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.
31 comments:
"He unfortunately gave in under duress and yielded..."
I never cease to be perplexed - and disappointed - at efforts by some traditionalists to absolve Paul for his responsibility in initiating, authorizing, and enforcing the Novus Ordo missae. Is it just a lingering ultramontanism, unwilling to impugn the record of even a terrible pope in non-dogmatic acts? It puzzles me.
"Under duress?" Did Bugnini point a gun to his head? Had he secretly taken Aldo Moro hostage and issued a ransom letter?
Yes, the final missal was in all likelihood modestly more radical than Paul VI had originally envisioned; and yes, he did a minor bit of trimming of a few of the most radical proposals of the Consilium (which proposed 16 Eucharistic prayers, none of them the Roman Canon). But it's clear from the primary evidence that Papa Montini desired a very radical liturgical reform, and had been in the liturgical progressive camp for many years before becoming pope. Nothing in Louis Bouyer's testimony can color this record save at the margins.
And consider his dialogue of the deaf with Archbishop Lefebvre in their final meeting in 1976:
LEFEBVRE: "I have a request for you. Would it not be possible to order bishops to grant in churches a chapel where people can come pray as before the Council? Today, everyone is allowed everything; why not allow us something, too?
PAUL VI: “We are a community. We cannot allow independence in behavior from the community’s different components.”
Does this sound like a man under duress? A man reluctant to disseminate this missal?
David Martin and the 1986 commission of cardinals (and of course Benedict XVI) are certainly correct: The traditional Roman Rite was never abrogated; there was none of the canonical forms necessary for such an abrogation. But it is also clear that Paul VI desired to obrogate the Traditional Roman Rite - that is, to *de facto* make it impossible to celebrate, at least beyond a handful of elderly and soon-to-die priests. In this, he effectively succeeded, at least during his pontificate, using every means at his disposal short of a formal canonical abrogation.
No, Paul VI must take the responsibility. And because he must, it is hard to disagree with the assessment of H.J.A. Sire, who concluded that Paul VI's was "the most disastrous pontificate in history."
The point is that Pope Paul did not draft or initiate any plan for a new Mass. His encyclical "Mysterium Fidei" was actually an attempt to hold off the so-called liturgical reform as it was developing, but then, yes, Pope Paul did give in and sign for it as the article states.
P.S. The report about Lefebvre's meeting with "Pope Paul" in September 1976 is a joke. In another post we'll cover that one.
@ Athelstane: Agree, it's silly to pretend Paul VI isn't responsible for the Novus Ordo, and to pretend he didn't ban the Tridentine Mass. (Consider the Agatha Christie indult, which permitted the old Mass in England and Wales for old priests and only for a limited time.) When Benedict said the old Mass was never abrogated, what he was saying in pope-speak is that Paul had no authority to ban the old Mass and was wrong, wrong, wrong to do so.
Bugnini might have been a Freemason for all I know, or a Rotarian, or a Water Buffalo, but the letters quoted in the article and the story spun around them are as credible as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Pull the other one, Dave.
So, you are saying they are very credible, is that correct?
Protocols, the most stunningly prophetic forgery ever forged.
P.S. The report about Lefebvre's meeting with "Pope Paul" in September 1976 is a joke. In another post we'll cover that one.
Maybe you'll cover +Lefebvre's suspension by Paul VI as well, Mr. Martin: "In defiance of the Vatican, after setting up his seminary, Lefebvre began ordaining priests and continued to celebrate the 16th century Latin mass. Because of his disobedience, in 1976 he was suspended from his priestly and episcopal functions by Pope Paul VI.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1987/07/18/suspended-prelate-meets-vatican-aide/13e6d278-ca82-4c2f-bb2d-8603729be234/?utm_term=.5a7da0c7a615
Bugnini, the Mason, was not suspended by Paul VI. Nor was his Masonic work ever abrogated by Paul VI.
