OR ABOUT FIFTEEN years, I have been reading (each day) about the reform of the sacred liturgy undertaken during the 1960s. It goes without saying that we will never know everything that took place. Nonetheless, a decent amount of documentation has emerged over the last twenty years revealing shameful tactics used by Hannibal Bugnini, whom Father Louis Bouyer labeled a “mealy-mouthed scoundrel.” Hannibal Bugnini not only pretended to speak for the pope; he also pretended to speak for the entire Church. For instance, Bugnini’s CONSILIUM on 2 September 1964—pushing for radical changes far exceeding what Vatican II mandated—wrote to the pope as follows:
“we see no reason to
further postpone the reform
awaited and desired by all.”
Sycophants • Piero Marini (Bugnini’s secretary and devotee) published a book in 2007 which fawns over every decision Bugnini’s CONSILIUM made. Some of Marini’s statements are so sycophantic that he comes across as a lunatic. For instance, he claims—without evidence—that the Curia’s operating principle was “fear.” But when it comes to Bugnini’s CONSILIUM, Marini writes: “Not fear, but scholarly rigor and pastoral concern for the faithful’s active participation” constituted their operating principle. Fernando Cardinal Antonelli (who began the liturgical reforms with a secret document called Memoria sulla Riforma Liturgica) wrote a message to the pope saying that those who resist the liturgical reforms do so out of “indolence or lack of liturgical sensibility.” In other words, affection for the ancient Catholic liturgical tradition—according to Antonelli—means you’re either lazy or stupid.
Yet, consider the following message Bishop François Charrière sent to the Vatican in 1957:
We acknowledge that […] more or less substantial changes are being requested from Rome. But those who are pleased with today’s situation, those who live the Liturgy as given by the Roman Church, are not complaining, and do not say anything. Don’t we also have to consider the majority who are content? Isn’t their number as great, maybe greater, than the number of those who complain? We are being told of a desire, which then tends to become widespread, for a substantial modification of the Liturgy. What is really universal is the desire to see the faithful always participating in the Mass to a greater extent and to see the priests always living from their liturgical prayer. But as for how this better participation of the faithful and priests can be achieved, we do not believe that those who speak the more loudly, those who somehow impatiently keep asking for endless changes, do represent the majority.
En un mot, sur ce point comme les autres, nous nous rendons bien compte que, de divers côtés, on demande à Rome des changements plus ou moins substantiels. Mais ceux qui sont contents de la situation actuelle, ceux qui vivent vraiment la liturgie, telle que l’Eglise romaine nous l’a donnée, ne reclamant pas, ne disent rien. Ne faut-il pas tenir compte aussi, et largement, de ceux qui sont contents? Leur nombre n’est il pas aussi considérable, plus considérable peut-être que celui de ceux qui réclamant? On nous parle de désir qui tend à devenir universel en vue d’une modification massive de la liturgie. Ce qui est universel, c’est bien le désir de voir les fidèles participer d’une manière toujours plus active à la Messe, de voir les prêtres vivre toujours mieux leur prière liturgique. Mais quant à la manière de réaliser cette participation plus active des prêtres et des fidèles, nous ne croyons pas que ceux qui parlent le plus fort et le plus haut, ceux qui s’empressent avec quelque impatience parfois de solliciter sans cesse des changements, représentent réellement la major pars.
[Emphases in the original.]
If only more had been willing to heed the wisdom of Bishop Charrière!
