Francis Imposes the Freemason’s Mass

There was a time when the average Catholic in the pews could be forgiven for not knowing the provenance of the New Mass – that its chief architect was an Ecclesiastical Freemason by the name of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini. For those of us brought up on a diet of quasi-universalism, the “New Springtime” and popular apparitions such as Medjugorje, there was no other Mass than the Novus Ordo and “Tradition” meant nothing more than a dim memory of Grandma having fish on Fridays.

Those days of naivety passed away, however, as knowledge of Bugnini’s secret affiliation and of the extent of the devastation Paul VI’s revolution became mainstream. (Well, almost. There are some who maintain that there is no evidence while also admitting that Bugnini may have been something worse than a Mason – I’ll leave it to the reader to speculate as to what something worse could be. That infamous scene from Windswept House springs to mind.)

The fruits of Vatican II have been revealed in all their awful reality – if not before the “pandemic” then certainly since the Mass was first suppressed more than a year ago due to COVID restrictions.

The Novus Ordo was a failure, Vatican II was a disaster and the logical hermeneutic of continuity exists not in the context of novelty, but of Tradition.

These facts explain the gut-wrenching reaction experienced by so many in response to the pope’s Motu Proprio, Traditionis Custodes. Yes, the same pope who hates formality, scorns “clericalism” and always seeks to “accompany” people “in their concrete circumstances” (at least when it comes to immorality) has used his unique position to abolish the Latin Mass, deliberately ignoring the “concrete circumstances” of the largest remaining cohort of believing, practising Catholics and also greatly insulting the Holy Trinity.

Some have already attempted to play down the consequences of the Motu Proprio – the Rorate Caeli article, while a bold attempt at legalistically applying Traditionis, is in my opinion, only grasping at straws. The Pope knows exactly what he wants to achieve and will take all steps necessary to see that his wishes are carried out. This pontiff who despises legalism and the constraints of dogma will not be so lax when it comes to suppressing the Mass of the ages and the thriving parishes around which they revolve. As Professor Brian McCall says, the law is always to be interpreted “according to the mind of the legislator”. This means our own pious desires don’t have a leg to stand on against a man like Francis.

Francis, while claiming to be imitating the act of his predecessor, Pope Pius V, who abolished any form of the Mass that was less than two hundred years old is performing a diabolical version of that act. If he really was to imitate Pius V by his pronouncement, it is the Novus Ordo that would be abolished as it is less than a hundred years old and was impiously designed, as noted above.

It seems clear that very little wiggle-room is to be given to those diocesan priests who run Latin Mass parishes: unless they have a sympathetic bishop – which are few and far between – they will have to look for new premises in which to offer Mass. Those bi-rite priests, who may be at the first steps on the path of Tradition will need to be very strong in order to resist the approaching “Oath of Allegiance” to Vatican II. I suspect that some will now go “full-trad” when they realise the malice underlying the pope’s plans.

I do also wonder if there is another stage – waiting perhaps for a future, unworthy pope – in which the Novus Ordo will be reformed so as to make it invalid. A little tweaking of the words of consecration, perhaps, to which the newly-conscripted “loyal” priests will be forced to adhere.

In any case, this present insult to God will not remain unpunished: as we saw almost directly after the flagrant violation of the First Commandment during the Amazon Synod, God’s justice can be swift. The global “pandemic” which saw millions of faithful denied access to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the sacraments followed immediately after Francis’ Pachamama worship was nothing other than a consequence of the hierarchy’s idolatry, in accordance with God’s promises made in Scripture (eg 2 Chronicles 21.) With the Great Reset technocrats already predicting a global cyber attack, it is not beyond imagining that this will be the next “plague” to strike the earth.

Many have made the connection between Fatima and Our Lady of Mt Carmel, on whose feast day the pope released his Motu Proprio. There are quite a few connections, in fact: for example, during the Miracle of the Sun, the little seers saw Our lady clothed in the habit of Carmel, reminding us of the importance of wearing the brown Scapular. It is surely no coincidence that the 104th anniversary of that miracle was celebrated only a few days prior to the release of the Motu Proprio.

