstacle to the return of the Lutherans and Anglicans to the Church. This was all about ecumenism.
They also had an obsession with “active participation” of the laity and a return to ancient practices such as communion in the hand and early liturgical prayers. Bugnnin says in his writings that the words of consecration were "restored to a purer form, reflective of the biblical sources.” [pg 385 *Reform of the Liturgy]
Pg 454 “ The addition “mystery of faith” in the formula for the consecration of the wine in the Roman Canon: is not biblical; occurs only in the Roma Canon; is of uncertain orgin and meaning.”
Everything had to go, from Latin to the rubrics.
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”
E
ethelzguy
Guest
That certainly has been an interesting topic for me as well, but seems to be kept (as Elmer Fudd would say) bewwy, bewwy, kwyet…
P
peary1
Guest
Cardinal Bugnini loved the Church, and there is no substantial evidence that he was ever a member of Freemasonry, although he did have friends who were. Destroying the Church was the last thing on his mind. Yes, he was progressive, and saw the changes being made immediately after Vatican II to be for the good of the Church and its membership. To demonize him like some traditionalists do is sinful.
C
crenfro
Guest
Hello. I haven’t read this book yet, but there’s a book called Liturgical Time Bombs In Vatican II by Michael Davies that might have some information.
S
strugglingalong
Guest
This is from Davies book, Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II:
"The Second Fall
At the very moment when his power had reached its zenith, Archbishop Bugnini was in effect dismissed-----this was his second fall-----to the dismay of liberal Catholics throughout the world. What happened was that the Archbishop’s entire Congregation was dissolved and merged with the Congregation for the Sacraments under the terms of Pope Paul’s Apostolic Constitution Constans Nobis, published in l’Osservatore Romano (English edition) of July 31, 1975. The new congregation was entitled the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship. The name Bugnini did not appear in the list of appointments. Liberals throughout the world were dismayed. The Tablet, in England, and its extreme liberal counterpart in the United States, the National Catholic Reporter, carried an indignant report by Desmond O’Grady:
Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, who, as Secretary of the abolished Congregation for Divine Worship, was the key figure in the Church’s liturgical reform, is not a member of the new Congregation. Nor, despite his lengthy experience was he consulted in the planning of it. He heard of its creation while on holiday at Fiuggi . . . the abrupt way in which this was done does not augur well for the Bugnini line of encouragement for reform in collaboration with local hierarchies . . . Msgr. Bugnini conceived the next ten years’ work as concerned principally with the incorporation of local usages into the liturgy . . . He represented the continuity of the post-conciliar liturgical reform. [The Tablet, August 30, 1975, p. 828.]
l’Osservatore Romano carried the following announcement in its English edition, on January 15, 1976: “5 January: The Holy Father has appointed Apostolic Pro Nuncio in Iran His Excellency the Most Reverend Annibale Bugnini, C. M., titular Archbishop of Dioclentiana.” This was clearly an artificial post created to gloss over the fact that the Archbishop had been banished.
In his book The Devastated Vineyard, published in 1973, Dietrich von Hildebrand rightly observed concerning Bugnini that: “Truly, if one of the devils in C. S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy, he could not have done it better.” [Dietrich von Hildebrand, The Devastated Vineyard (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1973), p. 71.] This is a statement based on an objective assessment of the reform itself It is beyond dispute that whether or not the Roman Rite has been destroyed deliberately, it has been destroyed. (See later herein.) If this result is simply the consequence of ill-judged decisions by well-meaning men, the objective fact remains unchanged: they could not have destroyed the Roman Rite more effectively had they done so deliberately. But the thoroughness of the destruction caused many to wonder whether it might be more than the result of ill-considered policies. It came as no great surprise when, in April of 1976, Tito Casini, Italy’s leading Catholic writer, publicly accused Archbishop Bugnini of being a Freemason. [Tito Casini, Nel Furno di Satana (Florence: Carro di San Giovanni, 1976), p.150.] On October 8, 1976, Le Figaro published a report stating that Archbishop Bugnini denied ever having had any Masonic affiliation.
I have made my own investigation into the affair and can vouch for the authenticity of the following facts. A Roman priest of the very highest reputation came into possession of evidence which he considered proved Archbishop Bugnini to be a Freemason. He had this information placed into the hands of Pope Paul VI with the warning that if action were not taken at once, he would be bound in conscience to make the matter public. Archbishop Bugnini was then removed by means of the dissolution of his entire Congregation. I have verified these facts directly with the priest concerned, and the full facts can be found in Chapter XXIV of my book Pope Paul’s New Mass.
An important distinction must be made here. I have not claimed that I can prove Archbishop Bugnini to have been a Mason, but that Pope Paul VI dismissed him and exiled him to Iran because he had been convinced that the Archbishop was a Mason. I made this same point in a letter published in the January 1980 Homiletic and Pastoral Review, which prompted a violent attack upon me by Archbishop Bugnini in the May 1980 issue. He denied that any of the prelates who, since Vatican II, had been accused of Masonic affiliation “ever had anything to do with Freemasonry,” and he continued:
And for Michael Davies it would be enough. [sic] But for him and his colleagues, calumniators by profession . . . I repeat what I wrote in 1976: “I do not own anything in this world more precious than the pectoral cross: if one is able to prove honestly, objectively, an iota of truth of what they affirm, I am ready to return back the pectoral cross.”
