Annibale Bugnini, the Mastermind Behind the New Mass of Vatican II

David Martin | The Daily Knight

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 Pope 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 conciliar hurricane that would set the Barque of Peter onto a new and destructive 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 and had a number of books published on the liturgy, but there was a hidden agenda at work from the beginning that slowly began to reveal his perfidious tracks.

Bugnini had long been in contact with radical members of a liturgical movement that had deviated from the sound principles of Pope Pius X. He was present at a conspiratorial gathering of radical liturgists at Thieulin near Chastres in the late forties. Father Duploye, one of those in attendance, writes of Bugnini:

“The Father listened very attentively, without saying a word, for four days. During our return journey to Paris, as the train was passing along the Swiss Lake at Versailles, he said to me: “I admire what you are doing, but the greatest service I can render you is never to say a word in Rome about all that I have just heard.” (Michael Davies, Liturgical Time Bombs)

Every indication is that Bugnini was a Freemason as we will point out shortly, but Pope John XXIII obviously did not suspect this in 1960 when the Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy for the Second Vatican Council was formed. Cardinal Heenan of Westminster even says in his autobiography that “Pope John did not suspect what was being planned by the liturgical experts.”

The Bugnini Schema on the New Mass

In 1960 Msgr. Bugnini was tragically placed in a position that enabled him to exert profound influence on the history of the Church when he was appointed Secretary of the 1 Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy. This was the original think-tank for the new Mass that was established on 2 June 6, 1960. With his position and reputation as a liturgist, Bugnini was able to recruit dissident theologians to his side, whereupon they together drafted what has come to be known as the "Bugnini Schema" on the Mass.

Before the liturgical schema could be presented at the Second Vatican Council for debate, it first had to be approved and signed by Cardinal Cicognani who headed the Commission, but when it was submitted to him for approval on February 1, 1962, he immediately detected that the schema contained grave doctrinal dangers that could grow into something disastrous and was having grave misgivings about signing it. So Bugnini immediately arranged for pressure to be placed on Cicognani by having the Vatican Secretary of State come to the Commission and speak to him with words of persuasion.

One can imagine the diabolical pressures being placed on him at that time. The entire assembly of hell must have been present exerting their fullest powers against him, since his signature would put the schema through and open the way for the destruction of the Catholic Church. With the old cardinal practically in tears he finally waved the document in the air and said out loud: “They want me to sign this, but I don’t know if I want to!” Then he laid the document on his desk, picked up a pen, and signed it. Four days later he died. (Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber)

Cicognani’s signature was the button that launched Bugnini’s infamous designs, without which his plans for a new Mass would have been in ruins. Consider Bugnini’s own words: “If Cardinal Cicognani had not signed the Constitution, humanly speaking it would have been a disaster.” (Annibale Bugnini, La Riforma Liturgica, 1983)

What is interesting is that Bugnini was dismissed from two important posts a short time after his schema on the Mass was approved. Through the intervention of Cardinal Larraona, the new head of the Commission, Pope John XXIII grew wise to Bugnini's destructive intentions and sinister connections and had him removed from his chair at the Lateran University where he taught liturgy and also from his secretaryship to the Liturgical Commission that was to oversee the schema during the conciliar debates. Unfortunately, his schema on the Mass remained in force without being overturned. (Michael Davies, How the Liturgy Fell Apart: The Enigma of Archbishop Bugnini)

Pope John’s Plan for Vatican II Trashed

Now that the Bugnini Schema was saved, the next step was to present it at Vatican II for discussion on October 16, 1962. There were actually 72 prepared schemas up for discussion, all of which were orthodox and worthy of use, whereas the Bugnini Schema was the corrupt one of the set, being embedded with anti-church subtleties. Yet the Bugnini Draft was the one that received rave reviews from the Council while the others were dumped and scarcely considered! The ultra-conservative Archbishop Lefebvre, who had been appointed to the Central Preparatory Committee to check all the documents, had this to say:

