The Legend Of The “Good Modernisers” (Warning: Angry Words)

How many like him? Annibale Bugnini.

Here and then one reads an interpretation – much popular in the Vatican, I think – which makes of those Conciliar Fathers who approved and pushed the V II reform a sort of well-intentioned, but vaguely naive churchmen who, persuaded as they were of the virtues of modernity, were just a tad slow in understanding the problems this marriage between Christ and the modern world would engender.


There is no way the “modernisers” within the Church can escape their responsibility for what happened, and explanations like the one given above are, as we say in Italy, an attempt to hide behind one’s finger. Let us see why:

1) The idea that the world and the Church would now be – because this was the message – happy ever after is fundamentally flawed, and flawed in such a way that no one can claim not to see the falseness of the premise. After 2000 years in which the Church has proclaimed to be the enemy of the world, this idea that suddenly the world and the Church should pedal in tandem in perfect harmony just because we happened to have computers, aeroplanes and medical advancements is more than stupid, it is criminally disingenuous. Every halfway instructed peasant with a sincere heart would have been perfectly aware of this, but the “Conciliar Fathers” apparently weren’t.  Congratulations for the sleight of hand, Fathers; just don’t claim innocence.  

2) The behaviour of the same “Conciliar Fathers”, of the very same people who took part to the Council, in the following years is the best evidence most of the Conciliar Fathers wanted to surrender to the world and were perfectly uncaring about the consequences.  If the narrative of the “good man of God who is just a bit inattentive” had been true, once gone back to their dioceses the bishops would have started an extremely fierce fight for the defence of those values which, one way or the other, they would have seen as being not negotiable. This simply did not happen, and the West was swept by a tsunami of secular legislation against which our heroes opposed, if that, nothing more than a faint meowing. In the years of and following the council, sodomy laws were abolishes in many countries, abortion laws were introduced, and divorce laws were introduced or extended. I remember those times, as even in my country abortion and divorce were introduced in a matter of just a few years. If you think the Church staged anything similar to a fight to protect Christian values, think again. Surrender was the order of the day, and we were given to understand this be something even clever, once we had taken account of “the times”. That the times are what people make of them did not occur to them. The world was unstoppable, and there was no other choice but to bow and go with the flow. 

This despicable cowardice, this complete surrender to wordly demands would never had happened, if the “modernisers” among the Conciliar Father had been in good faith. If they had been in good faith, they would have recognised immediately – and with shocking evidence as the years went by – that everything was going the wrong way, that they had castrated the Church and that it was time to grow a pair and put up a fight. Nothing of the sort happened. Instead, Archbishop Lefebvre was ordered to surrender control of his seminary, and the indecent embrace with the world went on with an accompaniment of guitars and tambourines. I remember those days. I remember many around me pointing out to this self-evident reality. I remember every idiot could see what was happening, and I am sick and tired to read those who have made all this mess possible and created immense – though not irremediable – damage treated as if they had been just a bit naive. They weren’t. They were simply, together with the world and in tune with “the times”, smoking the joint of Satan and enjoying it. Some inhaled more and some inhaled less, but all the modernising troops did inhale in some measure, Popes not excluded.

This is why I oppose the narrative of the “good intentions”. The intentions were bad from day one, because the execution proves beyond doubt what the real intentions were. 

It has become nowadays fashionable to shoot at Bugnini. Shoot away, say I; but Bugnini did not live on a parallel planet, and could not have operated without the support and complicity of a vast number of his colleagues. If we point out to Bugnini’s errors, we must perforce point out to those who abetted these errors and followed him en masse.   

Please let us stop with the tale of the good “modernising” bishop because he wasn’t a good bishop, but a sellout. As long as the  Church does not recognises this and tries to justify the unjustifiable, we’ll carry the poison of Modernism (because this it was, in milder or shall I say cleverer form) with us.


Posted on June 6, 2012, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.