We must not lose hope, no matter what happens next. The prophet Elias for whom the Carmelites are named, is said to have had a vision of a foot in the raincloud that ended the great drought God had sent on the land. Tradition tells us that this foot belonged to Our Lady – the Woman through Whom God would incarnate His only Son. In our own time, we know that God is preparing for another great intervention: when Our Lady crushes the head of the serpent through her glorious Triumph.

The Bugnini Effect: part 1

FROM: Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II: The Destruction of Catholic Faith Through Changes in Catholic Worship

by Michael Davies

The Rise and Fall and Rise and Fall of Annibale Bugnini

Before discussing the time bombs in the Council texts, more specifically those in its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which would lead to the destruction of the Roman Rite, it is necessary to examine the role of Annibale Bugnini, the individual most responsible for placing them there and detonating them after the Constitution had won the approval of the Council Fathers.Annibale Bugnini was born in Civitella de Lego [Italy] in 1912. He began his theological studies in the Congregation of the Mission (the Vincentians) in 1928 and was ordained in this Order in 1936. For ten years he did parish work in a Roman suburb, and then, from 1947 to 1957, was involved in writing and editing the missionary publications of his Order. In 1947, he also began his active involvement in the field of specialized liturgical studies 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 encyclopaedias and dictionaries, and had a number of books published on both the scholarly and popular level.

Father Bugnini was appointed Secretary to Pope Pius XII’s Commission for Liturgical Reform in 1948. In 1949 he was made a Professor of Liturgy in the Pontifical Propaganda Fide (Propagation of the Faith) University; in 1955 he received a similar appointment in the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music; he was appointed a Consultor to the Sacred Congregation of Rites in 1956; and in 1957 he was appointed Professor of Sacred Liturgy in the Lateran University. In 1960, Father Bugnini was placed in a position which enabled him to exert an important, if not decisive, influence upon the history of the Church: he was appointed Secretary to the Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy for the Second Vatican Council. [Biographical details are provided in Notitiae, No. 70, February 1972, pp. 33-34.] 

He was the moving spirit behind the drafting of the preparatory schema (plural schemata), the draft document which was to be placed before the Council Fathers for discussion. Carlo Falconi, an “ex-priest” who has left the Church but keeps in close contact with his friends in the Vatican, refers to the preparatory schema as “the Bugnini draft.” [Carlo Falconi, Pope John and His Council (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1964), p. 244.] It is of the greatest possible importance to bear in mind the fact that, as was stressed in 1972 in Father Bugnini’s own journal, Notitiae (official journal of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship), the Liturgy Constitution that the Council Fathers eventually passed was substantially identical to the draft schema which he had steered through the Preparatory Commission. [Notitiae, No. 70, February 1972, pp. 33-34.] According to Father P. M. Gy, O.P., a French liturgist who was a consultor to the pre-conciliar Commission on the Liturgy, Father Bugnini “was a happy choice as secretary”:

He had been secretary of the commission for reform set up by Pius XII. He was a gifted organizer and possessed an open-minded, pastoral spirit. Many people noted how, with Cardinal Cicognani, he was able to imbue the discussion with the liberty of spirit recommended by Pope John XXIII. [A. Flannery, Vatican II: The Liturgy Constitution (Dublin: Sceptre Books, 1964), p. 20.]

The Bugnini schema was accepted by a plenary session of the Liturgical Preparatory Commission in a vote taken on January 13, 1962. But the President of the Commission, the eighty-year old Cardinal Gaetano Cicognani, had the foresight to realize the dangers implicit in certain passages. Father Gy writes: “The program of reform was so vast that it caused the president, Cardinal Gaetano Cicognani, to hesitate.” [Flannery, p. 23.] Unless the Cardinal could be persuaded to sign the schema, it would be blocked. It could not go through without his signature, even though it had been approved by a majority of the Commission. Father Bugnini needed to act. He arranged for immediate approaches to be made to Pope John, who agreed to intervene. He called for Cardinal Amleto Cicognani, his Secretary of State and the younger brother of the President of the Preparatory Commission, and told him to visit his brother  and not return until the schema had been signed. The Cardinal complied.Later a peritus of the Liturgical Preparatory Commission stated that the old Cardinal was almost in tears as he waved the document in the air and said: “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 M. Wiltgen, S.V.D., The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II (1967, rpt. Rockford, IL. TAN, 1985), p. 141.]