“From the very first days, the Council was besieged by the progressive forces. We experienced it, felt it…. We had the impression that something abnormal was happening and this impression was rapidly confirmed; fifteen days after the opening session not one of the seventy-two schemas remained. All had been sent back, rejected, thrown into the waste-paper basket….The immense work that had been found accomplished was scrapped and the assembly found itself empty-handed, with nothing ready.” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, 1986)

The 72 schemas were the original outline for Vatican II that John XXIII and his theologians had spent over two years preparing prior to the Council. According to Lefebvre, the schemas were orthodox and should have been used and he deplored the fact that they were rejected after they had received the necessary one-third vote to get them approved. The rebellious “Rhine Alliance” at Vatican II protested the passage of the schemas, saying, “This is inadmissible!” They abhorred the orthodoxy of the preparatory outline with its strict formulations and resented the idea of having it imposed upon them by a pope who “clung to the old absolute traditions.”

Pope John, fearing a tumult, backed down and consented to let the Rhine fathers have their way against game rules. Though he had planned it differently, he unfortunately capitulated to the fear of creating a ruckus.

Hence what was being called the most meticulous and painstaking preparation ever undertaken for any council of Church history was suddenly dumped to the glee of this Council confederacy. Only the liturgical schema remained, which would now be the focus of the Council and would soon become the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. The Constitution would be the blueprint for the New Mass of Vatican II that would be said in the language of the people with the priest facing the people — a Mass that would inevitably bring about a historic shift of focus where the emphasis is on the community and not on God.

Architect of Confusion

Bugnini was all about creating confusion and disunity in the Church, which is why he and the Consilium changed the liturgical calendar when there was no reason for this. His plans for the Church match those of a Communist agent whose memoirs were discovered after being involved in a fatal auto accident in the mid-sixties. Consider this brief excerpt:

“In the Mass, the words ‘Real Presence’ and ‘Transubstantiation’ must be deleted. We shall speak of ‘Meal’ and ‘Eucharist’ instead. We shall destroy the Offertory and play down the Consecration and, at the same time, we shall stress the part played by the people. In the Mass, as it is today, the priest turns his back to the people and fills a sacrificial function which is intolerable. He appears to offer his Mass to the great Crucifix hanging over the ornate altar.

“We shall pull down the Crucifix, substitute a table for the altar, and turn it around so that the priest may assume a presidential function [facing the people]. The priest will speak to the people much more than before. In this manner the Mass will gradually cease to be regarded as an act of adoration to God, and will become a gathering and an act of human brotherhood. All these points will have to be elaborated in great detail and they may take anywhere up to 30 years before they are implemented, but I think that all my objectives will be fulfilled by 1974.”

Ring any bells? Can we understand why the Church is where it’s at today? Does this not confirm that the radical 3 changes that came upon the Church after Vatican II were largely the work of Marxist and Masonic agents that had captured key positions in the Church?

Bugnini’s Protestant Connection

As cited earlier, Bugnini’s subversive designs were evident long before the Council, for which reason he was sometimes suspected of conspiracy. As far back as 1944 he had asked a Monsignor Arrigo Pintonello to translate some texts on the “renewal” of liturgy that had been written in part by German Protestants. His Protestant connection is highlighted in a sermon delivered by His Excellency Bishop Lazo of the Philippines on Ascension Thursday, 1998:

“I discovered the real reason for the illegal suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass. The ancient Mass was an obstacle to the introduction of Ecumenism. The Catholic Mass contained Catholic dogmas, which Protestants denied. To achieve unity with protestant sects, the Tridentine Latin Mass had to be scrapped, being replaced by the Novus Ordo Missae. The Novus Ordo Missae was a concoction of Monsignor Annibale Bugnini, a Freemason. Six protestant ministers helped Monsignor Bugnini in fabricating it. The innovators saw to it that no Catholic dogmas offensive to protestant ears were left in the prayers. They deleted all that expressed the Catholic dogmas fully and replaced them with very ambiguous, protestantizing, and heretical things.”

