Someone mentioned the Bugnini Rosary, which was an altered version of the rosary proposed by Bugnini but rejected by Paul VI, in the anonymous forum. So I googled it and found this blog post, if anyone is interested.

Link

Anibale Bugnini, prime architect of the Novus Ordo, also wanted to wreck the Rosary March 25, 2013

But Paul VI would not let him.

Some time ago, my wife bought Bugnini’s gloating, bloated Reform of the Liturgy at a used book giveaway.  She read little bits, became totally disgusted by the man’s preening superiority, monumental ego, and his constant disdain for the 1500+ year old Roman Rite.  So, she put it down.  But, I picked it up the other day, and in just reading a little tiny bit, found in pp. 874-876 (Bugnini, he loved to talk) that the man who placed such enormous emphasis on “noble simplicity,” eliminating “useless repetitions” and “historical accretions,” also desired to utterly destroy the Rosary.  How did he plan on doing that?

First, he was going to limit the Our Father to once at the beginning of the Rosary. Gone would be the Pater Nosters at the beginning of each decade.  A “public version” of the Rosary would contain only one decade of Hail Marys/Ave Marias.  Not only did he have the incredible gumption to gut a prayer prayed by millions that the Tradition tells us was given directly to St. Dominic Guzman by the Blessed Mother Herself, but he was going to wreck the Hail Mary by removing the “non-biblical” parts. That is to say, everything from “Holy Mary Mother of God” on would be eliminated, so you’d be left with Hail Mary Full of Grace the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb (the word Jesus at the end of this 2nd half of the Rosary would also be eliminated from most Hail Mary’s) and that’s it, 10 times, in the very hip and mod Rosary of Bugnini.  That’s not entirely true, Bugnini – intruding himself into the private prayer lives of billions of Catholics (over time) and modifying one of the cherished, sacred, and efficacious prayers the Church has ever had, if not THE most efficacious, would allow for ONE recitation of the Holy Mary Mother of God part in each decade. So very generous of him.

That “public Rosary” – the traditional Rosary having been such an aggravation to the protestants Bugnini did everything possible to appease (with no discernible success) – would have been utterly unrecognizable as the same prayer, as only one decade of the truncated Hail Mary above would be present, with the rest replaced by passages from Scripture, hymns (and you can guess what kind of happy clappy crap he would come up with), and excerpts from the writings of various modernist exegetes.

Paul VI was actually somewhat sympathetic to the whole notion, but felt that the umbrage of the faithful would be too great to bear.  Bugnini reported on p. 876 that Paul VI replied: “The faithful would conclude that ‘the Pope has changed the Rosary,’ and the psychological effect would be disastrous…”  Amazing that Paul VI would say that regarding the Rosary, but somehow did not see that he was doing exactly the same thing with regard to the Mass.

I am utterly, utterly stupified by the monumental arrogance it would take to say “Hmmm….. that prayer Catholics have been saying for 700+ years, it’s really deficient, and it certainly isn’t ‘ecuмenical.’  It really needs to be updated and changed.”  Can you believe that?  Isn’t that simply incredible, that a mid-level Vatican functionary would arrogate to himself the right to change a timeless, glorious prayer?  He couldn’t even point to VII as cover in this case, as the Council never even remotely approached saying anything about attacking and wreckovating such constant prayer traditions.  Thank God.

For some reason, all the above makes me feel compelled to post the following:

    Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.

Vice what it replaced:

    Accept, O holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this unspotted host, which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my innumerable sins, offenses, negligences, and for all here present: as also for all faithful Christians, both living and dead, that it may avail both me and them for salvation unto everlasting life. Amen.

I don’t think Our Lady would have been pleased with Bugnini’s update.

Matto,

Even though Bugnini's book is as vile as any pornography (it's actually worse since it is the tell all expose of a participant in the attempt to destroy the Church), what is the title of this book and, if you know, is it still in print?

No doubt it's rancid but these things do need to be preserved, at least until the Restoration is complete (which, I believe, won't happen in any of our lifetimes but, God willing, I will be proven wrong).  The preservation of the work of the enemies of Our Lord is so that in the future, others won't say we're making this stuff up.  

Remember, the Vatican has already removed the transcript of the interview in which Pope Francis proclaimed that there was no Catholic God (his words, not mine!)

Again, I say everything Bugnini ever touched should be tossed out.  To say so is not any affront nor disrespect to Pope Pius XII--the Holy Father did not live to see what Bugnini was setting the stage for.

Also, if such a thing is possible, Bugnini should be post-humously excommunicated.

