Rorate Caeli

Bugnini: "I am the liturgical reform!"

(Update: typo in last paragraph corrected. CAP.)
Fr. Anscar Chupungco OSB, former president of the Pontifical Liturgical Institute in Rome, a leading critic of Liturgiam Authenticam and Summorum Pontificum, and undisputed guru of the Philippine liturgical establishment, published "What, Then, Is Liturgy? Musings and Memoir" this year. The book contains revealing snapshots of the behind-the-scenes of the liturgical reform under Paul VI and John Paul II, as well as extended reflections on the liturgy mixed with criticisms of the policies of the current Pontificate. The book also contains Chupungco's proposals for further changes to the Roman rite to continue what he sees as the unfinished agenda of the post-Conciliar liturgical reform. I intend to post various quotes of interest over the next several days.
From the Claretian Publications edition of the book, pp. 3-4:


After several decades of liturgical reform there are still contrasting opinions about what the council had really intended to achieve. I had the occasion to ask Fr. Cipriano Vagaggini, another mentor of mine and one of the framers of the Liturgy Constitution, what "substantial unity of the Roman rite" meant. The phrase is obscure, yet crucial to inculturation. His answer was quite revealing: "I asked the same question when we were drafting the Constitution but no one in the commission had an answer!" Strange indeed are the ways of the Spirit during the council and surely after the council. But if it is any consolation at all, tension can be considered an encouraging sign that people's interest in the liturgy has not abated over the years. When Abbot Primate Benno Gut of the Benedictine Confederation established the Pontifical Liturgical Institute in Rome in 1962, professors of theology, like prophets of doom, alerted him that liturgy was a fad that would not exceed their lifetime.
In his posthumous book The Reform of the Liturgy, 1948-1975 Annibale Bugnini keeps record of much opposition to the conciliar and postconciliar reform. Among the most antagonistic groups that he has identified the following clearly harbor a countercultural mentality. The first is Una Voce, an international group, for the defense of Latin, Gregorian chant, and sacred polyphony against the vernacular and modern music. The second are splinter groups that were often hostile to the liturgical changes being advanced by the Holy See. Among them Bugnini names the American Catholic Traditionalist Movement and individuals like the Italian journalist Tito Casino, who in his book La tunica stracciata acidly attacked the use of the vernacular; Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci, who staunchly supported opposition to the new Missal because of its alleged "heretical", "psychologically destructive," and "Protestant" elements; and the French Abbe Georges de Nantes, who called for the ousting of Pope Paul VI, whom he accused of heresy, schism and scandal. Even some of the devout faithful that frequented the Mass were adverse to the use of the vernacular. In the Church of Sant' Anselmo an elderly lady corrected me as I was offering her Holy Communion: "Non dicitur 'Il corpo di Cristo,' sed 'Corpus Christi'!" (In perfect Latin she bade me say "The Body of Christ" in Latin, not in Italian.)
(Brief CAP comment: isn't the Church supposed to be countercultural?)
Bugnini himself, then secretary to the Congregation of Divine Worship, was not spared. He was a systematic person who programmed the liturgical reform and courageously pushed its implementation against all opposition. I remember that in one of his visits to the Pontifical Liturgical Institute he declared, "I am the liturgical reform!" In more ways than one his self-assessment was correct. The postconciliar reform would not have progressed with giant steps had it not been for his dauntless spirit and tenacity. To crown his liturgical accomplishments the Vatican promoted him to the rank of papal delegate to Iran, where he became famous in the secular world for successfully negotiating the release of American hostages. (??? -- CAP)

41 comments:

Cruise the Groove. said...

"To crown his liturgical establishments the Vatican promoted him to the rank of papal delegate to Iran"

Wow! Is that what he calls a promotion?
It shows you how far from realistic thinking this cleric is.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

More evidence that the liturgical reform is not Catholic.

N. Trandem said...

"To crown his liturgical establishments the Vatican promoted him to the rank of papal delegate to Iran, where he became famous in the secular world for successfully negotiating the release of American hostages."