  1. The Church – we, the lay part of it, anyway – have the Clergy to thank for the bastardisation of the Latin Liturgy and the Rites of the Sacraments. These were foisted upon us by the Clergy. We did not ask for any of it and we were never consulted. Did anyone ask you, O member of the People of God? The false, unCatholic idea of ‘obedience’, above all to the Pope and to Rome, that we had swallowed over generations made all this much, much easier for these Clergy, subsidised and indeed kept by us, to sell us the Mess of Potage that is the Paul Vi ‘;Novus Ordo Missae’ We did not realise that it was, in fact, ‘The Mass of the New Order’ rather than the New Order of Mass. There is so little in common between it and the Catholic Rite of Mass that Abp Bugnini could justifiably call it “an entirely new creation”. The indolence of Clergy, exemplified by its lamentably poor Catholic education of the Laity taken together with the false and heterodox sense of ‘obedience’ that the Clergy had stuffed down lay throats, made it much easier to pass off the neo-Cranmerian as “merely a simplified, translated version of the Mass, celebrated ‘basilica style’, as they do in Rome ” ( a French Cardinal to me in 1971) and to bludgeon into silence any resistance from any disobediently-inclined uppity Laity who suspected, as did I, that the ‘Roman Canon’ of Paul VI was nothing of the sort. The Clergy lied to us. The Clergy defrauded us. The Clergy hoodwinked us. Were the Clergy Directors or Officers of a Limited Company in the UK they would long ago have been prosecuted for fraud. The souls they have defrauded cry out against them and the floor of Hell has a fresh paving of the skulls of rotten bishops. Thank God for Richard Williamson, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and Alfonso Gallereta.

  2. Mundabor,
    “smoking the joint of Satan” must be just about the best short memorable formula for what happened in the Church at and since Vatican II.
    Regarding Annibale Bugnini, the symbolism of him and his many followers (as you say, Popes not excluded) attacking the Eternal Rome just as a certain Cartaginian of the same name attacked and nearly conquered the pre-Christian one, is to me very strong. Especially as, according to Chesterton in “The Everlasting Man”, the name “Annibale” or “Hannibal” means “the Grace of Baal”…

    • I’m glad someone appreciates, Catocon… I was preparign myself for the onslaught of scandalised readers saying “how can you say that! They wanted to be oohhhh sooo goooood!” 😉


  3. The Church is my only safe harbour, I’ll stick with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church since I have nowhere else to go. I’ve tried apostate ‘Rome’ and nearly lost my faith and my sanity, into the bargain. I know the cost of the New Order. I know it for what it is. It is false, deceptive and destructive of the Faith. The New Order presently rules at Rome but it is not the Roman Church. It is “a completely new creation”, as is its worship service. It is true to itself – its Lex Orandi is certainly its Lex Credendi but it is not the Lex Credendi that I learned and its Lex Orandi is foreign to my understanding of ‘Catholic’. It is not the Church because it is not of one continuous faith and tradition with all that has gone before but is in many ways a departure from its roots, its origins and its teachings. I will by God’s Grace hold fast to the Catholic Faith, held by my family and ancestors. As a child I was asked “Quid petis ab Ecclesia Dei?” My Godparents answered for me with ONE word – FIDEM. In that Faith I ask God to let me die but I fear that unless I put my faith before and above my otherwise natural, filial duty to Pope and Bishop then I may lose it and if that happens the fault will be mine, Neither Pope nor Bishop will be able to answer for me when Christ asks me “and what of your faith?” – I will have to answer for myself, as shall we all. So, for me it must be Faith before obedience.

    • I for myself hope I will never follow you in this dangerous way of pride and delusion.
      I hope I will die a faithful Catholic whatever happens, and that Ubi Peter, Ibi Ecclesia will always be my guiding light.

      I will, no doubt, be angry at what the – human, as we all are – mediocre churchmen of this disgraceful generation have done to the Church. But disfigured and ill and even sluttish as they have made it, to Her will my allegiance always go, so help me God.

      This allegiance is reflected in the fact that whilst I am full of understanding for all those who are angry at the way of the modern Church – angry, some of them, much more than I myself am -, I will not make of this blog the megaphone of ideas which, to me, reek of Sedevacantism.

      You had your space, and I left you more of it than I felt comfortable with. But seriously, the idea that the Catholic Church – ill and disfigured as she is – be defined as “apostate Rome” and “foreign to one’s understanding of “Catholic” ” is more than I can bear with equanimity.

      We will see where the three bishops you mention will be when the time comes.

      I think you’ll be sorely disappointed.


  4. My feelings and a burden of hurt cause me on occasion to forget charity, even to the swine who have their snouts where they do not belong. That said, much of my mind agrees with you. I am horribly hurt for reasons I’ll not go into, here and now but, as I say, much of my mind is with you

    • Happy to read that, John…

      Personally, every time I am angry at our shepherds I increase my resolve to be angry, but faithful, and the more faithful the more angry I am.

      I know it’s not easy, but the day we die we will be recompensed for our humility in these little things…

      Having said that, my ever so small cannons will be ready to fire whenever the situation requires it…


  5. Yes, in minimis esto fidelis

%d bloggers like this: