Was Bugnini really an enemy of the Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eelpis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Isn’t it wonderful to have Bugnini to blame things on?

If Bugnini did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
 
Kit, are you trying to claim some kind of moral high ground?

Or do you have some other point to make?
 
bpbasilphx said:
Kit, are you trying to claim some kind of moral high ground?

Or do you have some other point to make?
Click to expand...
And your point was what, exactly?

The tactics of the other side on this topic seem to be limited to obfuscation and non sequitors.
 
GerardP said:
Did you read the article or not? If not, I won’t bother to care what you think and no one else should.
Click to expand...
There was a picture of Archbishop Bugnini with a made-up quote falsely attributed to him. What Archbishop Bugnini actually said was about changing one prayer for non-Catholic Christians in the Good Friday liturgy. The quote was not only removed from context, but completely altered to make it say something that he never said.

A group that feels it is appropriate to behave in that way has no right to call itself Catholic. Catholic theology says that the end does not justify the means. Calumny and slander are not justifiable tools to use to combat anyone, especially an archbishop. No one should read anything from a person who speaks slander and calumny against anyone, especially an archbishop.
 
Neil, with respect, if you’d take a look at the whole thing in context, including other statements by Bugnini, and line that up with the ‘mystery’ surrounding his abrupt exile, you’d have to conclude that the general attributes and attitude being attributed to him are probably accurate.

God will judge his soul, but for the health of the Church, we’d do well to take a look at his actions.

Let’s be frank: don’t most people who defend Bugnini do so largely only because they dislike the Latin rite, dislike the Trad movement, and like the NO just fine (often, abuses or no)?

I am not suggesting you fall into that category - I don’t know.
 
AlexV said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree. Wasn’t he first “hired” by Pope Pius XII? If I recall correctly, his history and involvement in liturgical affairs go a long way back. Wasn’t ** Fr** Annibale Bugnini, the secretary of the Preparatory Liturgical Commission during the reign of Pope John XXIII & wasn’t he responsible for the first draft of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy? He was the one who planted a number of time bombs in the Constitution by means of **ambiguous statements and omissions **that he and his team would later use to advance their agenda duing Vatican II.
**Within days of his draft being endorsed by the Preparatory Commission, he was fired by Pope John XXIII from his chair at the Lateran University and from the Conciliar Liturgical Commission. This was his **first ****fall. Then the Rhine group of bishops (cf The Rhine flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II by Fr Ralph M. Wiltgen, SVD, Tan Books) used the same people Bugnini had used in setting up the committee in charge of interpreting the Constitution at the end of Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Unbelievably, in 1964 Pope Paul VI appointed him to head up what would later become a new Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. He was now at the apex of his power, and for twelve years would take no action against unofficial innovators because they were ‘on the same wavelength’.
Click to expand...
Like you, I care very little about Bugnini’s affiliation (or non-affliation) with the Masons. I care much more about what he did to our Mass. Had Cranmer been alive during Vat. II, he would have been proud of Annibale Bugnini…regarded him as a little bit slow re the progress he made, but Bugnini would have been Cranmer’s favorite Catholic.
 
Paul_Folbrecht said:
Neil, with respect, if you’d take a look at the whole thing in context, including other statements by Bugnini, and line that up with the ‘mystery’ surrounding his abrupt exile, you’d have to conclude that the general attributes and attitude being attributed to him are probably accurate.

God will judge his soul, but for the health of the Church, we’d do well to take a look at his actions.

Let’s be frank: don’t most people who defend Bugnini do so largely only because they dislike the Latin rite, dislike the Trad movement, and like the NO just fine (often, abuses or no)?

I am not suggesting you fall into that category - I don’t know.
Click to expand...
I’m not defending Bugnini, just pointing out a dishonest quote. It’s important to consider the source when researching anything. I don’t have any strong opinions for or against Bugnini or the Trad movement. I just can’t stand to see dishonesty when it comes to something as important as that.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
I’m not defending Bugnini, just pointing out a dishonest quote. It’s important to consider the source when researching anything. I don’t have any strong opinions for or against Bugnini or the Trad movement. I just can’t stand to see dishonesty when it comes to something as important as that.
Click to expand...
I would call this particular item closer to exaggeration than dishonesty. That or an honest mistake.

As for exaggeration, unfortunately, it’s a rather common human activity; many people end up engaging in it when they’re passionate about a cause. It’s got nothing to do with the cause itself.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
No one should read anything from a person who speaks slander and calumny against anyone, especially an archbishop.
Click to expand...
Would you consider quoting from the archbishop’s own book slander? There seems to be sufficient information for discussion right there.
 
bpbasilphx said:
Isn’t it wonderful to have Bugnini to blame things on?

If Bugnini did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
Click to expand...
Substitute the name Lefebvre for Bugnini and you can post the same message in many other threads on this forum.
 
AlexV said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, all you have to do is read Bugnini’s autobiograph and you will find out…

According to Bugnini himself, he was removed by Pope Paul VI because Paul VI was presented with a dosier that “proved” (Bugnini’s word) that Annibale Bugnini was a Freemason. That is what Bugnini himself wrote in his own autobiography
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
Actually, all you have to do is read Bugnini’s autobiograph and you will find out…

According to Bugnini himself, he was removed by Pope Paul VI because Paul VI was presented with a dosier that “proved” (Bugnini’s word) that Annibale Bugnini was a Freemason. That is what Bugnini himself wrote in his own autobiography
Click to expand...
**Did we read the same autobiography?? :confused: **
 
Here’s the quote from his autobiography, and another from Fr. Harrison.