This is why you can't argue with these people. They simply do not live in reality.

Adeodatus said...

That last paragraph is pretty amazing.

"Cardinal, in view of your sale of St. Peter's Basilica to the Turks, we appoint you Pastor of Our Lady of Permafrost in the city of Nome, Alaska."

"Yes! Finally my work is being recognized by the Pope!"

Anonymous said...

Conservative "reform of the reform" Churchmen and laymen have promoted the following line during recent years:

The Vatican II liturgical reform was traditional and promoted non-radical reforms.

A few radicals at the local level misinterpreted the "traditional" liturgical reform.

Reality...

Beginning with Churchmen at the very top of the list of key reformers, the liturgical "reform" was radical.

The Churchmen in question were successful. They wrecked the Roman Liturgy...as they had planned.

The Liturgy is so far gone, so to speak, that even at "conservative" parishes, the Liturgy is in shambles.

Example:

From last week's Sunday bulletin at a "conservative" Dallas, Texas, parish pastored by an assistant bishop:

"If you are attending the 5pm Mass on Sat. Oct 30th, you are invited to wear your costumes."

Incredible.

A Dallas parish, pastored by an assistant bishop, has urged its members to wear Halloween costumes to Mass.

But the "reform" is "traditional."

Yeah. Right.

Anonymous said...

Please give me the opportunity to say this, and I am hoping that someone in the Vatican reads it.

I resent having been used by the Church as some sort of liturgical guinea pig and having been thought of as no more than an useful idiot in the pew.

As time goes on, more and more rot about the precious "Council" is coming to light. I can't being to imagine what we still don't know.

Delphina

Paul said...

Secundum Wikipedia:
"As Papal Representative to Iran, Bugnini tried in 1979 to obtain, in the name of the pope, the release of the American hostages. The elderly Nuncio met with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Iranian leader, to deliver Pope John Paul II's appeal for the release of the hostages, but the Ayatollah rejected the appeal. The 52 Americans were eventually released on January 21, 1981, after 444 days in captivity."

Anonymous said...

Ho-hum information.

1. We know who was behind the liturgical revolution.

2. They overthrew the Traditional Roman Liturgy.

3. We know that His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has made it clear that the Novus Ordo is here to stay.

4. We know that the collapse of the Church, at least the "Latin" Church, will continue as long as the Novus Ordo Mass, for all practical purposes, trumps the Traditional Roman Mass.

5. Return to point #3 on my list.

That is the route that Rome and our bishops are determined to travel.

Oh, well. That is a shame. But that's that.

Tim

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 12/10/10 19:08, was that the parish of Deshotel or Seitz? I looked at their online bulletins, which were not up to date, and could not find that reference.

A "conservative" parish in Dallas? Maybe the laity are conservative, politically, but in Dallas, I would say there are only 2, maybe 3 orthodox, if you will, parishes. St. Mark in Plano is probably one of the more orthodox, but I would not say that either St. Joseph or All Saints are. Even at St. Mark, there is much wrong. St. Thomas Acquinas and Christ the King are at least somewhat traditionally designed, but the liturgy at both is quite revisionist.

Due to the previous bishop and a host of other reasons, the parish and diocesan staff, much of the clergy, and the liturgy are far more modernist/progressive in orientation than the bulk of the laity would like. But I've had that argument 10,000 times.

Oleg-Michael said...

"The first is Una Voce, an international group, for the defense of Latin, Gregorian chant, and sacred polyphony against the vernacular and modern music. "

Made me so proud!

- Oleg-Michael Martynov, member, International Federation Una Voce Council.

The Sibyl said...

This piece is very interesting - clearly Bugnini was pursuing his own agenda regardless of the wishes of the Council fathers - this would seem to be backed up by the comments of Cardinal Koenig (a noted liberal) who expressed the view that the actual reform went far beyond what had been intended even for him who lamented the loss of latin.

Long Skirts said...

"I am the liturgical reform!"

BLACK
HOLES

Disco-decayed
They cancelled all color
Sanctuaries stripped
First Communions were duller.

No crinoline whites
Pale hues they stressed
Only pearled-Pharisees
Are ever so dressed.

Roses, carnations,
Flowers all manners
Left just to wither
‘Gainst assertives’ beige banners.

Pillars of marble
Corinthian styles
They decided to paint
Like pink bathroom tiles.

Cassocks of red
Habits blue, white,
Robes of distinction
Extinct over night.

Missals with pages
Embossed in gloss-gold
Latin in tint
English-black always bold.

Even the ribbons
To mark scriptural prayers
Were of green, yellow, silvers
So to keep us from errors.

The soft votive flames
The red opaque glass
Gave an aura of stillness
Like time could not pass.

Yet time it passed
Vividness drained
And populations with out color
Cannot be sustained.

So those underground
With red blood eXed in veins
Birthed knowledge the arts
Pius virtues they've gained.

They did not decay
God’s colors kept green
For the day up above
Once again to be seen.

Except for those beige
Banner-like-blind
Gray fertility fades
In their black open minds.

John L said...

Very interesting. When are we going to see the rumoured memoirs of Louis Bouyer?

Ivan said...

What an embarrassment to the Filipino people!

The Pinoy Catholic said...

You said it right, Ivan!

And by the way, the book that Chupungco wrote does not have a Nihil Obstat or an Imprimatur.

Says a lot, eh?

Athelstane said...

In the Church of Sant' Anselmo an elderly lady corrected me as I was offering her Holy Communion: "Non dicitur 'Il corpo di Cristo,' sed 'Corpus Christi'!" (In perfect Latin she bade me say "The Body of Christ" in Latin, not in Italian.)

I can't help but think of a recent anecdote related by J.R.R. Tolkien's grandson: "I vividly remember going to church with him [J.R.R.] in Bournemouth. He was a devout Roman Catholic and it was soon after the Church had changed the liturgy from Latin to English. My grandfather obviously didn't agree with this and made all the responses very loudly in Latin while the rest of the congregation answered in English. I found the whole experience quite excruciating, but my grandfather was oblivious. He simply had to do what he believed to be right. He inherited his religion from his mother, who was ostracised by her family following her conversion and then died in poverty when my grandfather was just 12. I know that he played a big part in the decision to send me to Downside, a Roman Catholic school in Somerset."

Makes me a bigger fan than ever of Tolkien. And this sharp old Italian lady.

Anonymous said...

"I teach at Franciscan University of Steubenville (Ohio) where students have been urged to pray for the "intercession" of St. Bugnini!!! (pure insanity!)"

Timothy, is this a joke, or are you serous?

Delphina

Anonymous said...

Timothy,
I hope you are kidding...
Are you kidding, right?

thomas tucker said...

Get a grip.
The Novus Ordos is indeed here to stay and the average Catholic in the pew prefers it, and that includes those who hold 100% to the Catholic Faith.

Prof. Basto said...

"I intend to post various quotes of interest over the next several days."

Please don't. I'm nauseated already.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Prof. Basto, you'll need a stronger stomach. This is so tame compared to what I'll be posting from the book next.

Giovanni A. Cattaneo said...

No the NO is not here to stay or at least it is not here to stay in its current form. If it is not fixed soon it will go in to the dust bin.

As far as what most Catholics prefer, that matter of all reasons the least. Most Catholics also prefer the Church relaxes rules on homosexuality, ordination and celibacy. Fat chance they are getting any nudge on any of those issues.

I think Pope Benedict has made it quite clear that the NO is on an egg timer and it better ripe fast or its going to get the axe. The system to get the NO suppressed is already in place. Why do you think so many Bishops fight the SP they know what it means, it is the end of their era. Much like other heresies they have failed to produce children, their line dies when they do.

Leo Darroch said...

I was delighted to see that "Una Voce, an international group" was ranked first on the list of those opposed to Annibale Bugnini. A great honour indeed.

The International Federation Una Voce had the great blessing to be led for the first 25 years by Dr Eric de Saventhem (and not forgetting his wife Elizabeth). In those dark days of the 1970s and 1980s they kept the issue of the traditional Mass alive on the Holy See's agenda - either by countering threats of suppression or proposing various measures of liberalisation. They obtained audiences with every Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and gained the respect and even confidence of many other senior Roman prelates. ‘Everybody in the Vatican knows the de Saventhems,’ a cardinal of the Curia said in 1992, ‘and those who dislike the old Mass hate them’.

Dr de Saventhem was followed as president by Michael Davies whose books did so much to expose the flawed and false scholarship that drove the changes.

Since the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum the International Federation has been inundated with requests for help and advice from all around the world. In the past 12 months it has admitted seven new member associations and is currently dealing with requests from Brazil, Cuba, Portugal, Honduras, Puerto Rico, and Indonesia, just to name a few. As more and more people become aware of Summorum Pontificum and discover their liturgical heritage in the traditional Mass they are turning to the Una Voce movement, either through their own local and national groups or by contacting the International Federation (www.fiuv.org).

I am convinced that the legacy of the Una Voce movement will be more long lasting than that of Archbishop Bugnini.

LeonG said...

"The Novus Ordos is indeed here to stay and the average Catholic in the pew prefers it...."

You mean the 5% to 15% of new catholics who attend it regularly on Sunday. In fact, I note in France and UK they now label regular attendance as at least once a month. Now as that disobeys the divine mandate on weekly observance some of those faithful catholics you mention must be reneging on some aspects of the faith.

Also, according to church surveys on attendees many no longer believe that you need to go to regular Confession in order to go to Communion. Your comment about those with 100% Catholic Faith must apply to a very small proportion who are able to do so in such an environment of neglect.

Paul Haley said...

thomas tucker said...

Get a grip.
The Novus Ordos is indeed here to stay and the average Catholic in the pew prefers it, and that includes those who hold 100% to the Catholic Faith.


Unfortunately, there is much truth to what you say. The movus ordo is a much easier "form" to celebrate and there is all kinds of room for individual creativity and self-centered egotism both on the part of the celebrant and those in the pews. I mean, where else can one let it all hang out and have a good time at Sunday or even Saturday mass?

But, the question is why do a great percentage of the pew-sitters prefer it over the ancient and venerable form? The reason is that the ancient form hasn't been explained and promoted and the catechesis attached to it has almost universally been ignored. As to the claim that these pew-sitters "hold 100% to the Catholic Faith" you sure could have fooled me.

Adam said...

Comments about Bugnini no longer bother me. Whenever I read them, I'm pleasantly reminded that Summorum Pontificum made most all the hard work of that man merely optional according to law. The new Missal and Lectionary that he worked on are optional for priests everyday of the year (barring the Triduum). The Liturgy of the Hours that he diligently constructed can be universally ignored. The reformed sacraments and sacramentals that he labored at can be opted out by any of the faithful.

No wonder Bugnini's protege, Bp. Luca Brandolini, mourned when the motu proprio came out. He realized something that many of us forget - the grand liturgical reform and all the diligence of its crafters (including the father of liturgical reform, himself) is a mere option according to Church law. Even though application of the free traditional Liturgy may be sketchy, the liturgical reform has been effectively cancelled. And this is, indeed, the ultimate insult to its creators. And, yes, it befits them.

Oremusrob said...

A true tragedy, it must be said.

As one who has had extensive first-hand exposure to both Orthodox Jews as well as Muslims, I can state virtually categorically that there is no way anything like this pertaining to worship could have ever happened or would have ever been tolerated in those religious circles.

Unfortunately, it also appears that this was not simply a matter of Bugnini, but stems directly, in large measure, from Sacrosanctum Concilium itself, as Chris Ferrara's recent, informative article on the subject shows.

