Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: The True Origin of the New Mass.  (Read 274 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline XavierSem

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1272
  • Reputation: +75/-129
  • Gender: Male
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
The True Origin of the New Mass.
« on: May 07, 2019, 02:23:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Interesting Article from Eponymous Flower on a history which is becoming increasingly studied by many; it is Bugnini's machinations more than anything else that caused the new mass to be put out. The Tridentine Mass, the True Mass, already handed down to us by Tradition going back through Pope St. Gregory the Great to the very Apostles Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome, was solemnly promulgated as obligatory for the whole Roman and Latin Church after an Infallible Dogmatic Council. The New Mass was not promulgated. It was not made obligatory. It did not replace the traditional rite. When Bugnini wanted to get a decree saying the Traditional Mass was forbidden, this was refused because it would be "casting odium on the Liturgical Tradition". "And it was none other than Bugnini who revealed in his posthumously published autobiography that when he attempted to obtain a definitive declaration from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts that Paul VI had abrogated and forbidden the traditional Latin Mass merely by announcing the publication of his own Missal in the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969), he was rebuffed with a reply from the Secretariat of State that such a declaration would be seen as “casting odium on the Liturgical Tradition." https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2007-0715-turning_point.htm The New Mass came after a non-infallible Council, after much Communist and Freemasonic Infiltration had already taken place, as Bella Dodd had admitted. Moreover, not even that non-infallible council called for anything like what came forth after 1969, which was Bugnini's work.

    The article from: http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-true-origin-of-new-mass.html Your thoughts on it, friends?

    "Sunday, May 5, 2019

    THE TRUE ORIGIN OF THE NEW MASS

    By David Martin

    While Pope Paul VI today is seen as the father of the New Mass of Vatican II, it’s important to note that the outline for the New Mass was in the works before Paul VI was even pope, i.e. since 1960. The infamous new draft was principally the work of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini who had long been suspected of Freemasonry, and unfortunately his draft was approved by the Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy early in 1962. (Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, the Rhine Flows into the Tiber)

    The outline, known also as the “Bugnini Draft,” would dominate the discussions in the opening session of Vatican II, after which it would formally be adopted as the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy on December 7, 1962. The Constitution (later called Sacrosanctum Concilium) would serve as the blueprint for the New Mass to be implemented later, which would be dubbed the Mass of Pope Paul VI.

    Hence the blueprint for the “Mass of Pope Paul VI” was finalized and adopted six months before Paul VI was even elected! (Michael Davies,How the Liturgy Fell Apart: The Enigma of Archbishop Bugnini)

    Pope Paul Never Abrogated the Old Mass

    It should also be pointed out that while Paul VI is often accused of imposing the New Mass, he never forbade the Old Mass. In 1986, a panel of nine Vatican cardinals concluded that Pope Paul VI never abrogated the Mass of Pius V, nor did he mandate the New Mass, nor did he grant bishops the right to forbid or restrict priests from saying the Tridentine Latin Mass. Pope John Paul II had commissioned the cardinals to look into the legal status of the Old Mass, as it was his intention to bring its legality to light.

    If Pope Paul had truly mandated the New Mass, he would have specified this, but this was never done. Nowhere in the 1969 Missale Romanum does it mandate that the New Mass must be said. The document merely mandates the publication of the new missal, ordering that “the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect [are validated] November 30th of this year” and that it “be firm and effective now and in the future.” But there is no mention of its use.

    The decree then validates and makes available the new missal for those who want it, i.e. it is an indult. A Traditionalist priest of the Society of St. Pius X, Father Francois Laisney, points out that “Pope Paul VI did not oblige the use of his [new] Mass, but only permitted it.... There is no clear order, command, or precept imposing it on any priest.”

    According to Fr. Laisney, the same applies to subsequent decrees on the New Mass, including the 1971 Notification from the Congregation of Divine Worship, of which he says: “One cannot find in this text any clear prohibition for any priest to use the traditional Mass nor an obligation to celebrate only the New Mass.”

    Be that as it may, Pope Paul did sign for the New Mass in 1969, which was a mistake on his part. He unfortunately gave in under duress and yielded to the wishes of those who had 1 proposed and designed the Novus Ordo, namely, Msgr. Bugnini and his Protestant clique.

    The pope on occasion had been briefed about Bugnini’s affiliation with the Freemasons, but he didn’t give it much credence. Unfortunately, Bugnini had managed to dupe the Holy Father, as he [the pope] would later admit to his liturgist Fr. Louis Bouyer in 1974.

    Conspiracy Unveiled

    In July 1975, Pope Paul was forced against his will to learn of Bugnini’s affiliation with the Freemasons. Bugnini had attended a meeting with the Secretariat of State where he accidentally 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 priest 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 in 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.

    Peerless Grand Master:

    The de-sacralization is rapidly taking place. Another Instruction has been issued, which took effect on June 29. We can already sing victory, because the vernacular is now sovereign in the whole liturgy, even in 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 for the 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 Dossier: Freemasonry and the application of the Liturgical Reform, which appeared in the June 1992 issue of 30 Days magazine. In commenting on the two missives, the author admits that “the outcome of Bugnini's reforms fully matches the intention expressed in them.”

    The letters coincide with Tito Casini’s 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 which caused Bugnini to be expelled from the Vatican.

    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 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.”

    Moreover, the June 1976 issue of the Italian publication SI, SI, No, No,and four months later, the October edition of the French journal La Contre-reforme catholique, among others, carried the news about the Bugnini dossier.

    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.

    Shortly after Bugnini’s expulsion, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre declared in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors: "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."

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

    1. This does not invalidate the New Mass, since the essentials for a valid Mass remain present in the new rite. If the priest is duly ordained and he pronounces the words of consecration, “This is My Body-This is My Blood, the Sacrifice of Calvary is reenacted as in the old Rite. The difference between the old and new liturgy is that the former renders honor to Christ’s Sacrifice while the latter detracts from it, but Christ is present in both."
    Do make Acts of Consecration to the Twin Hearts, Spiritual Offerings of the Precious Blood of Jesus in Union with the Holy Mass, like in St. Gertrude's Chaplet, along with Spiritual Communions at least every hour. The Saints say Spiritual Communions are a way to quickly advance to Union with God.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17255
    • Reputation: +9589/-4144
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The True Origin of the New Mass.
    « Reply #1 on: May 07, 2019, 07:44:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • The New Mass was not promulgated. It was not made obligatory.

    :laugh1:  What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

    One could debate the obligatory part, but it was "not promulgated"?  Give me a break.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4183
    • Reputation: +2598/-1194
    • Gender: Male
    Re: The True Origin of the New Mass.
    « Reply #2 on: May 07, 2019, 11:28:00 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    One could debate the obligatory part,
    It was obligatory from the diocesan level, from the bishops themselves, but only practically, since they forced their priests to stop saying it (or kicked them out).  Even the Bishops never said that the new mass must be attended or there is sin involved.  They even never said that to attend a latin mass was a sin.  And CERTAINLY new-rome never said any of this.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16