Also maybe in another 'report' you'll get around to covering Paul VI inviting protestant ministers to work on the Catholic liturgy and post the picture of him thanking them for their "work." "The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic Liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass” To accomplish this ecumenical goal, the Consilium enlisted the help of these Protestant observers:
1. A. Raymond George (Methodist)
2. Ronald Jaspar (Anglican)
3. Massey Shepherd (Episcopalian)
4. Friedrich Künneth (Lutheran)
5. Eugene Brand (Lutheran)[5]
6. Max Thurian (Calvinist-community of Taize).
Their contribution in creating the New Mass was immortalized in a picture taken of them during an audience with Pope Paul VI after thanking them for their assistance. The image was subsequently published in L’Osservatore Romano on April 23, 1970 with the title: “Commission Holds Final Meeting, Pope Commends Work of Consilium”.
In addition to the self-evidence of this photograph, we also have verifying testimony from several persons, the most well-known being the aforementioned Anglican Jaspar, who described to Michael Davies how the Protestant contributors gave their input, often implemented verbatim."
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/24-what-about-those-six-protestants-and-the-new-mass
Since you are quoting same sources as The Remnant and yet somehow leave out the Protestant input, Paul VI's role in getting Bugnini appointed in 1948 to commission in the first place as well as seek to discredit +Lefebvre, and declare what you yourself call a Masonic Mass "valid," one can only conclude that you, yourself, are one of those lay protestants empowered by VC2 w/the priesthood of the laity to not only feed yourself w/unconsecrated hands, but also teach yourself and others. You wouldn't be a "secret" opus devil by any chance, now, would ya, Mr. Martin?
This creature sees an Opus devil beneath every rock.
It appears that pulling the dagger out of Pope Paul's back is a little too much for some people to take, but reality is reality.
If you're saying that 7 Protestants headed by Bugnini were responsible for the new Mass then you're saying Paul VI was not responsible. Pope Paul did not empower these agents but spent his energy at Vatican II fighting them off, just as he fought off the feminist squad that had converted John XXIII's pro-life commission into a pro-contraception commission -- the same fight that led to the issuance of Humanae Vitae in July 1968. These anti-church agents were invited to the Council by Cardinal Bea with unanimous support of other conciliar Judases, making it virtually impossible for the pope to halt their doings. They blatantly disobeyed the pope, which is why the problem ensued. The pope himself made his position on the Mass clear when he stated toward the end of Vatican II:
"It cannot be tolerated that any individual should on his own authority modify the formulas used by the Council of Trent to propose the Eucharistic Mystery for our belief .... These formulas are adapted to all men of all times and all places.”
Pope Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, September 3, 1965)
As for the famous photo with Pope Paul and the 7 ministers in 1970, the pope was pushed into this in a similar way Bishop Williamson was pushed into doing that interview with Swedish Television, because it was already pre-arranged that they would go public with it to advance their own ends. And no, the pope didn't "thank" them but was very unconformable about it. One of his "virtuous faults" was his unwillingness to see the evil in his fellow man, which unfortunately allowed people like Bea and Bugnini to make the headway they did.
However, the pope eventually got wise to this conspiracy to frame him, at which time he went public with his S.O.S. about the smoke satan entering the Church. And yes, he did expel Bugnini and had subsequent plans to clean house, but they drugged him in August 1975, after which we didn't hear much from him again. He made a few brief appearances and that was it, because he was too weak.
From go, the plan of the Freemasons was to blame Pope Paul for all the wrong doing, which accounts for the detraction against him. Note that he was seldom criticized by conservatives before 1972 but was rather criticized by the liberals, who used him to advance their plans.
Another point, Pope Paul did not suspend Lefebvre, no more than he terminated Cardinal Mindszenty's reign in Hungary. These and other like moves were largely the work of Cardinal Villot, a Freemason, the same who personally killed John Paul I. Villot was notorious for forging Pope Paul's correspondence, the same who sent those Vatican cardinals to the Econe in 1974 to scold Lefebvre. This was deliberately done to anger Lefebvre about Pope Paul.
The same applies with the interview on September 8, 1976. Lefebvre was duped into thinking he was speaking to "Paul VI." Pope Paul's long-time friend, Jean Guitton, interviewed "Pope Paul" the very next day concerning the Lefebvre interview and was extremely perplexed at seeing that the man he was speaking to was not the same man he had interviewed in the past.
So, who consecrated Weakland? Was it Villot?