Bugnini, Luther, JXXIII, and PVI are in an infamous league of their own for the damage they've inflicted unto Christendom.

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

what is the title of this book and, if you know, is it still in print?

I don't know the title of the book or if it is still in print. Here is the website I got the article from. Try and contact the owner of the blog and ask him or her.

Thanks for the link.

Also of some interest are the comments at the bottom of the linked page.  

Here are some of them (they all took place within 2 days):

4. Elizabeth - March 26, 2013

    Even Paul VI thought it a bad idea to mess with the Rosary. Then along comes the “great” JPII, the lover of novelty……

    As far as I could tell from the docuмent he wrote when he initiated the luminous blah blahs, it was a SUGGESTION to those who felt it might help them. Not an official change to the Rosary. At least that’s what I got from the docuмent. Try telling that to the average neo-conservative Rosary-praying woman when you lead on Thursdays with the Joyful Mystery. “Off With Her Head”!

I'm not so sure what is meant by the sentence, "Off with her head," but the part about the Luminous mysteries being "a suggestion" is exactly the way I read it too, and it's interesting to see this.  The poster, Elizabeth, missed the opportunity to take note of the historical fact that JPII did not give any indulgence to the Luminous mysteries, nor did he provide ANY indulgences for ANY prayers of ANY kind during his 26 years as pope.  He had PLENTY OF TIME, but he wasted it on things that don't really matter.  

So she can tell her NovusOrdo friends that when they choose to pray the so-called Luminous mysteries, they are not getting ANY indulgence for the Rosary.  And when 10 of them get together, they would be passing up 10 Rosary indulgences EACH for the fact that they are praying them together.  That means a total of 100 Rosary indulgences are tossed out the window, just because they did not announce and meditate on the Joyful, Sorrowful or Glorious Mysteries.  

5. Richard - March 26, 2013

    I heard that there were some discussions during the sessions of Vatican II that one faction present wanted to eliminate daily Mass. I think Pope Paul VI put a stop to that too.

Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.  I wish we could know who those bishops were.  Their names might not be too surprising, either!

6. Michael P. Mc Crory - March 26, 2013

    Quite shocking !
    How can such stupid men rise to such great heights in our Church?
    The Rosary is the prayer of miracles.
    A step through the beautiful life of Jesus and His mother Mary.
    It is always those who do not pray it that complain about it.
    ” You can not know what you don’t understand
    And you can not love what you do not know.”

    And you can not love what you do not know.”

Well said, Michael. P. Mc Crory, whoever you are!   We should say a prayer for Mr. Mc Crory.  It would probably do US some good!

8. Susan Pepino - March 26, 2013

    Not that anything Bugnini did would surprise or shock me, but what is your source for this information. I would like to know. (not snark; sincere inquiry).

Warren Memlib - March 26, 2013

   Proximately: CHRISTOPHER A. FERRARA, “Bugnini’s Ghost: The New Mass meets The New Rosary” http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2003/features_may03.html

    Ultimately, “from the horse’s mouth”: Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy (Collegeville, N: Liturgical Press, 1990), p. 876-877.

Susan Pepino - March 26, 2013

    Thank you!

So there is the source info for us!  

10. Chris - March 26, 2013

    I thought that the rosary had some flexibility, for it is a private devotion, though probably one of the most venerable of private devotions. Compare, for example, the Dominican Rosary (the one most of us pray) and the Franciscan Crown, aka the Seraphic Rosary (with seven decades). It’s also interesting to look at the Brigittine Rosary, too (18 mysteries). There are others.

    I guess what I’m getting at is this: the rosary is a devotion and devotions (like Stations) have variations that aren’t ruled by rubrics or Church law, unlike Liturgy (Mass and the Divine Office/Liturgy of the Hours), which has official rubrics in place. I may not like Bugnini’s rosary, but it is one of many — and I am free to ignore his approach.

This is a very NovusOrdo approach.  There are other posts like this, there on that webpage.  

It is not true that the Rosary isn't "ruled by rubrics or Church law, unlike Liturgy."  

It is improper to compare the Rosary with Stations because for Stations all you need is to have them set up and blessed by a bishop and you have to move physically from one station to the next, and say SOME PRAYERS meditating on each station.  Which prayers is not defined, but a common practice is to use the ones of St. Francis of Assisi or St. Alphonse de Liguori.  But you can use others too.  With the Rosary, it is far more restrictive to get the indulgences, and there are more indulgences with the Rosary than any other prayers, even Stations!

The Church law that applies to the Rosary is the fact that there are indulgences attached to many aspects of the Rosary, and if you do not follow them, you simply don't get the indulgence.  You do not sin by not following the rules, but you do not get the attached indulgences if you change things around like deliberately use different words or meditate on mysteries that are not among the official 15.  

