By David Martin
If the engineers of the Neo-Reformation were able to advance their plans and bring forth a new Mass for the Church in defiance of centuries of divine guidance, it means they weren’t being watched too carefully. While John XXIII and his men were busy at work preparing for the Second Vatican Council in the years preceding the Council, there lay hidden in the Vatican a secret cabal of liturgical planners whose work would bring discredit to the Church and to the one appointed to lead it, Pope Paul VI.
At the helm was the infamous Msgr. Annibale Bugnini who had long been suspected of conspiracy. He and his clique formed the eye of this ecclesial hurricane that would later uproot the Faith and blow the Barque of Peter off its course.
Bugnini’s work as a liturgist goes back to 1947 when he began a twenty year period as the director of Ephemerides liturgicae, one of Italy’s best known liturgical publications. He contributed to numerous scholarly publications, wrote articles on the liturgy for various encyclopedias and dictionaries and had a number of books published on the subject. But there was a hidden agenda at work from the beginning that slowly began to reveal his perfidious tracks.
Every indication is that Bugnini was Masonic, but Pope John XXIII obviously wasn’t aware of this [and] he made him Secretary of the Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy for the Second Vatican Council that was formed in June 1960. Cardinal Heenan of Westminster even said in his autobiography that “Pope John did not suspect what was being planned by the liturgical experts.”
Pope Paul’s Interview with Fr. Bouyer
As a little example of Bugnini’s deceptive workings in the Vatican, we cite you this little anecdote from 1974. The Consilium for the Reform of the Liturgy had in its ranks a number of liturgists including a Father Louis Bouyer who was opposed to the changes in the Mass. Bugnini argued his cause with Father Bouyer by telling him that Pope Paul VI wanted new changes in the Mass, and then Bugnini told Pope Paul that Bouyer and the ‘Consilium experts’ had decided in favor of these changes. Obviously, it was Bugnini who wanted the changes and Pope Paul later acknowledged to Fr. Bouyer that Bugnini had deceived both of them. The following is an interview that took place between Pope Paul and Fr. Bouyer in 1974.
(Father Louis Bouyer)—I wrote to the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, to tender my resignation as member of the Commission charged with the Liturgical Reform. The Holy Father sent for me at once and the following conversation ensued:
Paul VI: Father, you are an unquestionable and unquestioned authority by your deep knowledge of the Church’s liturgy and Tradition, and a specialist in this field. I do not understand why you have sent me your resignation, whilst your presence, is more than precious, it is indispensable!
Father Bouyer: Most Holy Father, if I am a specialist in this field, I tell you very simply that I resign because I do not agree with the reforms you are imposing! Why do you take no notice of the remarks we send you, and why do you do the opposite?
Paul VI: But I don’t understand. I’m not imposing anything. I have never imposed anything in this field. I have complete trust in your competence and your propositions. It is you who are sending me proposals. When Fr. Bugnini comes to see me, he says: “Here is what the experts are asking for.” And as you are an expert in this matter, I accept your judgment.
Father Bouyer: When we have studied a question, and have chosen what we can propose to you, in conscience, Father Bugnini took our text, and, then said to us that, having consulted you: “The Holy Father wants you to introduce these changes into the liturgy.” And since I don’t agree with your propositions, because they break with the Tradition of the Church, then I tender my resignation.
Paul VI: But not at all, Father, believe me, Father Bugnini tells me exactly the contrary: I have never refused a single one of your proposals. Father Bugnini came to find me and said: “The experts of the Commission charged with the Liturgical Reform asked for this and that.” And since I am not a liturgical specialist, I tell you again, I have always accepted your judgment. I never said that to Monsignor Bugnini. I was deceived. Father Bugnini deceived me and deceived you.
Father Bouyer: That is, my dear friends, how the liturgical reform was done! (translated from the original French by Fr. Anthony Chadwick.) http://www.leforumcatholique.org/message.
What is noteworthy is that Pope Paul reposed complete confidence in Fr. Bouyer’s judgment on liturgical matters and was happy to let him exert his influence on the Consilium for the retention of tradition in the Mass. Unfortunately, Fr. Bouyer yielded to pressure from other liturgists and eventually dropped out of the Consilium.
Comment by Damian Malliapalli : I read another article of a conversation Paul VI had weeks before he died with a famous French philosopher, who was also his friend. Apparently Paul VI had a feeling that his days were short, so he felt free to speak. Among the most interesting things he said was, regarding Vatican II. Of the Council he said that when he was elected, it was as if ” I was the conductor of a train, forced to chart a course that I myself would not have chosen….”
In other words, had there been no Vatican II in session, he never would have called one. I also read that already, before he even was elected, he could sense the Council was off course, but when elected was too weak to either change direction, or cancel it/close it down.
He was also asked by a close priest associate, if he had ever thought of closing the Council after his election. He did not answer yes, or no. He only said that “it had already gone too far.”
He had a reputation as an indecisive pope, who took forever to make up his mind and agonized about it even after he made a decision. Unfortunatly, his decisions except for Humanae Vitae, were nearly always wrong.
Pope Francis is the opposite. He is a radical liberal, bent on pushing thru his own disasterous agenda, and will run roughshod over anyone who opposes him. Unless he is brought down by his own Cardinals and bishops. And we know that that is very unlikely.
Can we wonder at the advancement of Bugnini when it has been postulated for many years that Pope John XXIII was himself an adherent to that infamous organisation. No wonder we hear that “the smoke of Satan has entered the Vatican”. Bring back HOLY Mother Church!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Dominus Vobiscum: Notes from a massgoer's underground and commented:
Bugnini story in nutshell . . .
Thank you David O’Neill for that comment regarding Pope John XXIII – you led me to Google it and i am listening to Michael Voris on the Masons at the moment. I am always bemused by observations such as those in this article where Pope Paul VI said that he had been ‘deceived’. If he was “deceived”, and acknowledged it, then why did he not simply put a stop to the so-called ‘reforms’ which were, in reality the ‘protestantisation’ of the Catholic Church? He was the Pope, after all. If it is the case that Pope John XXIII was a Mason, (and, of course, I don’t know if it is the truth), then it makes more sense. We know of Pecorelli’s list, in which the major architects of the Council were listed as Masons. Perhaps Pope Paul VI had been compromised, or perhaps he was surrounded by Masons- who knows? The overwhelming impression, however, is of an institution almost paralysed by inertia – something that is extremely weird. And why is Pecorelli’s list never mentioned? Are we surrounded by the “progressives” who have dominated the narrative and are only now discovering the agenda behind it all?
LikeLiked by 1 person