It was Jean Jadot
Paul VI was fond of Weakland who was being shown around by Martini.
The report about Lefebvre's meeting with "Pope Paul" in September 1976 is a joke. In another post we'll cover that one.
Wait - is this one of these "Paul VI was an imposter in his later years" theories?
I mean, no one denies that a meeting took place - and we now have the notes from both sided of the conversation, via Archbishop Lefebvre himself, and Cardinal Benelli (transcribing the meeting at PauL VI's request). And they both agree on this particular point of the discussion.
Perhaps he was, since the pope was often promised that this or that prelate was "going to advance your aspirations for the church," and he'd believe it. He was gullible. But was it even Paul VI?
It appears that pulling the dagger out of Pope Paul's back is a little too much for some people to take, but reality is reality.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I am sure no one here disputes the narrative of Cardinal Villot as an absolute villain of those years, an inveterate and destructive enemy of Catholic tradition (and libeler of Archbishop Lefebvre and his seminary faculty). But if you're going to claim that he personally assassinated John Paul I, and substituted an imposter in the meeting with Lefebvre, it is not unreasonable for your audience to ask for something more than your unsupported word for it.
Re: Athelstane. Benelli was not an ordained priest but an infiltrator who worked conjointly with Villot and Casaroli to undermine Pope Paul.
Your request is not unreasonable and should be answered, but forensic evidence must accompany the answer, which cannot be done in the comments section.
To better assess Pope Paul VI, it is good to ponder the assessment of the saintly Padre Pio, who referred to Pope Paul as "Supreme Pastor of all Christianity" to whose "illuminated directions" he pledged his "unconditional obedience." (September 12, 1968) He had a far deeper insight into Pope Paul and Vatican II than anyone today so we should follow his lead.
I find it hard to believe that Weakland, who’d persistently and broadly worked to destroy the musical patrimony of the Church with Godfrey Dieckman (fellow Benedictine peritus) could have escaped the notice of the real Paul VI and been solely endorsed by the imposter Paul.
Weakland felt endorsed by Paul. Who was he talking to? From his autobiography:
I felt a bit disillusioned on my return home, but made up my mind that I would do my best for the faithful and the priests of Milwaukee and not let myself be put in a dehumanizing straitjacket. [by Cardinal Rigali Under John Paul II]
I finally realized that the days of Pope Paul VI were over. I had moved from being an insider in his pontificate to an outsider in the new one. Though I had not fully analyzed the consequences, I could see that I would have to deal with this in the future. In my heart I knew that I would probably reject the advice of Rigali, and at my own peril; ultimately it became evident that he was outlining how the reign of Pope John Paul II would function. He was correct. ...
Despite this, John Paul himself never sacked Weakland. The audience described in the book sounded like John Paul didn’t think much of Weakland and probabably disliked his effeminate mannerisms.
I find it hard to believe that Weakland, who’d persistently and broadly worked to destroy the musical patrimony of the Church with Godfrey Dieckman (fellow Benedictine peritus) could have escaped the notice of the real Paul VI and been solely endorsed by the imposter Paul.
Especially since Weakland's relationship with Paul VI went back to before Montini was even elected.
A lot escaped Pope Paul's attention because of the insidious fast-work being orchestrated by the old serpent. For instance, John XXII cried out on his deathbed, "Stop the Council", but the enemy made sure Paul VI didn't hear of this because their plan was to use him to reopen Vatican II in September 1963.
And too, Weakland's dissent wasn't nearly as evident in the 70s as it was later. Many of today's radical left bishops were formerly noble and outstanding.
But even if Pope Paul did notice his wrongs, there was little he could do because no one listened to him. He was observing a lot of people's wrongs and could only tackle so much at one time. However, my guess is that he was duped about him.
Same with John Paul II. he was undermined on every side
Benelli was not an ordained priest but an infiltrator who worked conjointly with Villot and Casaroli to undermine Pope Paul.
Benelli was a modernist, no question, but you're saying he faked his ordination?!?
In any event, the point is, Benelli's transcript agrees with Lefebvre's on this point. Unless they were *both* lying or fantasizing (and doing so in an identical way), it is reasonable to conclude that the exchange happened as related.