For example, if you announce and meditate on the so-called Luminous mysteries, there is no indulgence for that, and therefore, you get no Rosary indulgence for them.  All you get is the indulgences for the individual prayers, like the Creed, the Our Father, the Hail Mary, and the Glory be.  There is no indulgence for the "O my Jesus" Fatima prayer, but we do it anyway, because Our Lady asked us to add it at Fatima.  Perhaps one of the corrections that will come from the Collegial Consecration of Russia will be an indulgence for that Decade Prayer, even if it is a century too late.  

There is an additional indulgence for saying several prayers at the end of the Rosary for the "intentions of the Holy Father," but I don't know about what the Holy Father intends anymore, so that's up for grabs.  I knew a traditional priest, Fr. Frederick Schell, R.I.P., who recommended that we pray for the GOOD intentions of the Holy Father.  Okay.  

Why anyone would want to give up the Rosary indulgence just so they can pray the Luminous mysteries, is something I cannot understand.  They might be under the impression that they get an indulgence, even if it has never been defined or announced, or, they might think that indulgences are somehow evil things, or, they might even think that there is no Purgatory, so it doesn't matter.  How many ways can you be wrong?  Let me count the ways!

14. Greg - March 26, 2013

    Actually, I have found the Scriptural Rosary to be quite meaningful. It helps me understand the truths of Faith more clearly.

I have found no help in the Scriptural Rosary, but I know others who like it, so that's entirely a personal thing.  Whatever helps you to keep your mind on the Mysteries is worth it.

The one I prefer is the 150 meditations by Fr. Rooney, S.J., contained in the Liguori Publications booklet, "Let's Pray (not just say) The Rosary," a copy of which I have placed in the Library forum here on CI.  There is a single, short meditation for EACH HAIL MARY in the 15 decades.  These are so skillfully composed so as to take you seamlessly through a programmed meditation of each Mystery as you say the 10 Aves, that over time, you actually memorize them.  The ones that are most impressive to me are the Annunciation, the Carrying of the Cross and the Assumption of Our Lady body and soul into heaven.  

For example, the Carrying of the Cross parallels the first 10 Stations of the Cross, so it is very easy to remember, and even helps you to do the Stations by memory if you don't have a prayer book with you.  That's really neat.  

Another example is the Agony in the Garden, where Fr. Rooney combines all the New Testament even within one sentence, to yield a most memorable sentence for each Ave prayer.  

These short meditations add about 10 or 15 minutes to the Rosary, but they have the effect of producing a great sense of accomplishment when you have kept your mind from wandering all the while.  You actually experience moving through the mysteries of Our Lady's life with her as you pray her Psalter.

tantamergo - March 26, 2013

     I would add that there is an element in the Church that finds all this Marian business rather embarrassing, some of whom have quite the hostility towards what they feel is “excessive” Marian devotion. These individuals frequently mistake a devotion to Mary as a lessening in devotion to Jesus Christ, but the opposite is actually true in my experience. I stand with the great Moral Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, who argued very persuasively that great devotion to our Blessed Mother is morally necessary for sanctification, even salvation. Untold numbers of Saints have had tremendous devotions to the Blessed Mother, most usually through the Rosary. Why would anyone want to attempt to denigrate such an awesomely efficacious devotion, and at the same time try to replace it with something of unknown fruit? I think the great Alphonsus would be mortified at the thought. Not that Alphonsus’ views are doctrinal, but they are extremely practical- in my experience and opinion.

Matto,

Even though Bugnini's book is as vile as any pornography (it's actually worse since it is the tell all expose of a participant in the attempt to destroy the Church), what is the title of this book and, if you know, is it still in print?

at Amazon. The reviews are more enlightening. For example:

More is to be had in this book's footnotes than in the text itself. There Bugnini is most forthright, apparently without ever being able to come to truthful conclusions, about his prideful, scheming plans to detach the liturgy renewal from the natural,historic liturgical progression that has always be in motion.

Was Pope Paul VI pleased with Bugnini's work? Events say no. Pope Paul exiled Bugnini to Iran while he was aged and ill, very much against Bugnini's will.

I'd thought someone had put a copy on Scribd.com or another download site, for free browsing, but the links I had were removed within the last two years, it seems.

There are still copies at libraries though (unless they've all been chucked, too): Worldcat link (since there are many languages/versions). Note: they say there are English version docuмents (online), so maybe you can dig around and find something.

.

Annibale Bugnini was one rotten apple.


.