 |
| Msgr. Annibale Bugnini: consummate liar of Vatican II |
Truth or lie? Ding-ding-ding.
LIE! The truth is that the consilium group established to review the form of the liturgy at Vatican II explicitly rejected the idea of a new altar placed in front of the old one in a letter of 30 June 1965 from Cardinal Lercarro, president of the Consilium. The Congregation for Divine Worship confirmed that on 19 February 1972.
Statement: The Council ruled that the vernacular was to replace Latin.
Truth or lie? Ding-ding-ding.
LIE! While the proper of the Mass (readings and prayers) were often read in the vernacular even before the Council, Latin and Gregorian chant were to hold pride of place in the liturgy.
Statement: Liturgical innovations were encouraged to modernize the Mass and make it more meaningful to congregations.
Truth or lie? Ding-ding-ding.
LIE: Not only were innovations not encouraged. They were forbidden unless they were legitimately needed for the good of the Church and grew naturally from the current liturgical forms. There was nothing in the documents on the liturgy about abrogating the old form of liturgy and replacing it with a new one.
Want to know the truth about Vatican II? I just read a review of H.J.A. Sire's book, Phoenix from the Ashes: The Making, Unmaking, and Restoration of Catholic Tradition. I'm ordering it. Much of what happened after Vatican II was based on lies and manipulations. What's incredibly shocking is that so many bishops went along with the wrecking crews. It's time to shout the truth from the housetops and restore what was stolen by deceivers like the reputed freemason, Msgr. Annibale Bugnini who served as secretary for the Commision for Liturgical Reform. His plan from the beginning was to turn the Mass of the ages into a Protestant service:“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Prostestants.” - Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965Bugnini and his cohorts led a wrecking crew through the Church. They undermined the liturgy, led to wreckovated churches both inside and out, and facilitated all kinds of liturgical monstrosities. He died in 1982. Today I'm holding my nose and praying that he experienced conversion before he died. He certainly had a lot for which to answer. St. Joseph, protector of the Church, intercede for him and for all of us who suffer the unmitigated disasters he introduced into the liturgy.
Before setting out to write on a subject, it is good to do your homework. You vindicate the infamous Consilium by saying it rejected the new altar and other like changes, and then you state:
ReplyDelete"Bugnini and his cohorts led a wrecking crew through the Church. They undermined the liturgy, led to wreckovated churches both inside and out, and facilitated all kinds of liturgical monstrosities."
Mgsr. Bugnini was the Secretary of the Consilium and it's members (including seven Protestants) that were hand picked by him, and who were directly responsible for the implementation of the new altar and liturgy. The 1964 Vatican Instruction Inter Oecumnici which was penned by the Consilium (through the Congregation for the Rites) even states in article 91: "The main altar should be freestanding to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people." The same document also proposed cultural diversity, wider use of vernacular, and states in article 48 that the Leonine Prayers (St. Michael and Three Hail Marys) are to be "suppressed."
Where do you get your information? The best evidence of Vatican II's dissent from tradition are the documents themselves, which were largely penned by the Church's enemies, i.e. Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, Annibale Bugnini, Edward Schillebeeckx, Godfried, de Lubac, Cardinal Bea, the seven aforementioned Protestants, and many others who were not of the Faith. Vatican II started with good intent, but the Council was hijacked in its First Session in October 1962, so that virtually everything the original conciliar architects had drafted was trashed and replaced with the Vatican II we know today, including its 16 documents that are infected with heresy. Naturally these scoundrels always got key Vatican personnel like Cardinal Lercarro to put the Council in a good light in order to cover their tracks and sell their product. These salesmen were good with slick words too. Consider article 21 from Sacrosanctum Concilium:
"Holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself."
Since when did the Church's liturgy need to be restored? Do you not recognize blasphemy when you see it? There was no need to restore anything at Vatican II, since the liturgy was already in perfect shape. Nothing needed change or reform other than the poor faith of the clergy.
The game plan was to revive Luther's "Reformation" under the pretext of a restoration or renewal. In that manner they were able to sell their changes to the church. Unfortunately, many of our formerly noble bishops became the able engineers of these changes. A select few instigated the revolt on October 13, 1962, but by December 7 that year a better part of the Council had caught fire with the new changes. Read Fr. Wiltgen's The Rhine Flows into the Tiber and see what really happened at the Council. It was a conspiracy of the New Order—the Third Secret in action.
My concern about the article arises from the fact that readers will come away thinking that Vatican II was "misinterpreted" or "misrepresented" when they should be acknowledging that the Council was railroaded and jinxed by Masonic agents. The ambiguity of the documents only proves this point, since ambiguity is the work of the devil. Ambiguity was the smoking gun of Vatican II.
David Martin
Thanks for the comment, David. I had no intention of vindicating the consilium since I read about some of the bad stuff they were doing, but Laccaro still wrote the letter about the altar and the Congregation affirmed it. The info came from Sire’s book, Phoenix from the Ashes. I don’t want to get into an argument about the validity of Vatican II. Dietrich von Hildebrand said some very positive things about it and so did Fr. John Hardon.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt that Lecarro wrote the letter and that the Congregation affirmed it. If they had more courage they would say the truth and admit that the Consilium never rejected but implemented the change of the new altar with no hesitation.
ReplyDeleteThey had to wrestle however, because they had to use the Congregation for the Rights to get it done, and this is where they ran into problems because there were some good people in the Congregation who contested this. However, the Congregation gave in after a while. The Consilium got their way with near unanimous support from the Church fathers. Very few contested the change. The mere fact that the September 1964 Vatican Instruction called for "celebration facing the people" only proves that the Council endorsed it. Only a handful were against the idea.
We saw the same thing on December 7, 1962, when the Council officially adopted the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy with roaring applause from the Council majority, instigated with the help of the media. Basically all the Vatican congregations and personnel consented to this with great glee, yet the Constitution was the work of the devil—a truth they resisted with pride. It was penned by Bugnini and his clique, yet the good men at Vatican II, e.g. Cardinal Ottaviani, Marcel Lefebvre, stood up in the midst and gave the Council ample warning that these changes were not of God, but they refused to listen like drunkards. Not only was the Council majority complicit by its applause, but a great many now became architects for the leftist wreckovation plan. The ensuing 16 documents were not the work of the Holy Spirit, but the work of Satan. Only the last chapter of Lumen Gentium escaped this plague because it was penned by Pope Paul himself.
This Council majority that I refer to is what Pope Benedict referred to on February 14, 2013, as "the virtual Council." According to the good pope, the "virtual Council" overtook the "real Council." The real Council was trashed and completely out of the picture by November 1962. We never saw the real Vatican II. Yes, that Vatican II was valid, agreed, but the virtual Council was illicit, both in its doctrine and in its procedures. According to the preeminent Romano Amerio who under John XXIII's supervision had contributed significantly to the original Vatican II outline, "This departure from the original plan" came about "by an act breaking the Council's legal framework."
David