Sandro Magister, the great Vaticanist of our age, has an article today with important excerpts from a biography of Paul VI in which it is claimed that he was almost a victim of the liturgical revolution, a bystander who had almost no control over what Bugnini did at the Consilium for the application of the liturgical reform.
Sorry, we don't buy that.
Saying Paul VI had little responsibility for the New Mass of Paul VI is like saying Louis XIV had no responsibility for Versailles, since he was not a mason and didn't actually build it with his hands.
Saying Paul VI had little responsibility for the New Mass of Paul VI is like saying Louis XIV had no responsibility for Versailles, since he was not a mason and didn't actually build it with his hands.
Give us a break! Paul VI was the driving force of the liturgical reform. He was front and center the man responsible for it. Of course he was queasy about it: He was the executioner responsible for taking the traditional Roman liturgy to the scaffold, and even executioners feel queasy about doing their job.
All this whitewashing of history is taking place just because of the absurd canonization of Paul VI, which has been steamrolled against the sentiment of the faithful, who never had any devotion for this lousy pope and his disastrous pontificate. In order to implement his liturgical revolution, he led the persecution of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who only wanted to preserve the minimum of Tradition.
It is Lefebvre who should be canonized, not his persecutor.