Let us pray for Bugnini - not for his intercession but for his soul - as well as the Council Fathers and our current ecclesiastical leadership.

And let us carry on. We cannot know what the future will hold. But we do know that how those who will live 200 years and 500 years from now will read about Church history of the late 20th and early 21th century, will be, in part, based upon what we do, how we live, and how steadfast in prayer and faith we remain.

Henry said...

”Get a grip. The Novus Ordos is indeed here to stay and the average Catholic in the pew prefers it, and that includes those who hold 100% to the Catholic Faith.”

To try to get a grip on the actual situation, I estimate some percentages based on experience in a number of EF and OF situations and parishes in multiple dioceses. Anyone is welcome to suggest better estimates based on better information than mine.

I estimate that of all practicing Catholics–those who attend Sunday Mass regularly—1% are EF and 99% are OF. I believe that somewhat less than 1% U.S. Mass attenders are EF, whereas I understand that substantially more than 1% are EF in a country like France. On the other hand, there are countries where it’s about 0% EF. So 1% is a world-wide estimate.

Now for even more tenuous guesses, the percentage in each group who are both knowledgeable in the faith and orthodox in their belief. Let’s suppose 80% of EF attenders and 20% of OF attenders satisfy these conditions. These are the “orthodox Catholics”.

Accepting these estimates for discussion, think of a sample of 1000 practicing Catholics. Then 10 are EF Catholics, and 8 of these are orthodox. Of the 990 who are OF Catholics, 198 are orthodox.

Now 198/8 is approximately 24.75. Thus there are about 25 times as many orthodox OF Catholics as there are orthodox EF Catholics in the world.

Whatever else this means, it tells me that (for better or worse) we should not expect a rapid disappearance of the OF.

Anonymous said...

Brief CAP comment: isn't the Church supposed to be countercultural?

Depends on the culture, doesn't it? Culture is a product of what one believes, as Belloc pointed out. Authentic Christian culture is helpful and even necessary. The Church's calling is to oppose the corrupted age that is passing away.

Romulus

Anonymous said...

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"Prof. Basto, you'll need a stronger stomach. This is so tame compared to what I'll be posting from the book next."

Philippians 4:8




Paul Haley said...

"...why do a great percentage of the pew-sitters prefer it over the ancient and venerable form? ..."

People like things they can understand with less effort. In other words, they're human. Please don't adopt the leftist's mindset of attributing mere disagreement to stupidity or evil.

If there were a well-translated liturgy following the EF, it would probably be more popular than the EF in Latin, and might also be more popular than the OF as currently translated.

The fact that (as we all know) some people who do not hold 100% to the Catholic faith prefer the OF does not invalidate the point made earlier which you misconstrued, that some who do may also prefer it for mundane reasons. Saying that adherence to the OF equals heresy or non-conformance to the Catholic faith is a declaration you don't have the standing to make.

Anonymous said...

"To crown his liturgical establishments the Vatican promoted him to the rank of papal delegate to Iran"

I suppose that his line of thinking makes Fr. Chupungco and his followers in the Philippines believe that his (Fr. Chupungco's) stay in the Philippines, away from ICEL, away from San Anselmo that he used to lead as President, IS ACTUALLY A PROMOTION and a recognition to his work as the greatest Filipino liturgist of all times!

Wake up!

thomas tucker said...

If the OF's days were numbered, you would see Benedict celebrating the EF, or at least see him celebrating the OF ad orientem routinely. You don't see this.
The majority of those who call themselves Catholic are cafeteria Catholics. But even among those who are orthodox Catholics, the majority, in my experience, prefer the OF.
I have long believed that the social-cultural situation is so different post-Vatican II than it was pre-Vatican II, that the OF may have saved the church from even greater losses than it has experienced. I am convinced that if the Church had not reformed the Mass, then Mass attendance, percentage of faithful Catholics, etc, would be even worse than it is now.
That is not to say that, now that we have kived thrugh those times of upheaval and rebellion, it may be wise to reform the reform. But I honestly believe that the liturgical reform AT THAT TIME was providential.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"I suppose that his line of thinking makes Fr. Chupungco and his followers in the Philippines believe that his (Fr. Chupungco's) stay in the Philippines, away from ICEL, away from San Anselmo that he used to lead as President, IS ACTUALLY A PROMOTION and a recognition to his work as the greatest Filipino liturgist of all times!"