**Annibali Bugnini: **"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. 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.]

According to Malachi Martin, who worked in Rome at the time, Bugnini left his brief case in a conference room. When the person who found it opened it up to try and find out who it belonged to, they discovered documents that revealed Bugnini’s little secret. This is what Fr, Harrison wrote.

**Fr. Harrison: **“On the other hand, I know that there are high-ranking Vatican officials, including at least one former Cardinal Prefect of a Roman Congregation, who believe that there have been and are Freemasons in high Vatican positions. I confess my own amazement when I came to realise that such ideas (whether true or false) do not originate solely amongst “crackpot” conspiracy-theorists. Indeed it is quite widely held in Rome that the Masons themselves were responsible for circulating the absurdly long list of alleged Vatican Lodge members in 1976, precisely in order to make the whole idea look ridiculous, thereby protecting the few prelates who really were Masons. An internationally known churchman of unimpeachable integrity has also told me that he heard the account of the discovery of the evidence against Bugnini directly from the Roman priest who found it in a briefcase which Bugnini had inadvertently left in a Vatican conference room after a meeting”.
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
Actually, all you have to do is read Bugnini’s autobiograph and you will find out…

According to Bugnini himself, he was removed by Pope Paul VI because Paul VI was presented with a dosier that “proved” (Bugnini’s word) that Annibale Bugnini was a Freemason. That is what Bugnini himself wrote in his own autobiography
Click to expand...
Here is a reference and footnote from another website:
Less than a year later, Bugnini was sacked and his congregation dissolved, almost immediately after Paul VI was given a dossier purportedly documenting Bugnini’s Masonic affiliations, as Bugnini himself disclosed.11
Click to expand...
  1. Ibid., 93: “Toward the end of the summer a cardinal who was usually no enthusiast for liturgical reform told me of the existence of a ‘dossier’ that he had seen on (or brought to?) the Pope’s desk which proved that Archbishop Bugnini was a Freemason (speaking of himself in the third person).” Bugnini denied he was a Mason, but what Mason would admit his membership in the Lodge after having accomplished the destruction of the Roman Rite? As Davies has noted, however, it hardly matters whether Bugnini was a Mason, since a Mason could not have done a better job than Bugnini in accomplishing what he himself boasted was “a major conquest of the Catholic Church.” Quoted in Michael Davies, “How the liturgy fell apart: the enigma of Archbishop Bugnini,” AD2000 Vol. 2 No 5 (June 1989), p. 17.
Click to expand...
remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2007-0715-turning_point.htm
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
Here’s the quote from his autobiography, and another from Fr. Harrison.

**Annibali Bugnini: **"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. 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.]

According to Malachi Martin, who worked in Rome at the time, Bugnini left his brief case in a conference room. When the person who found it opened it up to try and find out who it belonged to, they discovered documents that revealed Bugnini’s little secret. This is what Fr, Harrison wrote.

**Fr. Harrison: **“On the other hand, I know that there are high-ranking Vatican officials, including at least one former Cardinal Prefect of a Roman Congregation, who believe that there have been and are Freemasons in high Vatican positions. I confess my own amazement when I came to realise that such ideas (whether true or false) do not originate solely amongst “crackpot” conspiracy-theorists. Indeed it is quite widely held in Rome that the Masons themselves were responsible for circulating the absurdly long list of alleged Vatican Lodge members in 1976, precisely in order to make the whole idea look ridiculous, thereby protecting the few prelates who really were Masons. An internationally known churchman of unimpeachable integrity has also told me that he heard the account of the discovery of the evidence against Bugnini directly from the Roman priest who found it in a briefcase which Bugnini had inadvertently left in a Vatican conference room after a meeting”.

**Now I think we know why John Paul II never stayed too long in the Vatican for any length of time. 😉 **
Click to expand...
 
peary1 said:
**Now I think we know why John Paul II never stayed too long in the Vatican for any length of time. 😉 **
Click to expand...
You used a smiley, but it was true that he was surrounded by enemies, as the current Pontiff probably is as well.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
There was a picture of Archbishop Bugnini with a made-up quote falsely attributed to him. What Archbishop Bugnini actually said was about changing one prayer for non-Catholic Christians in the Good Friday liturgy. The quote was not only removed from context, but completely altered to make it say something that he never said.

A group that feels it is appropriate to behave in that way has no right to call itself Catholic. Catholic theology says that the end does not justify the means. Calumny and slander are not justifiable tools to use to combat anyone, especially an archbishop. No one should read anything from a person who speaks slander and calumny against anyone, especially an archbishop.
Click to expand...
More dodging. Did you read the article or not? It’s a simple yes or no question.

If you didn’t read the article, no one should pay any attention to what you think. And I believe it’s even more imperative that they read the article since I believe that there is more truth in the article than you want to admit and even less do you want others to know about.

And since you are fast and loose with the accusations, how do you know it was:
  1. not a true quote, you have yet to produce the original Italian text
  2. not actually two different quotes from the same article or…
  3. not an innocent error since the quote is rather famous?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top