“...Weakland’s dissent wasn’t nearly as evident in the 70s.”
They were well aware of it and when Weakland was a working as an Abbot alongside Dieckman as head of the Benedictines worldwide, the hijacking of the Litirgical Reform was well under way, as Msgr Schuler reports going back to 1966:
From the time Sacrosanctum concilium was released, Archabbot Weakland dissented. He especially could not give his assent to the use of Gregorian chant. As Msgr. Schuler noted: "A meeting was sponsored in Kansas City, Mo., November 29 to December, 1966, by the American Liturgical Conference. Opposition to the sixth chapter of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was voiced by Archabbot Weakland who said that ' false liturgical orientation gave birth to what we call the treasury of sacred music, and false judgments perpetuated it.' Those 'false judgments' seem to have been made by the fathers of the [Second Vatican] Council who ordered that the treasury of sacred music be preserved and fostered. . . .
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9038
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/09/fr-louis-bouyer-on-liturgical-reform.html?m=1
Not as evident, no. And do you honestly think Pope Paul was aware of what Weakland was saying in Kansas City? Certainly, he did not like what Weakland stood for, especially his doing away with sacred chant. And who ever said he was fond of Weakland, Vatican politicians? Consider Pope Paul's lamentation given on the eve of the implementation of the liturgical reform:
"Newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power, and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant. We have reason for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the Angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values?” (General Audience, November 26, 1969)
Please see new post on Pope Paul and Fr. Bouyer.
Weakland’s work was widely known, and implemented in the US while Msgr Schuler’s work was widely discredited. Weakland was promoted to a large metropolitan area and Schuler was relegated to a Parish in a decaying inner-city neighborhood. Guitar Masses became the new normal (Ineffective Vatican directives notwithstanding) and Gregorian chant was something you heard on public radio.
Perhaps so, but it doesn't mean Pope Paul was on to what he was doing. No doubt Weakland's activity was concealed from the pope to facilitate Weakland's success, since Pope Paul hated pop-culture.
But even if knew what he was doing what is the point? People like Mahony, McCarrick, Danneels, Wuerl, and Hans Kung were roaring during Pope Benedict's reign, so was this a reflection of Benedict? Did he sanction their actions? Absolutely not, what could he do? A pope is only one man and he cannot execute his authority unless he has a loyal following of his bishops. Without that loyalty he is powerless to get things done, which has been the story of the popes before Francis. We need to give them the benedict of the doubt.
As for the Bugnini letters to Licio Gelli, It seems we're missing the obvious. Simple deductive reasoning will tell you that they were not forged because if the Church's enemies forged them it would expose the conspiracy of their friend Bugnini and exonerate their enemy Pope Paul. The words of Christ apply: "If Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself: how then shall his kingdom stand?" (Mt.12: 26) And of course, conservatives wouldn't forge something like that because conservatives simply don't lie and behave like that. Clearly.
How could it be concealed? It was very public. I remember before Paul VI died and we got Altar Chicks. They had a very coquettish set of girls to do it at my deeply litirgical Parish (it had Mass versus populum in the 30s and also had features of later widespread wreckovations later on.) and they looked really smug about it, too. I’ll never forget it. Our Crandolet Sisters were the worst.
Considering many of the various facts just now beginning to see the light of day from the depths of the Vatican and recent history, about the last 100 years or so, I wonder how so much that IS good ever made it out of the Vatican. When I think of Pope Paul VI I think of Humanae Vitae, and I believe the best of this pope. I also believe from Pope John XXIII on, at the very least, the smoke of Satan was indeed at work using every weakness of those trying to do God's Will, against them, and as we learned from the various visitations of our Lady, God was allowing it. I am not about to blame those whose weaknesses were mined, nor am I going to place my faith in them. With the messes we have in the Church today, what good does it do to go back 50-60 years and place blame without all the facts? What's done is done; it is only today we can work on and look for solutions.
Paul VI mandated a New Rite of Holy Orders June 18,1968.
To say he was not in favor of nor holds major responsibility for the new mass is lie when we read why they needed an entire new rite of Holy Orders.
(one full year before the New Mass)
-Andrew
Post a Comment