But, as I have already stated, I did not accuse him of being a Mason but simply pointed out that Pope Paul VI had been convinced that this was the case, and the fact that this does not constitute calumny is proved by the fact that Bugnini conceded precisely what I had alleged in his book The Reform of the Liturgy. Referring to his removal from his position by Pope Paul VI and the suppression of the Congregation for Divine Worship, he wrote:
What were the reasons that led the Pope to such a drastic decision, which no one expected and which lay so heavily on the Church? I said in the preface to this book that I myself never knew any of these reasons for sure, even though, understandably in the distress of the moment, I knocked on many doors at all levels . . . There were those who ascribed the change to the “authoritarian,” “almost dictatorial” way in which the secretary of the congregation supposedly managed the agency, not allowing freedom of movement to his own co-workers and limiting the role even of the cardinal prefects. [NOTE 2] But when all is said and done, all this seems to be the stuff of ordinary administrative life. There must have been something more earthshaking. Toward the end of the summer a cardinal who was usually no enthusiast for the 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. [Bugnini, p. 91.]
Although one is not supposed to speak ill of the dead-----de mortuis nil nisi bonum [literally, " of the dead, nothing except good"], in an historical study such as this, objectivity demands that it be made clear that truth was not a priority with Archbishop Bugnini. In an attempt to play down the role played by the Protestant observers in his liturgical revolution, he stated: “They never intervened in the discussions and never asked to speak.” [Notitiae, July-August 1974.] As is made clear in Appendix I, this is highly misleading. There is not the least doubt that the Second Vatican Council was a cause of great satisfaction to Protestants. In their final message to the Council, read by Archbishop Felici on December 4, 1965, the Observer-delegates enlarged on this theme: “Blessed be God for all that he has given us so far through the Holy Spirit, and for all that he will give us in the future.” Oscar Cullmann, the noted Swiss theologian, summed up their thoughts when he declared: “The hopes of Protestants for Vatican II have not only been fulfilled, but the Council’s achievements have gone far beyond what was believed possible.” [Xavier Rynne, The Fourth Session (London: Herder & Herder, 1966), p.256.]"
Pax Christi tecum.
"The Second Fall
At the very moment when his power had reached its zenith, Archbishop Bugnini was in effect dismissed-----this was his second fall-----to the dismay of liberal Catholics throughout the world. What happened was that the Archbishop’s entire Congregation was dissolved and merged with the Congregation for the Sacraments under the terms of Pope Paul’s Apostolic Constitution Constans Nobis, published in l’Osservatore Romano (English edition) of July 31, 1975. The new congregation was entitled the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship. The name Bugnini did not appear in the list of appointments. Liberals throughout the world were dismayed. The Tablet, in England, and its extreme liberal counterpart in the United States, the National Catholic Reporter, carried an indignant report by Desmond O’Grady:
Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, who, as Secretary of the abolished Congregation for Divine Worship, was the key figure in the Church’s liturgical reform, is not a member of the new Congregation. Nor, despite his lengthy experience was he consulted in the planning of it. He heard of its creation while on holiday at Fiuggi . . . the abrupt way in which this was done does not augur well for the Bugnini line of encouragement for reform in collaboration with local hierarchies . . . Msgr. Bugnini conceived the next ten years’ work as concerned principally with the incorporation of local usages into the liturgy . . . He represented the continuity of the post-conciliar liturgical reform. [The Tablet, August 30, 1975, p. 828.]
l’Osservatore Romano carried the following announcement in its English edition, on January 15, 1976: “5 January: The Holy Father has appointed Apostolic Pro Nuncio in Iran His Excellency the Most Reverend Annibale Bugnini, C. M., titular Archbishop of Dioclentiana.” This was clearly an artificial post created to gloss over the fact that the Archbishop had been banished.
In his book The Devastated Vineyard, published in 1973, Dietrich von Hildebrand rightly observed concerning Bugnini that: “Truly, if one of the devils in C. S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy, he could not have done it better.” [Dietrich von Hildebrand, The Devastated Vineyard (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1973), p. 71.] This is a statement based on an objective assessment of the reform itself It is beyond dispute that whether or not the Roman Rite has been destroyed deliberately, it has been destroyed. (See later herein.) If this result is simply the consequence of ill-judged decisions by well-meaning men, the objective fact remains unchanged: they could not have destroyed the Roman Rite more effectively had they done so deliberately. But the thoroughness of the destruction caused many to wonder whether it might be more than the result of ill-considered policies. It came as no great surprise when, in April of 1976, Tito Casini, Italy’s leading Catholic writer, publicly accused Archbishop Bugnini of being a Freemason. [Tito Casini, Nel Furno di Satana (Florence: Carro di San Giovanni, 1976), p.150.] On October 8, 1976, Le Figaro published a report stating that Archbishop Bugnini denied ever having had any Masonic affiliation.
