Was Bugnini really an enemy of the Church?

[AlexV]

False charity is no virtue.

I stand by what I said. Just because he was a bishop doesn’t mean his actions are immune from criticism.

Was Chrysostom “uncharitable” when he made his observation about hell and the episcopacy? I think not. In fact, reading the Fathers is quite eye-opening on many levels.

You judged Bugnini; not I. You said he served “to the best of his ability”. That’s a judgment.

 

[peary1]

False charity is no virtue.

I stand by what I said. Just because he was a bishop doesn’t mean his actions are immune from criticism.

Was Chrysostom “uncharitable” when he made his observation about hell and the episcopacy? I think not. In fact, reading the Fathers is quite eye-opening on many levels.

You judged Bugnini; not I. You said he served “to the best of his ability”. That’s a judgment.

No, it’s an observation. To ‘judge’ someone is to make a conclusion on the person’s spiritual condition which is only best left to God. I’ve read his memoirs (which I doubt you have) and have not come across anything this man has done that was immoral or unethical in his behavior. I stand by my original conclusion.

 

[AlexV]

Don’t presume.

I’ve read his memoirs, and his book on the church in Iran. I read the latter in its original Italian.

I highly recommend reading Bugnini’s book on the liturgy. It details how he orchestrated the destruction of the Roman Rite in painstaking detail. The man was nothing if not honest.

And, by the way, it’s quite a big leap from “he did nothing immoral or unethical” to “he served to the best of his ability”. Quite a big leap indeed.

 

[peary1]

Don’t presume.

I’ve read his memoirs, and his book on the church in Iran. I read the latter in its original Italian.

I highly recommend reading Bugnini’s book on the liturgy. It details how he orchestrated the destruction of the Roman Rite in painstaking detail. The man was nothing if not honest.

And, by the way, it’s quite a big leap from “he did nothing immoral or unethical” to “he served to the best of his ability”. Quite a big leap indeed.

**We agree to disagree. At least I do. **

 

[bpbasilphx]

I put this in the same category as a site that presumes to give the details of John XXIII’s “secret Rosicrucian Masonic initiation” (sic).

Question–how did the AUTHOR of this site know so much about it?

Must not have been that much of a secret.

 

[AlexV]

I could frankly care less if Bugnini was a Freemason. I go by what Annibale…a new Hannibal indeed…did to the Roman liturgy…not by whether he did whatever it is Masons do behind closed doors.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I will simply say this about Bugnini’s “exile” to Iran:

Have you ever stopped to think about the courage and strong spiritual constitution it would take to be a Catholic bishop in a predominantly militantly Mahometan country?

 

[AlexV]

Certainly less likely you’ll do any more damage to the Church now that you’re based in Tehran instead of the Vatican.

 

[ProVobis]

I think the intent is to show that Bugnini was our brother in Christ, had no disdain against the Church, and pastored as bishop to the best of his ability.

No disdain when he bragged about how he destroyed the Roman rite, almost singlehandedly at that? Would you call me a brother in Christ if I were hired to bring an end to the Novus Ordo and then brag about it in a book?

 

[AlexV]

One thing comes out on almost every page of his memoirs on the liturgy: Annibale could NOT brook criticism. Everyone who objected to what he was doing did not have the “spirit of the Council”. The man’s arrogance was astonishing. Of course it would need to be, to orchestrate the destruction of centuries of tradition.

 

[ProVobis]

I will simply say this about Bugnini’s “exile” to Iran:

Have you ever stopped to think about the courage and strong spiritual constitution it would take to be a Catholic bishop in a predominantly militantly Mahometan country?

Or how about being excommunicated and ridiculed and slandered for trying to preserve the faith for the whole Church? Who knows how much Bugnini rubbed in Lefebvre’s face.

 

[AlexV]

Someone should do a parallel lives for Bugnini and Lefebvre. The latter was laboring building hospitals and schools in French Africa while the former was deciding what was wrong with the Roman Rite.