In the March 19, 1965 issue of L’ Osservatore Romano, Bugnini said, “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 … the Protestants.”

We can understand why Archbishop Lefebvre declared the following in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors in March of 1976: “Now, when we hear in Rome that he who was the heart and soul of the liturgical reform is a Freemason, we may think that he is not the only one. The veil covering the greatest deceit ever to have mystified the clergy and baffled the faithful is doubtless beginning to be torn asunder.”

Papal Interview Unveils Bugnini’s Deception

As a little example of Bugnini’s deceptive workings in the Vatican, we cite 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 VI 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.

Note that Pope Paul reposed complete confidence in Father Bouyer’s judgment on liturgical matters while holding Bugnini to be a ‘deceiver.’ Unfortunately, Pope Paul had already made Bugnini the secretary of the Consilium for the Liturgical Reform on February 29, 1964, at which time he did not suspect Bugnini of conspiracy, just as Pope Pius XII did not suspect him of this when he appointed him to the Commission for the 4 Reform of the Liturgy in May of 1948. Bugnini was always careful to maintain a very pious image before the popes.

Even so, Pope Paul was growing suspicious of Bugnini, though at the same time remaining somewhat naïve. One of his ‘virtuous faults’ was his unwillingness to see the evil in his fellow man, which unfortunately permitted certain evil ones to carry on in Rome. The Holy Father on occasion had been briefed about Bugnini’s affiliation with the Freemasons but he would hear none of it.

Masonic Connection

However, in July 1975 the pope was forced against his will to learn of Bugnini’s affiliation with the Freemasons. Bugnini had attended a meeting at the Secretariat of State where he accidently forgot his briefcase. A dossier obtained from Bugnini’s briefcase was personally brought to the Holy Father by a reputable high cardinal who had obtained it from a monsignor who had opened the briefcase to see who it belonged to. The dossier contained private instructions from the Italian Masonic Grand Master to Bugnini, which convinced the pope beyond any doubt that he was a Freemason. The following is part of what Pope Paul VI read from the dossier and is dated June 14, 1964:

Dear Buan [Masonic code-name of Bugnini]:

We communicate the task appointed to you by the Council of Brothers, in accordance with the Grand Master and the Assistant Princes to the Throne. We oblige you to spread de-Christianization by confusing rites and languages and to set priests, bishops and cardinals against each other. Linguistic and ritualistic babel means victory for us, since linguistic and ritual unity has been the strength of the Church …. Everything must happen within a decade.

Note the satanic strategy proposed for defeating Christians: To divide is to conquer. The following now is a letter from Bugnini to the Grand Master of the P2 Lodge updating him on the progress of his mission. This is dated July 2, 1967.

Incomparable Grand Master: The de-sacralization is rapidly taking place. Another Instruction was published, which took effect on June 29. We can already sing victory, because the vulgar language is sovereign in the whole liturgy, including the essential parts…. The greatest liberty was given to choose between the various formulas, to individual creativity, and to chaos! In short, with this document I believe to have spread the principle of maximum licentiousness, in accordance with your wishes.

I fought hard against my enemies from the Congregation of Rites, and I had to use all my astuteness so that the Pope would approve it. By luck, we found the support of friends and brothers in Universa Laus [International Association for the Study of Liturgical Music], who are faithful. I thank you for the funds sent and am waiting to see you soon. I embrace you,

Your Brother Buan.

This correspondence is taken from Andrea Tornielli’s “Dossie Liturgia Uma Babel Programada,” that appeared in the June 1992 issue of 30 Days. It coincides with Tito Casini’s blockbuster book of April 1976, “In the Smoke of Satan-Towards the Final Clash,” in which the author states: “The reform has been conducted by this Bugnini who has been unmasked at last; he is indeed what we long suspected: a Freemason.” Casini was reporting on the ‘dossier’ incident of July 1975 that caused Bugnini to be expelled from the Vatican that summer.