I have made my own investigation into the affair and can vouch for the authenticity of the following facts. A Roman priest of the very highest reputation came into possession of evidence which he considered proved Archbishop Bugnini to be a Freemason. He had this information placed into the hands of Pope Paul VI with the warning that if action were not taken at once, he would be bound in conscience to make the matter public. Archbishop Bugnini was then removed by means of the dissolution of his entire Congregation. I have verified these facts directly with the priest concerned, and the full facts can be found in Chapter XXIV of my book Pope Paul’s New Mass.
An important distinction must be made here. I have not claimed that I can prove Archbishop Bugnini to have been a Mason, but that Pope Paul VI dismissed him and exiled him to Iran because he had been convinced that the Archbishop was a Mason. I made this same point in a letter published in the January 1980 Homiletic and Pastoral Review, which prompted a violent attack upon me by Archbishop Bugnini in the May 1980 issue. He denied that any of the prelates who, since Vatican II, had been accused of Masonic affiliation “ever had anything to do with Freemasonry,” and he continued:
And for Michael Davies it would be enough. [sic] But for him and his colleagues, calumniators by profession . . . I repeat what I wrote in 1976: “I do not own anything in this world more precious than the pectoral cross: if one is able to prove honestly, objectively, an iota of truth of what they affirm, I am ready to return back the pectoral cross.”
But, as I have already stated, I did not accuse him of being a Mason but simply pointed out that Pope Paul VI had been convinced that this was the case, and the fact that this does not constitute calumny is proved by the fact that Bugnini conceded precisely what I had alleged in his book The Reform of the Liturgy. Referring to his removal from his position by Pope Paul VI and the suppression of the Congregation for Divine Worship, he wrote:
What were the reasons that led the Pope to such a drastic decision, which no one expected and which lay so heavily on the Church? I said in the preface to this book that I myself never knew any of these reasons for sure, even though, understandably in the distress of the moment, I knocked on many doors at all levels . . . There were those who ascribed the change to the “authoritarian,” “almost dictatorial” way in which the secretary of the congregation supposedly managed the agency, not allowing freedom of movement to his own co-workers and limiting the role even of the cardinal prefects. [NOTE 2] But when all is said and done, all this seems to be the stuff of ordinary administrative life. There must have been something more earthshaking. Toward the end of the summer a cardinal who was usually no enthusiast for the 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. [Bugnini, p. 91.]
Although one is not supposed to speak ill of the dead-----de mortuis nil nisi bonum [literally, " of the dead, nothing except good"], in an historical study such as this, objectivity demands that it be made clear that truth was not a priority with Archbishop Bugnini. In an attempt to play down the role played by the Protestant observers in his liturgical revolution, he stated: “They never intervened in the discussions and never asked to speak.” [Notitiae, July-August 1974.] As is made clear in Appendix I, this is highly misleading. There is not the least doubt that the Second Vatican Council was a cause of great satisfaction to Protestants. In their final message to the Council, read by Archbishop Felici on December 4, 1965, the Observer-delegates enlarged on this theme: “Blessed be God for all that he has given us so far through the Holy Spirit, and for all that he will give us in the future.” Oscar Cullmann, the noted Swiss theologian, summed up their thoughts when he declared: “The hopes of Protestants for Vatican II have not only been fulfilled, but the Council’s achievements have gone far beyond what was believed possible.” [Xavier Rynne, The Fourth Session (London: Herder & Herder, 1966), p.256.]"
Pax Christi tecum.
P
peary1
Guest
**Hey struggling -
Long time no hear! Haven’t seen you in chat for the longest time. Hope all is well with you! Glad to see you in these forums.
peary(fromatt)
**
C
chrisb
Guest
Wow! (simply jaw-dropping)…
Thanks for sharing such a mountain of information strugglingalong
Thanks for sharing such a mountain of information strugglingalong
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
I wouldn’t even bother reading that article. It starts off with a fraud, a lie in which words that Bugnini never spoke are attributed to him. In fact I would write off the whole website for that reason alone.
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Amazing, the lengths some will go to, to discredit the Churchmen that make up our hierarchy, when they disagree with them and what they do.
C
chrisb
Guest
Both are ‘translations’ Neil. Which one is the more ‘literal’ translation? I’m curious.
S
strugglingalong
Guest
Hello peary1! Yes I’ve not been posting for a long time but I am back! Hope all is well with you too! God bless you!**Hey struggling -
Long time no hear! Haven’t seen you in chat for the longest time. Hope all is well with you! Glad to see you in these forums.
peary(fromatt)
Pax Christi tecum.
S
strugglingalong
Guest
Personally I don’t see how the idea is any different in either quote. In both cases the point is to remove anything that is preventing Protestants from being Catholic. Well, one thing is the Real Presence and Holy Mass as a sacrifice - two things we see diminished as a result of the New Mass. The very idea of removing aspects of the liturgy to please any group of persons is problematic. Holy Mass is about what pleases God, not what pleases any of us.
Pax Christi tecum.
- Status