CathInfo.com

Yes we could extend this thread many pages with examples saying, "Look at this one.  I don't like it and we have proof that Bugnini meant to advance towards such-and-such an error with this."  Granted.  But where is a single example where we could say, "Look at this.  This is of itself a danger to the Faith."

Then let's look at a clear example. Bugnini himself provides it.

Bugnini admitted in L'Osservatore Romano that the added title to Intercession VII of Good Friday: "For the unity of the Church" is heretical since the Church is already one. For this reason, in the 1965 edition, they had to rename the prayer to "For the unity of Christians". At the same time, they finally removed the words "heretics" and "schismatics," thus overcoming any obstacles to ecuмenism. Thus in the reformed Holy Week itself, you have a heretical title to a prayer that begins to distort the meaning of the prayer (and reveals the trajectory the Consilium wanted to take later) vs. the 1965 text where there is no heretical content yet the prayer is so watered down as to be meaningless. Which is better? Worse? Which is the greater "danger to the faith"? Do we really want to play such games? Is not the safer, more prudent route to return to the traditional liturgies, before being marred by modernists?

Interestingly, the Angelus Press edition of the 1962 missal retitles this intercession as: "For heretics and schismatics". An interesting act of retcon editorializing! If there is no problem with this Holy Week, why the illicit change which they have no authority to make? Did they perceive a problem with the actual title, as Bugnini noted? Far be it from the Society to use a problematic liturgy! Far be it from the Society to change rubrics and texts, especially to preserve anodyne appearances! 

I think people get lost in the weeds on this issue when they analyze it from an exceedingly legalistic viewpoint. I think that finding a "canonically legitimate" solution is impossible for us, unless of course we elect to use the unique lex orandi of the Catholic Church...

We have the advantage of historical hindsight. We know that a freemason oversaw the Pian reform of the Holy Week and that this was done in order lay the foundation for the general reform resulting in the NOM. Who could be criticized for not wanting to have anything to do with this?

This problem of a bad title can be rectified without changing a single word of what the celebrant says, or a single gesture.

The question is never "which is better", the question is: "is it a danger for the Faith, yes or no".

Unfortunately, I believe the force of this example was lost on you, NIFH. Without intending any condescension, please allow me to point it out as well as for those who are reading. Unfortunately, it's impossible for me to be brief.

Indeed, it is a title that is not read in the liturgy itself. Anyone without a missal would not be aware of its existence. You are correct to note this, but you did not follow out the consequences.

Bugnini was forced to admit, in the Vatican's official, daily publication of its activities, in other words, in an act of public self-humiliation, that one of the changes introduced by the Pian commission was heretical. Yet it was not in the prayers or gestures themselves, no, but in a title for a prayer. The liturgical commission had to change a heretical title to a prayer that no one would otherwise be aware of, reflecting the utmost seriousness with which Holy Mother Church has traditionally guarded her liturgy!

This was the reason for the absolute secrecy of the liturgical commission's activity reforming Holy Week, as Bugnini admits in his memoirs of this period, and for the shock of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. The SCR had no authority to overturn the entire reform, since it was authorized by Pius XII himself. Bea, Bugnini, Antonelli, etc. had to bypass the scrutiny of the SCR.

Yet the floodgates had already been opened. By 1965, although the heretical title was replaced due to external pressures, there were already enough influential figures within the institution to begin watering down the prayers into insignificance, and the monthly changes to the liturgy overwhelmed even the most obsequious priests, wishing to follow the "Church" into utter chaos. The revolutionaries no longer needed the heretical title; they could render the prayers flacid and impotent with modernism without fear of backlash.

Hence the answer to the question, is it a danger to the Faith, Holy Mother the Church herself gave the resounding answer: YES. Even if no one ever read or saw the title? YES, a danger to the Faith, for heresy now touched the beating heart of Christendom, the most holy liturgy, during the most sacred and solemn time of the liturgical year. If it was no danger to the faith or to anyone, then why did the title have to be changed? Why the publicly embarrassing admission from Bugnini? Rather, the Church insisted on the correction. And if she insisted on it, we must see it as objectively, gravely problematic. If the modernists could strike here with the battering ram, as Braga boasted, then the fortress would be pierced, and it was.

This is the force of the example. We should be concerned even at the level of unread titles in the books. This is the mens Ecclesiae. Not our private interpretations of what constitutes a "danger to the faith," no, what does the Church herself consider a danger?

That with all of this information, all of the explicitly revolutionary agenda of these modernists, easily available in this day and age, plus with the benefit of 60 years of hindsight at the disasters, that a "traditionalist" would try to defend this novelty is mind-boggling. Yet people defend it simply because unfortunately they replace the magisterium with the SSPX: if the SSPX uses it, it must be traditional, it must be safe! If one thinks the Society is always a safe guide to tradition, then I will merely point out the debacle of their articles defending the use of the Covid vaccination, which go further than even modernist Rome's own moral theology.

And for the Archbishop, some think the Archbishop could never make a mistake! No, the holy Archbishop was indeed fallible, certainly guided by supernatural counsel in the darkest and most confusing of times, and yet, clearly making some imprudent decisions here and there. He was not a liturgist; he simply recognized the supreme importance, psychologically, spiritually and culturally, of stability, of unity of purpose. This stability, rootedness, the anchor of tradition, was his leitmotif in his decisions and how he formed and governed the Society. He used the best that he had available at the time, given the limited understanding of the full consequences.

But now we have the benefit of additional hindsight. Now we are in a better position to re-evaluate certain aspects of what occurred in the revolution. In this case, we have here a radical reform of the heart of the Roman rite, its most ancient and sacred part, that lasted only 14 years before the Novus Ordo, and traditionalists think this novelty is traditional! It is the height of absurdity.