Traditionalist Catholic writer Michael Davies investigated the allegations against Bugnini and made contact with the priest who had discovered the dossier in Bugnini’s briefcase and who had “this information placed in the hands of Pope Paul VI by a cardinal.”

The matter is discussed at some length in his book, How the Liturgy Fell Apart: The Enigma of Archbishop Bugnini, wherein he shows how the pope at this point was convinced of Bugnini’s affiliation with the Masonic lodge.

The story about the briefcase also appeared in Piers Compton’s 1981 book The Broken Cross. Therein he states that Bugnini’s Masonic membership was recorded in “The Italian Register” on April 23, 1963, “and that his code-name was Buan.”

As a result of Pope Paul’s shocking discovery, Bugnini was suddenly dismissed as the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship, whereupon the Congregation itself was dissolved and merged with a new Congregation for the Sacraments which Bugnini wasn’t even permitted to join. This occurred in July 1975. Thereupon a plan was in motion to send him into a sort of exile by making him papal nuncio of Iran, which was announced in the press shortly thereafter.

The Freemasons of course are a satanic secret society committed solely to destroying the Catholic Church. Their practice of witchcraft, murder, and devil worship are no secret, for which reason the Church has always forbidden association with the Freemasons. Those who join them are accursed.

High Freemason Reveals Masonic Worship of Satan

If anyone would doubt the diabolical nature of the Freemasons, let him consider the testimony of Albert Pike (1809-1891), the American high priest of Freemasonry who was elected in 1859 as Sovereign Grand Commander of the Southern Supreme Council, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, and who later became Provincial Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the Royal Order of Scotland in the United States. He addressed fellow initiates with the following:

“To the crowd we must say: we worship a God, but it is the God one adores without superstition.... To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors, we say this, that you may repeat it to the brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees: all of us initiates of the high degrees should maintain the Masonic religion in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine. If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay [Jesus Christ], the God of the Christians, whose deeds prove his cruelty, perfidy and hatred of man, his barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and his priests calumniate him? Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also God. Religious philosophy in its purity and truth consists in the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay.” (Albert Pike, as quoted in A. C. de la Rive: La Femme et l’Enfant dans la Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, page 588.)

There have been quite a number of Freemasons in Rome since Vatican II, but we mention Bugnini because of the central role he had in changing the Mass and because the evidence on him is more readily available. In 1974 he even proclaimed the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council to be “a major conquest of the Catholic Church.”

Unfortunately, Bugnini was a major thorn in Pope Paul’s side. The following from Kenneth Wolfe’s November 2009 article in the New York Times shows to what extent Bugnini was overrunning the papal office:

“Bugnini changed so many things that [Pope] John’s successor, Paul VI, sometimes did not know the latest directives. The pope once questioned the vestments set out for him by his staff, saying they were the wrong color, only to be told that he [Bugnini] had eliminated the week-long celebration of Pentecost and could not wear the corresponding red garment for Mass. The pope’s master of ceremonies then witnessed Paul VI break down in tears.”

To think that the powers of darkness could exert such power in the Eternal City! It was for reason that Pope Paul VI eventually declared that “the darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit.” (October 13, 1977)

_________________

1. Pope John XXIII had merely sanctioned the Commission at the request of those promoting it, believing it would be used to foster a deeper respect for the old liturgy, but he never intended to change the Mass.

2. Even the date 6-6-60 portends to the evil the Commission would promote.

3. Despite these scandalous changes, the Mass today remains valid because the essential words of the consecration – “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” – remain intact.

4. Pope Pius XII’s intended reform was not one of change but of preserving the integrity of the liturgy by purging out any modernist elements that might encroach upon it. Unfortunately, Bugnini’s design was to infect the liturgy under the guise of preserving it.