 

[rwoehmke]

So how are we to look at the National Councils of Bishops who approved the work of Bugnini for their dioceses? All closet Free Masons? I think the notion that Bugnini single handedly ruined the liturgy is rediculous on its face. He wasn’t even a Bishop until late in the process. He was basically a secretary to some Cardinals. John Paul II’s liturgist has written a book on the process that was followed in designing and promulgating more liturgical changes than just the Holy Mass,

 

[AlexV]

Your statement belies a rather glaring ignorance of just how powerful curial “secretaries” are. The term has little to do with the usual English connotations of the word. Bugnini was the single most powerful man in the Vatican’s liturgy circles from c. 1968 to 1975…bishop or not.

 

[ProVobis]

I think the notion that Bugnini single handedly ruined the liturgy is rediculous on its face. He wasn’t even a Bishop until late in the process.

A non-sequitor. He and a handful of non-Catholic ministers were given the power to change the liturgy per the Pope’s guidelines. Name one bishop that was given such power.

And, by the way, Pope John Paul II, to his credit, never claimed that he wished to make major changes in the liturgy. He was pretty much status quo in that respect.

 

[rwoehmke]

Your statement belies a rather glaring ignorance of just how powerful curial “secretaries” are. The term has little to do with the usual English connotations of the word. Bugnini was the single most powerful man in the Vatican’s liturgy circles from c. 1968 to 1975…bishop or not.

So did he have Paul VI and the Bishops by the proverbial short hairs? Hard to believe.

 

[AlexV]

You’d have to ask Paul why he gave unprecedented power to one man and his commission. And why he suddenly took it all away on one fine day in July, 1975.

 

[GerardP]

I wouldn’t even bother reading that article.

Did you read the article or not? If not, I won’t bother to care what you think and no one else should.

It starts off with a fraud, a lie in which words that Bugnini never spoke are attributed to him.

It starts off with a Title to be accurate. Also, it could actually be accurate, it could be a fraud or it could be an honest error.

You should have known that instead of automatically attributing bad faith to the article. Should we assume you are committing a fraud?

In fact I would write off the whole website for that reason alone.

It’s a foolish extrapolation, but your prerogative. It seems more like you are looking for an excuse to avoid the article than actually face it. And you seem to want to keep others as ignorant as yourself.

Produce the Italian original and we’ll compare the texts.

 

[GerardP]

You’d have to ask Paul why he gave unprecedented power to one man and his commission. And why he suddenly took it all away on one fine day in July, 1975.

This is a topic that is too delicate for discussion, the chance of scandalizing people is too high. Here’s a clue: Roger Peyrefitte.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

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.

Did you happen to notice that the two quotes said almost exactly the same thing?

I’m sure you are aware that Luther said “Destroy the Mass, Destroy the Church”. In other words, Luther was completely aware that the Mass - the making present of the Calvary sacrifice - was the foundation of the Faith. He knew that to destroy it - by turning it into a meal - would be to effectively destroy the Catholic Church.

So, do you think that it was a good thing for the architect of the new Mass in the 20th century to be stating that his goal was to align it with Protestantism?

Following along? Ok; here’s more. The notion that criticizing a man’s actions is sinful is illogical and certainly clearly incompatible with Christianity in its basic tenets and its history (read the Scripture and read the Fathers!) This is true whether that man is a saint or a complete apostate. This tactic - berating those who would call out the actions of someone harming the Body of Christ - comes straight from the father of lies; surely it must be one of his favorite tools. If only nobody called the Arians on their heresy, and all the other heresies to boot. If only the Church hadn’t done anything about the homosexuality crisis in the seminaries - because to do so was ‘uncharitable’. If only the Church didn’t clean its own house - it would have burned to the ground long ago.

So, then, the issue should be the actions in question, not whether or not judging them in the light of Tradition and the faith is inherently licit or not!

The novus ordo is a valid Mass - because it has to be. Because if it were not, Hell would have prevailed against the Body and Christ would have been proven a liar. This will never be.

But it appears it is a valid Mass more in spite of Bugnini than because of him, when considering the facts.