I don't know if they see this as a promotion, but I do know that not a few Filipino liturgists and bishops consider Chupungco's word as law. In turn, there are Filipino clergy who will obey the CBCP more than the Vatican.

Here's a true story: when Summorum Pontificum was published, a tradition-minded priest distributed copies to his fellow priests. One of these priests replied: "But has the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines approved Summorum Pontificum"?

Anonymous said...

"In turn, there are Filipino clergy who will obey the CBCP more than the Vatican."

Not surprising, Carlos. The Autocephalous Church of the Philippines, headed by Patriarch Gaudencio I of Manila, considers the Bishop of Rome to be merely primus inter pares with the self-governing bishops of the Philippines.

dcs said...

I believe it is accurate to state that the majority (and it is a large majority) of orthodox Catholics assist at the Novus Ordo, but I am not sure that one can state that the majority of orthodox Catholics prefer the Novus Ordo to the traditional Mass. Most orthodox Catholics who assist at the NOM have never even attended a TLM, so how could they state a preference one way or the other? And there are reasons apart from preference why one might assist at the NOM rather than the TLM.

thomas tucker said...

Well dcs, as I stated, that is "in my experience"- in other words, in discussing the isue with many faithful Catholics, some of whom have attended the EF and prefer the OF, and others who have absiltely zero interest in even attending an EF in the first place.
I am not saying whether or not it is a good thing, just the way things are, again, in my experience.

Anonymous said...

"Here's a true story: when Summorum Pontificum was published, a tradition-minded priest distributed copies to his fellow priests. One of these priests replied: "But has the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines approved Summorum Pontificum"?"

Carlos, this little gem of a story says it all.

Delphina

Paul Haley said...

Craig said:

Saying that adherence to the OF equals heresy or non-conformance to the Catholic faith is a declaration you don't have the standing to make.

Nor did I make such a claim but if we believe in the dictum lex orandi, lex credendi, loosely translated as one prays as one believes, then there is certainly a modicum of doubt about the matter.

The responsibility for what a majority NO attendees believe, and I'm talking about trans-substantiation here, is IMO on the shoulders of the hierarchy and priests who celebrate the NO. It is for certain that there are NO attendees who hold 100% to the true Catholic Faith but statistics say they are not in the majority.

Here's a question for you - if the consecrated host is truly the Body and Blood of the 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity, why is it being distributed on the hand to those standing and by so many lay ministers when there is no such need?

Anonymous said...

Simply put Bugnini ruined the Roman Mass as we knew it and it was heaped onto the unsuspecting faithful virtually overnight. TO think the NO could not be scrapped just as quickly, especially if it goes on being celebrated the way it usually is, is simply foolish. A great Orthodox Pope may be next and will continue the work of our current Holy Father who has started a return to tradition. And that may include one day a reformed SLIGHTLY 1962 Missal and the suppression of what we know as the Pauline Missal. If damages continue to wrack up this is something we may all see in our lifetimes. It was, can, and might be done......

Anita Moore said...

I think the Novus Ordo served two important purposes:

1. It blew the lid off the modernist rot, maggots and corruption within the Church that had previously lain hidden underneath the beauty of the traditional liturgy.

2. It served as sort of a crash test dummy for the liberals to experiment on. At the same time the traditional liturgy was mostly out of the reach of the faithful, it was also out of the reach of modernist tinkerers.

Paolo said...

the mere existence of this Fr. Chupungco OSB is the greatest tragedy that ever happened in the Philippine Church's Liturgical History. His minions are everywhere!! He is a true evil, hiding under the habit of St. Benedict.